HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/11/09 - Agenda Packet RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
1977
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 9, 1994 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Roll Call
Chairman Barker Commissioner Melcher
Vice Chairman McNiel Commissioner Tolstoy__
Commissioner Lumpp
II. Announcements
III. Approval of Minutes
October 12, 1994
IV. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected
to be routine and non-controversial. They will be
acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
A. RESOLUTION FOR REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 LEWIS - The
design review of building elevations and
detailed site plan for 91 lots within a
previously recorded tract map consisting of 129
lots on 25.29 acres within the Victoria Planned
Community in the Low-Medium Residential
District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located
west of Kenyon Way, north of Ellena West, and
south of the Southern Pacific Railroad -
APN: 227-671-01 through 36 and 227-681-01
through 05, and 38 through 87.
XIII. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which
concerned individuals may voice their opinion of
the related project. Please wait to be recognized
by the Chairman and address the Commission by
stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for
each project. Please sign in after speaking.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES - A residential
subdivision for condominium purposes and design
review for the development of 153 detached
condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the
Medium and Medium High Residential Districts
(8-14 and 14-24 dwelling units per acre,
respectively), located at the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue -
APN: 227-691-01. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. Related file:
Variance 94-05.
D. VARIANCE 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES - A request to
reduce the required minimum building separation
from 15 feet to 8 feet and to increase the
distance for the closest visitor parking space
from a dwelling unit from a maximum of 150 feet
to 240 feet for a proposed 153-unit detached
condominium project on 20.15 acres of land in
the Medium and Medium High Residential
Districts (8-14 and 14-24 dwelling units per
acre, respectively), located at the northeast
corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue -
APN: 227-691-01. Related file: Vesting
Tentative Tract 15477.
XIV. Old Business
E. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-11 - BERTINO - An
appeal of the City Planner's conditions of
approval requiring a 25-foot setback on Eighth
Street, dedication of right-of-way for the
entry monument, relocation of the driveway
access, and undergrounding of utilities serving
the site as related to a 770 square foot
addition to an existing automotive repair shop
in the General Industrial District (Subarea 1)
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located
on the northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and
Eighth Street - APN: 207-271-33. (Continued
from October 12, 1994)
, XV. Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public
to address the Commission. Items to be discussed
here are those which do not already appear on this
agenda.
XVI. Commission Business
XVII. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment
time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be
heard only with the consent of the Commission.
VICINITY MAP '
· A, CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 9, 1994
TO:! Chairman and MembeEs oi the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
BY: Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
On October 26, 1994, Charles J. Buquet II, Mayor Pro Tem, presented
an update on SCAG ' s Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). After
concluding the discussion on the RCP, the Commission directed staff
to prepare a Resolution recommending the renaming the RCP to the
Regional Comprehensive "Report". The Resolution is attached for
your review and adoption and forwarding on to the City Council.
Re pe~tfu_~mitted,
/
BB:SM:js
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE REGIONAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLJ~NBE OPPOSED IN ITS CURRENT FORM ANDBE
RENAMED THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE REPORT.
WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region
contains 188 cities and the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San
Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial; and
WHEREAS, SCAG is designated by State and Federal Statutes as the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the purposes of regional
transportation planning; and
WHEREAS, SCAG prepares a Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) to address
numerous issues within the SCAG region; and
WHEREAS, SCAG is required to prepare a transportation (Regional Mobility
Element) and Growth Management Plan to comply with State and Federal
requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Mobility Element and the Growth Management Plan are
included in the RCP as mandatory chapters; and
WHEREAS, the remaining chapters of the RCP are advisory to local
jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission is concerned that combining the mandatory and
advisory elements in the same document will result in all elements becoming
mandatory on local jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, the RCP contains insufficient controls to ensure consistent
decision-making by local jurisdictions should the advisory elements become
mandatory.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the planning Commission recommends that
the Regional Comprehensive Plan be opposed in its current form and be renamed the
Regional Comprehensive Report in order to ensure proper emphasis Of the advisory
chapters contained in the document and object to its contents in its present
form.
WHEREAS, the Secretary of this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE pLAN
November 9, 1994
Page 2
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day
of November 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 9, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 - LEWIS - The design review of building
elevations and detailed site plan for 91 lots within a previously recorded tract map
consisting of 129 lots on 25.29 acres within the Victoria Planned Community in the
Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located west of
Kenyon Way, north of Ellena West, and south of the Southern Pacific Railroad -
APN: 227-671-01 through 36 and 227-681-01 through 05, and 38 through 87.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCR/PTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single Family Residential, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South- Single Family Residential (under construction) Low-Medium Residential; (4-8
dwelling units per acre)
East - Vacant; Park Site
West - Vacant; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
B. Site Characteristics: The entire site has been rough Faded for building pads and streets and
all side yard retaining walls on the north/south cul-de-sac streets have been constructed. A
perimeter slump stone block wail is completed around a portion of the project perimeter.
Thirty-eight lots (homes) have either been completed or are under construction at this time, per
the previous design review approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1992.
ANALYSIS:
A. Background: Tentative Tract 13753 was approved by the Planning Commission on January
27, 1988. This approval included the subdivision, the conceptual Fading and a housing
prototype to assure that the minimum setbacks could be maintained. At that time, the Victoria
Community Plan only required a minimum 5-foot side yard setback on both sides in this zone.
Subsequently, this development standard was amended to require minimum side yard setbacks
of 5 and 10 feet. Since the subdivision occurred prior to this modification, the old setback
standards may be proposed. However, the Committee has the discretion to recommend greater
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR FOR TT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 2
side yard setbacks in instances where further compliance with design policies is needed (i.e.,
building separation, RV storage, streetscape variety, etc.).
On June 13, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a design review. (Pennhill) for the tract.
Because these homes were larger, a majority of the lots were plotted with building pads at the
minimum 5-foot side yard setbacks on both sides; however, the homes were never built. On
May 13, 1992, the Planning Commission approved another design review for the tract (Lewis
Homes). These homes were smaller and hence were able to be designed more sensitively to
the streetscape issues included in the City's Residential Design Policies.
B. General: The current property owner (Lewis Homes) is proposing to develop the balance of
this subdivision (91 of 129 lots) with a new product type. The existing homes range in size
from 1,623 to 2,369 square feet with the smallest being one-story, all with 2-car garages facing
the streets. The new product line includes 4 models, ranging in size from 1,820 to 2,972
square feet with the smallest being a one-story unit. (The one-story model is plotted on
roughly one quarter of the remaining lots within the subdivision). All homes are proposed with
3-car front-on garages. In addition, 19 of the remaining 91 lots (or a total of 27 of 129 lots
overall) have recreational vehicle storage access to the side and rear yard areas, which exceeds
the minimum 20 percent required by the Victoria Community Plan.
C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Barker, Lumpp, Coleman)
reviewed the application on October 4, 1994 and recommended approval subject to conditions
in the attached Resolution of Approval. The Design Review Committee Action comments are
attached for your convenience (see Exhibit "F").
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the design
review for the remaining 91 lots of Tract 13753 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval with conditions.
Respectfull submitted,
City Planner
BB:SH:mlg
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR FOR TT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 3
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" - Building Elevationi
Exhibit "E" - Streetscape Elevations
Exhibit "F" - Design Review Committee Comments
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
SUBJECT SITE
:ITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA iTEM: DR 13753
PLANNING DIVISION TITLE: Location Map
EXHIBIT: A SCALE:NONE
L~wis~-Iomes
ROSECREST NORTH
OVERALL SITE MAP /
CTAI~CIHI~CI~
ROSE CREST NORTH · RENAISSANCE ~o.~.~.~.,.~.
__.,_,__CTA~C~]I']~C~'~
I ROSECREST NORTH · RENAISSANCE ~o.~o_.~.._~.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes October 4, 1994
DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 - LEWIS HOME~ The design review of building
elevations and detailed site plan for 91 lots within a previously recorded tract
map consisting of-129 lots on 25.29 acres located within the Victoria Planned
Community in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
located west of Kenyon Way, north of Ellena West, and south of the Southern
Pacific Railroad - APN: 227-671-01 through 36 and 227-681-01 through 05, 38
through 87.
Design Parameters:
The project site is bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad to the north, a
single family residential subdivision under construction to the south, a future
park site ~o the east and a future multiple family development to the west.
The entire site has been rough graded for building pads and streets and all side
yard retaining walls on the north/south cul-de-sac streets have been
constructed. A perimeter slump stone block wall is completed around a portion of
the project perimeter.
Thirty-eight lots (homes) have either been completed or are under construction at
this time, per the previous design review approved by the Planning Commission on
May 13, 1992.
~ack~round:
Tentative Tract 13753 was approved by the Planning Commission on January 27,
1988. This approval included the subdivision, the conceptual grading and a
housing prototype to assure that the minimum setbacks could be maintained. At
that time, the Victoria Community Plan only required a minimum 5-foot side yard
setback on both sides in this zone. Subsequently, this development standard was
amended to require minimum side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet. Since the
subdivision occurred prior to this modification, the old setback standards may be
proposed. However, the Committee has the discretion to recommend greater side
yard setbacks in instances where further compliance with design policies is needed
(i.e., building separation, RV storage, streetscape variety, etc.).
On June 13, 1990, the Planning Co~=nission approved a design review (Pennhill) for
the tract. Because these homes were larger, a majority of the lots were plotted
with building pads at the m/nimum 5-foot side yard setbacks on both sides. On May
13, 1992, the Planning Commission approved another design review for the tract
(Lewis Homes). These homes were smaller and hence were able to be designed more
sensitively to the streetscape issues included in the City's Residential Design
Policies.
Staff Cuecents:
The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TRACT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
October 4, 1994
Page 2
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee
discussion re~ar~ing this project:
1. The footprints of the proposed models, Plans 250, 268 and 399, are wider than
the homes constructed under the previous application. Because of the width
of the homes, a majority of lots are plotted at the minimum 5-foot side yard
setback on both sides. Despite this, more than 20 percent of lots are
plotted with a side yard setback large enough to accommodate recreational
vehicle storage access- The Committee should consider whether the side yard
setbacks and resulting building separations are acceptable. Greater
separation would require a modification to the building footprints or the
elimination of lots.
2. A three-car garage is proposed on all models, including the one-story plan.
Garages have a tendency to dominate the front elevation. Staff would
recommend that a bonus room option with an alternative elevation be designed.
Secondar7 Issues: Once all the major issues have been addressed, and time
permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Planters in front of the living room windows should be deep enough to
accommodate mature trees, as shown on the front building elevations
throughout. ' Front porches could be provided in some situations in lieu of
the planters.
2. Accent materials (rock, brick, etc.) should be used to a greater extent on
the side elevations, wrapping around corners to return wall locations-
3. Window mullions should be used on the second story side and rear elevations
for greater compliance for the requirement of 360 degree architecture.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning CommiSsion policy and
should be incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All return. and corner side yard walls shall be of a decorative block material
or finish, preferably consistent with the existing homes within the
subdivision.
2. All retaining walls in public view shall be of a decorative material or
decorative exterior treatment.
3- Corner side yard walls should be located at least 5 feet behind the back of
the sidewalk to allow planting areas capable of ensuring adequate area for
tree growth,
4. Decorative hardscape treatments, similar to that used for existing homes
within the subdivision, should be used in all driveways as an accent to break
up large areas of concrete-
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TRACT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
October 4, 1994
Page 3
5. Wood trim should be provided around all windows and other architectural
features and should be a minimum size of 2 inches by 6 inches.
6. Corner side yard landscaping that will be privately maintained should be low
maintenance and drought tolerant.
7. Real river rock should be used if a rock accent material is proposed.
8. Driveway approaches should be necked down to 16 feet at the right-of-way and,
on corner lots, be located as far away from local street intersections as
possible.
9. Building footprints should be plotted to allow for the pairing of driveways
to create larger grouped front yard areas.
Staff Re~endatioms:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the
project to the Planning Commission with conditions as deemed appropriate.
Design Review Co-~ttee Action:
Members Present: Dave Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee recommended approval Of the project subject to the
following conditions:
1. The side yard building separation between adjacent two-story units should be
increased wherever possible.
2. The percentage of reduced width 16-foot wide drive approaches should be
increased to the satisfaction of the City Planner. It was suggested that
houses with deep rear yards could be set back further on the lot to increase
the front yard building setback and hence give additional maneuvering area
for the third garage space.
3. The Committee recommended that stuccoed over 2 by 4 trim was acceptable
around all windows, vents and all similar architectural features.
4. All other secondary and policy issues mentioned in the staff report will be
included as conditions of approval for the project.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT
NO. 13753, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND
DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR 91 LOTS WITHIN A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED
TRACT MAP CONSISTING OF 129 LOTS ON 25.29 ACRES WITHIN THE
VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED WEST OF KENYON
WAY, NORTH OF ELLENA WEST, AND SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC
RAILROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-
671-01 THROUGH 36 AND 227-681-01 THROUGH 05, AND 38 THROUGH 87.
1. Lewis Homes has filed an application for the Design Review Of Tract No.
13753 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject
Design Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On January 27, 1988, the Planning Comission adopted its Resolution No.
88-18 recommending that the subject property be subdivided into 129 lots in their
present configuration. The Final Map was recorded consistent with the Tentative
Tract Map approval.
3. On May 13, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-
73, thereby approving a Design Review for all lots On the subject property.
4. On November 9, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
5. All legal prerequisities prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution:
NOW, TMEREFOME, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on May 13, 1992, including written and oral staff
reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the
General Plan; and
b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the
Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located;
and
c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TRACT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 2
applicable provisions of the Development code; and
d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable
thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in~aragraphs 1 and
2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and
every condition set forth below and in the attached standard Conditions, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
1) All pertinent conditions from Resolution Nos. 88-18 and 2-73
shall apply.
2) Side yard building separations between adjacent two-story
units shall be increased wherever possible, subject to
review and approval of the City Planner prior to the
issuance of building permits.
3) The percentage Of reduced width 16-foot wide drive
approaches shall be increased wherever possible to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
4) Stuccoed over 2-inch X 4-inch trim shall be used around all
windows, vents and all similar architectural features.
5) Planters in front of the living room windows shall be deep
enough to accommodate mature trees, as shown on the front
building elevations throughout. Front porches shall be
provided in some situations in lieu of the planters and be
deep enough to be functional, as determined by the City
Planner.
6) Accent materials (rock, brick, etc.) shall be used to a
greater extent on the side elevations.
7) Window mullions shall be used on the second story side and
rear elevations.
8) All return and corner side yard walls shall be of a
decorative block material Or finish, preferably consistent
with the existing homes within the subdivision.
9) All retaining walls in public view shall be of a decorative
material or decorative exterior treatment.
10) Corner side yard walls shall be located at least 5 feet
behind the back of the sidewalk to allow planting areas
capable of ensuring adequate area for tree growth.
11) Decorative hardscape treatments, similar to that used for
existing homes within the subdivision, shall be used in all
driveways as an accent to break up large areas of concrete.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TRACT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES
Nove~3er 9, 1994
Page 3
12) Corner side yard landscaping that will be privately
maintained shall be low maintenance and drought tolerant.
13) Real river rock shall be used if a rock accent material is
proposed.
Enaineerino Division:
1) The portion of Candela Drive between Casoli Place and Crema
Place shall be constructed full width, including street
lights, prior to building permit issuance.
2) Ellena Park, at the northeast corner of Ellena East and
Kenyon Way, shall be installed in two phases as specified in
Ordinance No. 535 (Victoria Community Plan Amendment 94-02).
3) Drive approaches on corner lots subject to right turns from
an adjacent street shall be located as far as possible from
the local street intersection.
4) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter
of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge
of a mature tree trunk, such as Lot 123.
5) Dedicate a private storm drain easement over the existing
public storm drain which crosses Lot 123 in favor Of the
property to the west.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting Of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day
of November 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OI
Randh6~l~6nga
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: D~ i3'753
SUBJECT: C": e_,% ,,~ .-, ~2cv!u',J ~j~ .~"~c~ .=~
, .~c_,
Those items checked are Cond~ions of ~provaL
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time Limits com~ledon Dat=
i/1. Approval shall expire. unless extended by the Planning Commission. if building permits are ---/ /
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to / ! __/ /
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of .__/ /
4. Thedevelopershallcommence,participatein. andconsummaleorcausetobecommenced. ---/ /
participated in. or consummated. a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation ol the final map occurs.
5. Prior to recordation ol the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes J /
first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessaP~ school
facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
Facilities District. the applicant shall, in the aifernative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territoP/of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes first. Further. it the affected school
district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation ol the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project. this condition shall be deemed null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
.school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
~mpacts as a result of this project.
V'/ 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is .J /
involved, written certification from the affected wafer district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or priorto issuance
of permits in:.the case of all other residential projects. ' '.
B. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the appmved plans which J /
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and
Specific Plan and
Planned Community.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all ._._/ /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. OccuPancYofthefacilitYshallnotcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand / /
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
V// 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be __/ /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
V/ 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for -J /
consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
V'/ 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development ~ /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and _._/ /
Sheritf'S Department (989-6611) pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height. and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
J 8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units ~ /
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, / /
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall .~/ /.
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use ol a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, herruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
- ,=,s3
Cgr~pletlon Date:
11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with _._j /
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
~ 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner. J /
including proper illumination.
~/ 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical ~nditions, fencing, and ~ /
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submi~ed for City
Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and constm~
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restri~ions(CC&Rs)sha not prohibitthe keeping ol equine ~ /
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option ol keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to ~ards of direrors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
/ 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Afficles of In~ration of the ~ /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the C~y A~orney. They shall be re~rded concuffently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever oc~rs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
/ 16. All pa~ways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the prope~ / /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means a~eptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submi~ed for C~y Planner and Cffy Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the pu~se of assuming that each lot or ~ /
~elling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or un~s for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restri~ions for
the su~ivision which shall be rem~ed concurrently with the recordation of the linal map or
issuance of perm~s, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation. structures. fixtures or any other object, except lot utility wires and
similar obje~s, pursuant to Development Code SeXton 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The proje~ contains a designated Historical Landma~. The site shall be developed and / /
maintained in accordance with the Hi~oric Landma~ A~eration Permit No.
. Any fuRher ~d~ications to the site including, but not limped to, extedor a~erations a~or
inte rior alterations which atfe~ the exterior of the buildings or ~mctures, remval of landma~
trees, deml~ion, relocation. reinstraction of build ings or stm~ures, or changes to the s~e
shall require a modification to the Historic Landm~ Alteration Permit subje~ to Historic
Prese~ation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Design
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling un~s ~ /
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other a~ernative energy sy~ems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming ~ols installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemented w~h ~lar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building pe~s.
2. All ~ellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations u~raded with architectural ~ /
treatment, ~etailing and increased delineation of sudace treatment subje~ to C~ Planner
review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
Corn~lcdon Dal~:
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for / /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building perTnits.
V/ 4. All root appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or /.___/
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall .~J /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be ---J /
provided throughout the development to connect dwe Ilings/units/bu ildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, __/ /
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in ----/ /
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. TheC~venants~C~nditi~nsandRestricti~nssha~~restdctthest~rage~frecreati~na~vehic~es .~/ /
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking on intedor circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
J 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and ---/ /
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.)
1..Adetailedlandscapeandirrigationplan including slope plant ng and model home landscap- ._./ /
Ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2..Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier .~/ /
m accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborisrs
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and tdmming methods.
3. Aminimumot .treesPergross acro, comprisedotthefollowingsizes, shallbeprovided __/ /
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger,
~ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15-gallon, and % - 5 gallon.
4. A minimum of .% of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - __/ /
24-inch box or larger.
5. Within parking lots. trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three .~/ /
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
5C-12/93
Completion Date:
6. Treesshallbeplantedinareasofpublicviewadjacenttoandalongstructuresatarateofone
tree per 30 linear feet of building. ~ /
V'/7. A~~privates~~pebanks5~eet~r~essinvertica~heightand~f5:1~rgreaters~~~e~but~essthan
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
V/' 8. AIIprivateslopesinexcessof5feet,butlessthan8 feet inverticalheightandof2:l orgreater --J /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq, ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. It, of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area· Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
V/' 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- .--/ /
ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the deve toper until each individual un it
is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy forthose units, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory
condition.
10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon-
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way, All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing. mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant malerial shall be replaced within 30 days lrom the date of damage.
11, Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or J /
· This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
t/ 12. The final design ol the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coo rdinated Io r consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander-
ing sidewalks (with horizontal change). and intensified landscaping, is required along
v// 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
15.All walls shall be provided with decoralive treatment. If located in public maintenance areas
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
V/ 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of .J Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
F, Sjgns Comglcuon Date:
1. Thesignsindicatedonthesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartofthisapproval. __J /
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
r.equire separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and .__J /
approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhome,, __J /
prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / /
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted /----J
Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway / /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the .__/___/_
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of intedor noise
attenuationtobelow45CNEL, the building materials and constructionlechniquesprovided,
and it appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
Y/ 1. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire ---/ /
Protection District Standards.
t// 2. Emergency access sha be Pmvided, maintenance lree and clear, a minimum of 26feetwide .---/ /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
V/3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be _J /
submitted to the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
1,/' 4. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and /.__J
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all / /-
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank PermitS. and prior to issuance of building permits.
CornDie~ion Dale:
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Development
L'// 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- ~ /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable 'handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition ----/ /
to existing un it(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or __/ /
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
Z'/4. Streetaddressessha~~bepr~videdbytheBui~ding~fficiaI~aftertract/parce~maprec~rdati~n .__/ /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances ._.J /
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for -----/ /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existingsewagedisp~sa~faci~itiessha~~berem~ved~fi~~edand/~rcappedt~c~mp~ywiththe .__/ /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4, Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for ..__J /
building permit application,
K. Grading
l/1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City ---J /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ----/ /
perform such work.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance __J /
Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardino County Department of Agricultu re at (714)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at / /
the time of application for grading plan check.
//5. Thefina~gradingp~anssha~~bec~mp~etedandapprovedpri~rt~issuance~fbui~dingpermits. / /
CITY OF RANCHO CUC,4a~.IONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 9, 1994
TO: chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad B~ller, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ~TESTING TENTATIVE T~CT 15477 --
~ - A residential subdivision for condominium purposes
and design review for the development of 153 detached condominium
units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium and Medium High
Residential Districts (8-14 and 14-24 dwelling units per acre,
respectively), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Staff recommends issuance of
a Negative Declaration. Related file: Variance 94-05.
VARIANCE 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES - A request to reduce the required
minimum building separation from 15 feet to 8 feet and to increase
the distance for the closest visitor parking space from a dwelling
unit from a maximum of 150 feet to 240 feet for a proposed 153~unit
detached condominium project on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium
and Medium High Residential Districts (8-14 and 14-24 dwelling units
per acre, respectively), located at the northeast corner of Base
Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01. Related file:
Vesting Tentative Tract 15477.
PROJIECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. ' ' : 7.6 dwelling units per acre.
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and single family residential; Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre).
South - Commercial shopping center; Neighborhood Commercial.
East Single family residential (under construction); Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
West - Vacant (Rancho Cucamonga Central Park).
C. General Plan DesiGnations:
Project Site - Low Medium Residential
North - Low Medium Residential
South - Neighborhood Commercial
East - Low Medium Residential
West - Open Space
D. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and contains no significant
vegetation or structures. Curb and gutter exist along the Base Line Road,
Milliken, and Ellena West frontages. The site slopes uniformly at
approximately 3 percent from north to south.
£1h~SC & D
PLANNING COFa4ISSION STAFF REPORT
VTT 15477 & VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 2
E. Parklna Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Ratio Required ~
Si~glB-~ami~y .... 2/unit-__ 306 306 ~
Residential (unit in garage)
Visitor Parking 1/4 units 38 81'
TOTAL 344 387
* In parking bays off the main drive aisle. In addition, 68 parking spaces
are available in driveways at the end of the auto courts.
ANALYSIS:
A. Backaround: The property in question was originally proposed in 1988 as
a 366 unit "stacked flat," rental condominium project. This proposal was
withdrawn by the applicant (The William Lyon Company) on June 26, 1989. The
property was then sold to Lincoln Properties, who submitted a 368 unit
"stacked flat" condominium project On November 8, 1989. This proposal,
reduced down to 328 units during the development review process, was
eventually denied without prejudice by the City Council on January 16, 1991,
after significant opposition from the residents of the Victoria Planned
Community and a recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission.
The application was resubmitted On August 28, 1991, for the development of
264 rental stacked flat condominium units on the southernmost 15 acres of
the project area (the northernmost 5 acres to be set aside for a potential
future church site). A Pre-Application review with the Planning commission
was held on October 6, 1991. The property owner did not pursue this
application further and let the application expire and be denied without
prejudice. The property was then sold to Matreyek Homes, the current
property owner. On October 14, 1992, the Planning Commission held a Pre-
Application workshop on a new proposal for 158 detached condominium units.
Minutes from this meeting are attached for your convenience as Exhibit "K."
B. General: The applicant is proposing to subdivide this site for condominium
purposes and construct 153 single family detached units. Even though the
property is zoned for multiple family residential development, the applicant
is proposing detached individual condominiums because of market research.
The project includes a central common open space area, which includes a
pool, spa, barbecue pits, secured seating areas, and open lawn areas. Two
secondary recreation areas, including tot lots with play equipment and
seating areas, are proposed, as well as an extensive greenbelt system with
sidewalks and exercise stations. Two pedestrian connections are proposed
to access the future regional trail along the Southern Pacific Railroad
tracks.
The site is proposed to be served by a private drive aisle system that loops
around the site (see Exhibit "C"), and "auto courts" branching off the main
loop drive leading to private garage areas (see Exhibit "D"). The primary
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VTT 15477 & VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 3
pedestrian entrances are separated from the auto courts by locating the
entrances on the opposite side of the garage, off the greenbelts. Visitor
parking is located primarily in parking bays on the loop drive and in
driveways next to certain garages. The site will take primary access off
of Milliken Avenue with a secondary access from Ellena West. Both
entrances are gated and meet the City's requirements for emergency access.
The Mi~liken Avenue median is recommended to remain intact to avoid the
increased po~en%ial for accidents caused by vehicles turning left into and
out of the project.
Three floor plans with two elevations each (not including reverse
footprints) are proposed. The units range in size from 1,286 to 1,740
square feet, with the smaller two plans being one story units. All models
have two-car garages that front onto the auto court system.
C. Variance: The applicant has submitted a Variance application to reduce the
minimum side yard building separations, and increase the distance of the
closest visitor parking space.
1. Buildina Separation Reduction: The applicant is proposing to reduce
the required minimum building separations, from 15 feet to a proposed
minimum of 8 feet, at 99 locations throughout the project. All of the
reduced separations occur in the side yards between units. A 15-foot
minimum building separation is required per the revised multiple family
development standards (Ordinance No. 465). The intent behind the
15-foot minimum space between larger, more massive multiple unit
buildings in attached residential projects. The multiple family
development standards apply to this project since the site is zoned
primarily for multiple family development (Medium and Medium Migh
Residential). However, the applicant is proposing a detached single
family project at a density (7.6 dwelling units per acre) typical of
the Low-Medium Residential District. For comparison, the Low-Medium
Residential District allows side yard building setbacks at a minimum of
5 feet from a shared property line, thereby allowing adjacent buildings
to be separated by l0 feet. The 8-foot separations occur on the garage
side elevation between plan models at the end of the auto courts. The
floor plan of the Plan 1 model indicates that the garage and master
bedroom are proposed on the side of the house closest to the adjacent
unit. Three small, above eye level windows are proposed in the master
bedroom on the side elevation to minimize privacy concerns yet give
sufficient lighting and openness to this room.
The Other minimum side yard separations Occur between adjacent Plan 2
and 3 units where the separation is typically 8 to 10 feet. In the
same manner as the previous scenario, the side elevations of adjacent
Plan 2 and 3 models are planned with only above-eye-level windows
and/or glass block in the master bedroom areas, the only room with
windows on these side elevations, to minimize privacy issues that may
arise with the closely separated elevations. In situations where
adjacent Plan 3 models are separated in the side yard by a minimum of
8 feet, one home is always plotted with the garage side elevations with
only above-eye-level windows and glass block on the closely separated
side to again minimize privacy concerns. In situations where side yard
separations are allowed at 10 feet between adjacent single family
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VTT 15477 & VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 4
detached dwellings, the primary issues are not typically required to be
addressed. In this situation, staff believes the design is better
than what would normally occur within single family residential
development.
2. Proximity of Visitor Parkimp: The applicant is proposing to increase
~- ....the distance from dwelling units to the closest visitor parking space
from the required 150 feet to approximately 240 feet. Approximately 25
units are beyond the 150-foot limit as the site plan is currently
proposed. This situation arises because of the general site plan
philosophy which separates automobiles from pedestrian traffic with the
auto court and perimeter loop drive layout. The units near the center
of the site are up to 240 feet away from any visitor parking. Of
these, 19 homes are the Plan i models at the end of the auto courts.
These homes have usable driveways which can serve as visitor parking.
Therefore, only 6 homes are beyond 150 feet from visitor parking and do
not have usable driveways.
These 6 units are generally 160 to 180 feet away from the nearest
visitor parking space or to 10 to 30 feet more then the Code allows.
In conjunction with this distance requirement, visitor parking is
necessary within multiple family and planned residential projects at a
ratio of 1 space for 4 units. staff has found that visitor parking
provided at only the minimum ratio gets used up by residents Of the
project who use their garages for storage. Hence, in many situations,
visitor parking may be more distant (or not even be available for that
matter) within these projects. Because Of this, staff has encouraged
developers to provide visitor parking above the minimum requirements.
Within this project 38 visitor parking spaces are required, 81 are
provided. Therefore, because Of the significantly increased number of
visitor parking spaces proposed, visitor parking will not only be more
readily available, but most likely will be closer to these 6 units in
most instances.
D. Neiahborhood Meeting: September 26, 1994, a neighborhood meeting was held
to allow property owners in the immediate vicinity of the site an
opportunity to review the proposed project prior to the Planning
Corm~ission public hearing. NO Objection to the design of the project was
raised by attendees of this meeting.
E. Desion Review Committee: The Committee (Barker, Lumpp, Coleman) reviewed
the project on two occasions, most recently on October 4, 1994. At that
meeting, the Committee recommended approval Of the project subject to the
conditions. Staff has attached the Design Review Committee Action Comments
from both meetings for your convenience (Exhibit "L").
F. Technical Review Committee: On September 7, 1994, the Technical Review
Cormnittee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended
conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable
standards and codes, with the exception of the proposed Variance. The
Grading Committee reviewed and conceptually approved the project at a
special meeting on September 29, 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VTT 15477 & VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 5
G. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed
by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II, the Environmental Checklist,
and found that there could be a significant noise impact on residents if
sound attenuation devices (interior and exterior) are not incorporated into
the project design to screen noise impacts created by traffic on Base Line
Road.and Milliken Avenue. An acoustical analysls study prepared for the
site recommended that in order to mitigate noise to "safe" levels, a minimum
6-foot high wall must be constructed along both Base Line Road and Milliken
Avenue, along the top Of the proposed streetscape berms and/or slopes.
These walls are already incorporated into the conceptual design of the
subdivision.
Therefore, although the project could have a significant effect On the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of
the mitigation measures included in the project design and conditions of
approval. If the Commission concurs, then issuance of a mitigated Negative
Declaration would be in order.
FINDINGS:
A. ~:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
Victoria Community Plan.
2. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety or
cause nuisance or significant adverse environmental impacts.
3. The project's use, subdivision map, and conceptual plans, together with
the conditions Of approval, are in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the Development Code and City standards.
1. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General
Plan.
2. The proposed design is in accord with the Objectives Of the Development
Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
3. The proposed design is in compliance with each Of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. The proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto,
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. ~:
1. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VTT 15477 & VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 6
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the
project that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district.
3. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive-the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners
of other properties in the same district.
4. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
classified in the same district.
5. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to public health,
safety, Or welfare or materially injurious to properties Or
improvements in the vicinity.
~ This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were
sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site. In
addition, a neighborhood meeting was held.
~: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Vesting
Tentative Tract 15477, the design review thereof, and Variance 94-05 through
adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions and issue a
mitigated Negative Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:SH:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - site Plan of Typical Cluster
Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "F" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "G" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "H" - Floor Plans
Exhibit "I" - Main Recreation Area/Amenity Plans/Entrance Plans
Exhibit "J" - Variance Justification
Exhibit "K" - Planning Commission Minutes dated October 14, 1992
Exhibit "L" - Design Review Committee Comments dated September 6
and October 4, 1994
Resolution of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 with
Conditions
Resolution of Approval for Design Review for Vesting Tentative
Tract 15477 with Conditions
Resolution of Approval for Variance 94-05
SHEET INDEX
1, SITE UFILIZA TION MAP
2. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE P{AN
~. CONSU, TANTS n .................... n
~, .,,,,,,,,~,__,__..,,..,o.,,.,.,__,,.__.,,.__,,~MDS~ ...........
~' TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
~>.; ~ ,,.,. ,...,~.~:., ,..:.:,,.~_ ~ J~' CL .~E~-~" ~".~j
~ .... ...... .= --. .
'~(. _ ~ ~ _ ~,. ,_
- , ;r 'l '~' -
".' C~
~ ..... A V~Srl~e ~AP FOR
L :~=~=-- TENTAtiVE TRACT 15477 <' ~""~'~'
TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
TECHNICAL
......... ~,"'.,.".~,. .....
TYPICAL
TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
~ MDS~-'='..~'-'-,"~=;'='-..~
TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
'.:f T' .. :i: [:~1 '"::i-bJi!--' !-';' ,!::' ""' '~"~ ""
.,-,, ._____,..,<2,, -__ .~ --
.... . :~.
'~t f "":"":""::"
~:~~;:""':"""'~:""' "l:"~"
· ' __~.,._~_. '/~
, ~ . "'= ....... : . _ ~ ....... .......~.;,- ;'~-
'
.... . ~,-.-_.-, _.,,_,,_, ,_
~ ':::"]l:~':: ....
~ t ~"' '~': "':'" "" ~' '':""._-q~'~':-:::;:.:;.:~
...... ~. :::-'._~::::;::::.~, ....~.,:,.=
-: i=l,:..,:" F " MDS%
~,, .... ___ ~ :.::-'--"~.;'~
....
TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
(, ~ FRENCH COUNTRY S~LE
-~ PLAN IA
Matre~ek Homes
~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~
~ ~ ~uil~er-~veloper ~ .............. ' ........
SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE
PLAN IB
[] ................................. ............"'"" '~
\ Mntreyek I!.mes k 'w' ......................- ........I
RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION
FRENCH COUNTRY STYLE
PLAN 2A
Matrey~k Homes ~ ...... - - , ......................
builder-developer
~ SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE
-- PLAN 2B
Matreyek Homes
RIGHT ELEVAIION FROlIT IELE'VATION
FRSNCH COUNTRY STYLE
PLAN 3A
SPANISH COLONIAL STYLE PLAN 3B
MatreXek !tomes ~ ~;' ~%~%%%%~%~" .) .....................
GREEN BELT ELEVATIONS
-,_~
PI AN IA REVERSE pLAN 3B RI~VERSE pLAN )A REVERSE plAN 2B REVERSE
Matre3,ek Homes _ :-L~'q' ............................... ,m._.2 ............
PERIMETER STREET ELEVATIONS
52'-0"
47'-0"
PLAN 3
~ BR+F^MILY
oJ ...... --
pERIMeTER SLUMP BLOCK WALL
,~..~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
MILLIKEN AVENUE
"C" ELEVATION
Matreyek Homes
builder- developer
~"' u/' RAN'CHO'C~J~AMONGA
('~LAN."~NG DIVISION
m l',u 16 1994
August 16, 1994
Mr. Steve Hayes
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
VARIANCE REQUEST
ARBORCREST
TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
Dear Steve:
In conjunction with the processing of our tentative tract map,
we hereby request a variance from the building to building
separations ~sideyards) from 15 feet to a minimum of 8 feet.
The 15 foot 'separation is applicable to large multi-unit
buildings to separate the building masses. Our project
proposes single family detached residences, predominately one
story units with small s~deyards replicating a zero sideyard
product. Many of our sideyard areas exceed the eight foot
minimum requested.
For more specific details, please refer to our Typical Building
Clusters Plan (Sheet 4 of our submittal package).
Should you have any questions, please call.
S incerel y,
Vice Presiden~
enc.
TWM: lb
fl~,,,
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
October 14, 1992
Chairman McN~iel called the Adjourned _Meeting t~ order at 6:00 p..m., The
meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, city Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Rick Gomez, Director
of Community Development; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner;
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Nissen,
Associate Planner
OWNER/DEVELOpER: Bill and Mary Matreyek, Debbie Taylor - Matreyek Homes;
Ralph Martin Richardson, Nagy, Martin; Start Morse
Morse Consulting Group
PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 92-06 - MATREYEK HOMES - Review of the conceptual site
planning for a 20-acre site located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road
and Milliken Avenue.
Brad Buller, City Planner, opened the workshop by explaining the purpose of
the pre-epplication review process and the history behind its formation. He
highlighted the format for the meeting and briefly described the history and
site constraints associated with the property. He noted the extensive
research conducted by the developer during the initial stages and how this
plan addressed many of the issues previously raised by staff and the
neighborhood.
Debbie Taylor, Matreyek Homes, introduced the development team and supplied
the Commissioners with reduced size submittal packages. She expressed her
appreciation for etaff's taking the time to meet with them on several
occasions.
Ralph Martin, Richardson, Nagy, Martin Architects, highlighted the unique
features of the project design, including the housing "clusters," the auto
courts, and the unobstructed pedestrian circulation system. He noted that the
houses along the perimeter drive may become one-story units, which would
produce approximately 50 percent one-story units within the project, and the
unique internal identity created by the site plan design.
Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, briefly summarized staff~s position relative
to the project design and noted the willingness of the development team
address key issues raised by staff and the neighbors.
Commission Melcher expressed his appreciation for nhe detailed written
justification submitted by the applicant and suggested that i= be used as an
example for future pre-application items.
Chairmen McNiel asked for Clarification on the proposed unit mix.
Mr. Martin stated that by changing to one-story homes adjacent to the
perimeter drive, the mix would be approximately 50/50.
Mr. Buller clarified that the main issue for tonight's discussion was the
"cluster court" concept and whether the Commission could support this.
Chairman McNiel noted that the zero lot line elevations should be designed to
be sensitive to the neighbors' private open spaces but architecturally
enhanced to appear as more than blank flat walls.
Mr. Martin indicated that he planned to use clear story windows and recess the
second story to resolve this concern.
Chairman McNiel asked for the distance from the Milliken Avenue curb to the
parking spaces on the outside edge of the internal private perimeter drive.
He suggested that visitor parking should be hidden by opaque perimeter walls
and dense landscaping and any portion of open perimeter fencing should be
selectively placed to not open views to visitor parking areas. He questioned
the size of the proposed lots.
Mr. Martin stated that the "postage stamp" lot sizes will range from
approximately 2,100 to 3,360 square feet with the homes ranging ~rom 1,200
1,700 square feet for up to 70 percent lot coverage.
Commissioner Tolstoy was pleased with the design concepts and [elt it would be
unique to the City. He favored the perimeter wall concept.
Commission Vallette felt the project design addressed issues associated with
the previous projects on this site and felt the conceptual design should be
supported.
Commission Chitlea felt that the innovstiveness of the site plan concept made
for a potentially exciting project. She asked the applicant how they were
planning to provide vehicular access to the main recreation area.
Mr. Martin indicated that they had not yet specifically addressed this issue
but were planning to provide a free and clear area for emergency vehicles and
special events, possibly by utilizing turf block.
Commissioner Melcher complimented the owners and the development team
=heir efforts.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- Adjourned Mtg. October 14, 1992
Chairman McNiel praised the concept and stated he was looking forward to
resolving any specific issues that may occur with the more detailed package.
Mr. Bullet indicated that the development team is planning to utilize a
similar plant palette as Central Park. He asked the Commission about
providing amenities in the north part of the site.
commission Melcher felt that a large, primary recreation area was preferable
asopposed to smaller, spread out areas.
Mr. Buller closed the meeting by summarizing the Commission's comments and
expressing his appreciation for the effort put forth by the development team
to this point.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -3- Adjourned Mtg. October 14, 1992
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:40 - 6:15 p.m. Steve Hayes September 6, 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES - A
residential subdivision for condominium purposes and design review for the
development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium
(8-14 dwelling units per '~cre~ and Medium High (14-24 dweIli~g units per acre)
Residential Districts, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-691-01
Related File: Variance 94-05 and Pre-Application Review 92-06
Background:
The property in question, currently being processed as Vesting Tentative Tract
15477 (formerly Vesting Tentative Tracts ~3920, 14630 and 15359), was submitted to
the City on September 28, 1988 as a 366 unit "stacked flat," rental condominium
project. This proposal was withdrawn by the applicant (The William Lyon Company)
on June 26, 1989. The property was then sold to Lincoln Properties, who submitted
a 368 unit "stacked flat" condominitun project on November 8, 1989. This proposal,
reduced down to 328 units during the development review process, was eventually
denied without prejudice by the City Council on January 16, 1991 after significant
opposition from the residents of the Victoria Planned Community and a
recommendation of denial from the Planning Commission.
The application was resubmitted on August 28, 1991 for the development of 264
rental stacked flat condominium units on the southernmost 15 acres of the project
area (the northernmost 5 acres were to be set aside for a potential future church
site). A Pre-Application review with the Planning Commission was held on
October 6, 1991. The property owner did not pursue this application further and
let the application expire and be denied without prejudice. The property was then
sold to Matreyek Homes, the current property owner. On October ~4, 1992, the
Planning Commission held a Pre-Application workshop on a new proposal for 158
detached condominium units. Minutes from this meeting are attached for your
convenience as Exhibit "B."
Design Parameters:
The site is bounded on the north by the abandoned Southern Pacific railroad tracks
and single family homes, the south by Base Line Road, the east by a single family
residential subdivision under construction, and the west by Milliken Avenue. The
site contains no structures and has no significant vegetation or significant
natural features. Curb and gutter exists along the entire street frontage of the
property. The site slopes uniformly at approximately 3 percent from north to
south.
Staff ~ents:
The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Con~nittee
discussion.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES
September 6, 1994
Page 2
Ma~or Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Cormnittee
discussion regarding this project:
There are no new major issues associated with this project. All Of the major
issues inherent of the project design ("cluster court" concept and the resulting
"grid" site plan with perimeter access drive; use of one-story homes and
addressing the neighbor's, Commissions and Councils concerns associated with the
previous apartment proposals) were discussed at the Pre~Application review
meeting, where the Commission deemed the major site planning concepts
acceptable. Please refer to attached minutes.
Secondar~ Issues: Once of all the major issues have been addressed, and time
permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
The applicant has provided a written response (see Exhibit "A") to each comment,
which will be included after each issue.
1. The roof pitch on the French Colonial plans should be increased to be more
indicative of the architectural style.
Applicant's response: "The roof pitch of 6 t/2 by 12 as shown on the
proposed French Country style is typical of that architectural motif."
2- A "focal point" should be created near the main vehicular entrance to the
site by using elements such as architectural features, upgraded landscaping,
pedestrian gathering areas, etc.
Applicant's response: "Additional low planter walls and upgraded landscaping
have been added to the main vehicular entrance."
3. The public sidewalk should connect with internal sidewalk system at both
project entrances.
Applicant's response: "We have added a sidewalk connection on Ellena West.
We have not added a sidewalk connection on Milliken Avenue so as to negate a
mid-block crossing. If desired, we can add a sidewalk connection on Milliken
Avenue."
4. The Committee should consider whether a stream and foot bridge system should
be incorporated back into the design, per the Pre-Application plans.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Comission policy and
should be incorporated into the design without discussion:
1. A minimum of nine floor plans with a minimum of four elevations per floor
plan should be provided per the Planning Commission Residential Design
Guidelines.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES
September 6, 1994
Page 3
Applicant's response: "We are providing six floor plans (three different
floor plans plus three reverse floor plans~ and two different front
elevations pe~=floor plan.
The Arborcrest concept site plan promotes a pedestrian friendly and visually
appealing neighborhood environment. Instead of a repetitious streetscene
characterized by traditional single-family detached subdivision design, the
Arborcrest co~unity features a streetscene (along the loop road) that
integrates visually exposed greenbelt/open space network and varied
architectural styles and massing. Based On the site plan design and theme
elements, we feel it is unnecessary to provide nine floor plans and four
front elevation types per the Residential Design Guidelines. Proposed themed
monumentation and special paving for each "cluster neighborhood," combined
with a landscape theme for the greenbelt system along the loop road will
provide for an aesthetically pleasing streetscene environment."
Staff Recommendations:
Staff recon=~ends the Design Review Con~nittee recou~nend approval of the project to
the Planning Commission with appropriate conditions.
Attachments:
Design Review CGmnittee Action:
Members present: Dave Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
Design Review Comfittee Action:
The Committee did not make a reco~nendation on this project but instead
recommended that the development team address their individual concerns and return
to the Committee. The Committee did recommend the following for the development
team to consider when revising the project:
1. The main pedestrian links and vehicular viewsheds to the main recreation area
should be opened up to create greater opportunities for "focal points."
Elements such as water features, specimen trees with high canopies and
structural towers were mentioned as suggested elements. A rendering of the
main recreation areas and focal points should be prepared to Committee
review.
2. The applicant should consider extending the eave overhangs on some of the
French Colonial models.
3- Carefully consider the architecture Of the out buildings throughout the
project.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES
September 6, 1994
Page 4
4. Additional active conunon open space recreational amenities should be
considered throughout the project.
5. Select a wall design/plant palette that will discourage graffiti.
6. Consider noise attenuation devices from adjacent residential units or an
alternate use.
7. The Milliken Avenue sidewalk should not be connected with the main project
entry.
July 13, 1994
RESPONSE TO
JULY 11, 1994
COMPLETENESS LETTER
ARBORCREST
TENTATIVE TRACT 15477
C. Des/on Issues - The following are preliminary design issues.that are recommended
to be addressed in the revised plans:
1. A minimum of 9 floor plans with a minimum of 4 elevations per floor plan
should be provided per the Planning Commission Residential Design Guidelines
(see attached).
We are providing six floor i~lans (three different floor plans plus three reverse
floor plans/and two different front elevations per floor plan.
The Arborcrest concept site plan promotes a pedestrian friendly and visually
appealing neighborhood environment. Instead of a repetitious streetscene
characterized by traditional single-family detached subdivision design, the
Arborcrest community feature a streetscene (along the loop road/that
integrates visually exposed greenbelt/open space network and varied
architectural styles and massing. Based on the site plan design and theme
elements, we feel it is unnecessary to provide nine floor plans and four front
elevation types per the Residential Design Guidelines. Proposed thereed
monumental/on and special pavklg for each "cluster neighborhood ~ combined
with a landscape theme for the greenbelt systems along the loop road will
provide for an aesthetically pleasing streetscene environment.
2. The roof pitch on the French Colonial plans should be increased to be more
indicative of the architectural style.
The roof pitch of 6~:12 as shown on the proposed French County style is
typical of that architectural motif.
3. Provide some fenestration (even glass block) on the Plan 3 right side
elevations.
We are providing a combination of glass block (to maintain visual privacy/and
stucco recesses.
4. A 'focal point' should be created near the main vehicular entrance to the site
by using elements such as architectural features, upgraded landscaping,
pedestrian gathering areas, etc.
Additional low planter walls and upgraded landscaping have been added to the
main vehicular entrance.
5. The landscape buffer between the project and Tract 13753 and the future trail
along the railroad corridor should incorporate evergreen trees, such as pine
trees, for a dense buffer. Pedestrian gate openings to the future trail should
be provided.
We will provide evergreen trees for the buffer. Two pedestrian gate openings
to the future trail will be provided.
6. The wall along the I~erirneter of the site should match the design used
throughout Victoria (i.e., painted slump block with tan slump block pilasters).
The perimeter walls will match the design used throughout Victoria.
Appropriate details have been added to the Conceptual Landscape Plan.
7. The public sidewalk should connect with internal sidewalk system at both
, project entrances,
We have added a sidewalk connection on E/lena West. We have not added a
sidewalk connection on M[lliken Avenue so as to negate a mid-block crossing.
If desired, we can add a sidewalk cont~ection on Mill/ken.
8. Decorative paving should be provided at the entrance to all auto courts and in
areas where visitor parking is across the main drive aisle from the residences.
Decorative paving has been provided at Autocourt entrances and where visitor
parking is across the main drive aisle from the residences.
9. Speed bumps should be introduced along the perimeter drive aisle.
Speed bumps have been provided along the perimeter drive aisle (See
Technical Site Plan.)
10. Sidewalk connections between the curb and walkways should be provided
where parallel parking spaces are directly across the main drive aisle from
sidewalk connections to residences. The connections will eliminate people
walking though landscape areas from visitor parking areas. For example, just
north of Unit 152 and just east of Units 113 and 114.
Sidewalk connections have been added.
11. The sidewalk width should be reduced where parallel parking abuts a sidewalk
(i.e., just north of Lots 102 and 103).
The sidewalk is 4' nominafly except at widehinge for sidewalk intersections.
12. All slopes should be contoured and undulating to take on a more natural
appearance.
See Typical Cluster Plan for typical contoured slopes.
En in rin Divisi :
A. Issues:
1. Upgrade Milliken Avenue median landscaping to conform wi~h Millikan Avenue
Beautification Master Plan.
This has always been a Condition of Approval, one that we always questioned.
/s it really a good thing to spend money on ripping out mature landscaping -
and, will the City contribute their haft to the cost? We feel that both the City
and the developer might find better places to spend their money.
2. Landscaping along Milliken Avenue shall conform to the City's Mill/ken Avenue
Master Plan.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:40 p.m. Steve Hayes October 4, 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 15477 MATREYEK HOMES - A
residential subdivision for condominium purposes and design review for the
development of 153 detached condominium units on 20.15 acres of land in the Medium
(8-14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium High (14-24 dwelling units per acre)
Residential Districts, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-69~-01.
~ Reta~d File: Variance 94-05 and Pre-Application'~e~iew 92~6. ~
Background:
The Design Review Conmlittee (Barker, Lumpp, Coleman) reviewed this project at it's
September 6, 1994 meeting. Action comments from this meeting were included in the
plan package and comments distributed on September 22, 1994.
Staff ~ents:
Modifications have Occurred to the plans and/or requested information provided as
follows:
The Milliken Avenue project entrance has been upgraded through the use of
intensified landscaping and speciman size trees in a raised planter wall with
open fencing and pilasters.
2. Immediately east of the pool, the basketball court has been replaced with a
turf-blocked grass area to expand the large open lawn area yet create a
turnaround area for oversized emergency vehicles.
3. All slopes have been contained and rounded off to produce a more natural
appearance.
4. Eaves have been extended by 1-fcot on all roofs on all models to reduce
staining from run-off on the building walls.
5. Additional street scene elevations have been prepared for a typical greenway,
a typical auto court and an entrance to an auto court as seen from the loop
drive.
6. Enlarged plan view diagram and elevations of the project entrances have been
provided.
Staff l~eccemenda~om:
Staff reconxnends that the Committee review the revised plans in light of the
previous meetings comments and recommend approval of the project to the Planning
Commission with recommended conditions as deemed appropriate.
Design ReviewCcm~ttee Active:
Members Present: Dave Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
d
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
TRACT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES
October 4, 1994
Page 2
The Design Review Co~nittee recommended approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. The sidewalk within the main .east/west greenway 'should be widened to 8 feet
- 'with elements such aS,'~lig~tihg,~ special landscaping, etc. The intent is to
pull the focal point back further from the main entry and gradually diffuse
as this greenway moves toward the interior of the site.
2. An architectural plan for the typical cluster relationship (especially the
relationship between side to side units) should be provided for the Planning
Comission public. hearing.
3. The architectural feature at the corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue
should be designed in the same vocabulary as the side entrance features at
the Milliken Avenue access location.
Attachmen~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 15477, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 153 DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 20.15
ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM AND MEDIUM HIGH RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS (8-14 "AND I4-24.' DWELLING UNITS .' PER ACRE,
RESPECTIVELY), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE
ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-691-01.
1. Matreyek Homes has filed an application for the approval of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 15477 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter, the subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 9th day of November, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City
or Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application
and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced hearing on November 9, 1994, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue with a Ease Line Road frontage Of 902.59
feet and a Milliken Avenue frontage Of 1249.21 feet and is presently improved
with curb and gutter along the street frontages; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site consists of railroad
right-of-way and single family homes, the property to the south is developed with
a commercial shopping center, the properties to the east are single family
subdivisions under construction and the property to the west is vacant; and
c. The site is zoned for Medium and Medium High Residential
development by the Victoria Community Plan. A density of 7.6 dwelling units per
acre, more typical of Low-Medium Residential development (detached dwellings on
smaller lots) is proposed; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT 15477 - MATREYEK
November 9, 1994
Page 2
d. The application includes vehicular access via a private drive aisle
system, which has been designed to meet the City's minimum pavement width
requirements for emergency and secondary access.
e. The subdivision configuration meets all health, safety, and access
'criteria established by the City' Fire District and Engineering Division.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set
forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan and
Development Code; and
b. The design Or improvements Of the tentative tract is consistent
with the General Plan, Development Code, and Victoria Community Specific Plan;
and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development
proposed; and
d. The design Of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their
habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health
problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any
easement acquired by the public at large, nor of record, for access through or
use of the property within the proposed subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the
environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that
there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect
upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings
as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA
guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial
Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning
Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the
information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been
incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental
effects will occur.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT 15477 - MATREYEK
November 9, 1994
Page 3
C. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 Of the
California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In
considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for
the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential
for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Furtherv,~based upon'substantial evidence contained in the Negative
Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the
Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby
rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2,
3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each
and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
1) Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code
Section 21089(b}, this application shall not be operative,
vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a
map recorded, until (1} the Notice of Determination (NOD)
regarding the associated environmental action is filed and
posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required
filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game
Code section 711.4, together with any required handling
charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San
Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Planning
Department with a stamped and conformed copy of the NOD
together with a receipt showing that all fees have been
paid.
In the event this application is determined exempt from such
filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California
Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated
thereunder, except for payment of any required handling
charge for filing a certificate of Fee Exemption, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
2 ) The main recreation area ( including equipment building,
pool, spa, etc. ) shall be completed prior to the release of
occupancy of the 40th unit within the project.
3 ) A Minor Exception will be required for any combination
block/retaining walls in excess of 6 feet, but less than 8
feet in height.
4) The Covenants, Codes and Restrictions for the project shall
include maintenance specifications for any subdivision
signage, interior lighting, private street signage, and red
curbing.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT 15477 - MATREYEK
November 9, 1994
Page 4
Enoineerinc Division
1) The existing overhead utilities (electrical, except for 66
kV) on the project side of Base Line Road shall be
undergrounded from the first pole on the west side of
Milliken Avenue to the terminus pole on the east side of
" ~ ~Milliken Avenue, prior to public approvement~acceptance or
occupancy, whichever occurs first. The developer may
request one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding
from development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the
opposite side of the street.
2) If the utility company will not allow undergrounding to
occur at this time, the developer shall contribute toward
the future undergrounding of the remaining overhead
utilities fronting the site in accordance with the
undergrounding policy resolution.
3) Manholes shall be constructed within the candela Cul-de-sac
and at the Ellena West junction to distinguish the public
storm drain system from the private storm drain system.
4) Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated and a right-turn
land constructed on Ellena West at the Base Line Road
intersection.
5) Ellena Park, at the northeast corner Of Ellena East and
Kenyon Way, shall be installed per approved Drawing No. 1409
in accordance with City Ordinance No. 535.
6) A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of
Base Line Road and Ellena West. The developer may receive
transportation fee credit up to $120,000. Upon completion
of the signal, an accounting of costs shall be submitted for
review. Approved cost in excess of the $120,000 shall be
reimbursed as determined by the City Engineer.
7) Maintenance of the existing parkway landscaping along
Milliken Avenue shall become the responsibility of the
developer upon commencement of grading operations.
8) The public improvement drawing for the Milliken Avenue
landscape shall be revised to reflect the private
maintenance responsibility of the development. The
necessary improvements shall be complete prior to the first
occupancy.
9) A private drainage easement shall be obtained from Tract
13753 for the portion of the storm drain serving this tract
which passes through Lot 123 of Tract 13753. There shall be
no public storm drain easement dedicated beyond the manhole
separating the public system from the private system.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VTT 15477 - MATREYEK
November 9, 1994
Page 5
10) The driveways shall be constructed to city standards,
50-foot maximum width, per the gated entry guide and
driveway policy.
6. The secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, secretary of the Planning commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day
of November 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
Those items checked are Conditions of Approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989o1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time LImits
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by lhe Planning Commission, il building permits are J /
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to ! / , __/ /
/ a. A ova, o T.' tive Tract No. 1.5' /77is granted subject to the approval Of __J/
Z participated in, or consummate~, a Mello-Ro~s Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
4. Thedevelopershallcommence participatein andconsummateorcauselobecommenced, .__/ /
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
Districrs properly upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
\/ 5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes __/ /
first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However. if any school district has previously established such a Community
Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the aHected school
district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities DiStriCt within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to lhe recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
[ k Project No J
Comt~letion Date:
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
~chool districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
~mpacts as a result of this project.
~/ 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is / /
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Deparlment of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to linal map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance
of permits'in the case of all other residential projects: - ~'
B. Site Development
V/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which .--/ /
include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on tile in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and
.Specific Plan and
Planned Community.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon. all ~ /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. OccupancyofthefacilityshallnotcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand __J /
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be .__/ /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
,//' 5. All site. grad ng. landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ~ /
consistency pdorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal. encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
L/' 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development .__/ /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
L// 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and .__J /
Sherifrs Department (989-6611 ) pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
V 8. If no centra ized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pi~-up shall be for individual units .__/ /
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, .--J /
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
~./ 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall .--/ /
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming. and/or landScaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with _._/ /
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
V//12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, __J /
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and .__J /
weed control. in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordalton of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans· Developer shall upgrade and construct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices. in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine .__/ /
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
~/ 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the .__/ /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance ot building permits, whichever occurs tirst. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
/ 16. Allparkways, open areas, and landscapingshall be permanently maintained bythe property J /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or _._/ /
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation. structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and .__/ /
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to. extedor alterations and/or
interior alterat ons which affect the exterior of the bu tidings or structures, removal of landmark
trees, demolit on, re ocation. reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Design
~/ 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units / /
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar healing. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front. side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural ---/ /
treatment, detailing and increased delineation of sudace treatment subject to City Planner
review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
[ ~ Proiect No:
Completion Date:
",/ 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for ~ /
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building perTnits.
V/" 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or .__J /
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
~,/ 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall __.J /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be J /
provided throughout the.development to connect dwellings/units/bu tidings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
V 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, / /
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
'v/ 4. AIl units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than18 feet in / /
depth from back of sidewalk.
t,/ 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restdct the storage of recreational vehicles / /
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
V/ 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and .~/ /.--
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.)
I/ 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- J /
ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existingtreesrequiredt~bepreservedinp~aceshal~bepr~tectedwithaconstructi~nbarrier J /
in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees
Shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the art~rist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and tdmming methods.
3. Aminimumof/'f:~* treespergrossacre,comprisedofthefollowingsizes,shallbeprovided / /
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, ~.O % - 36- inch box or larger,
J~ % - 24- inch box or larger, ~:) %-15-gallon, and__ %-5gallon.
4. A minimum of el.~i) % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - / /
24-inch box or larger.
V/ 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three _._/ /.__
parking stalls, sulficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
J 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
J 7. AIIPrivateslopebanks5feetorlessinvenicalheightandofS:l orgreaterslope, butlesslhan
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
~/ 8. AIIPrivateslopesinexcessof5feet,butlessthan8 feet invedicalheightandof2:l orgreater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or 4a~er size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. ~. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in ve~ical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 ~. It. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and va~ slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to ~ installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu-
?usly maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual un~
~s ~ld and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing o~upancy forthose units, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfa~o~
condition.
/10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, prope~y owne~ are res~n-
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site. as well as contiguous
planted areas w~hin the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a heaffhy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular p~ning, fe~ilizing, ~wing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of ~amage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or
. This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
~ 12. The final design of the perimeter pa~ways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be
included in the required landscape plans and shall ~ subje~ to C~y Planner review a~
approval and coo~inated for consistency with any pa~ay landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Divis~n.
13. ~pecial landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock. spec men size trees, meander-
sng sidewalks (with horzontal change) and intensified landscaping, is required along
14. Land~aping and iffigation syste~ required to be installed wffhin the public right-of-way on
the perimeter of this pmje~ area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
15. All walls shall be provided wffh de~rative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and subm~ed for C~y Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building perm~s. These cr~eda shall en~urage the natural
gro~h characteri~ics of the selected tree species.
17. Land~aping an~ irrigation shall be designed to consere water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cuca~nga Municipal Code.
F. Signs Comt~lction Dale:
t/ 1. Thesignsindicatedonthesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotapartot thisapproval. / /
Any signs proposed for this development Shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to insfallation of any
signs.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and / /
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
~'/3. Directory monument sign(s),shall be provided for apartment, condomjnium, ortownl',omes / /
prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. ThedevelopershallprovideeachprospectivebuyerwrittennoticeoftheFourthStreetRock _._/ /
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted ---/ /
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway __J /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
',.-/ 4..A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the J /
~ssuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise
attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided,
and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures, The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
L,/ 1. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire ---J /
Protection District Standards.
t/ 2. Emergencyaccessshallbeprovided, maintenancelreeandclear, a minimumof26teetwide ---/ /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
V/' 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction. evidence shall be ._J /
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
L,/' 4. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and J /
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all --J /
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardtrio County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
kite Development
'v/ 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- /-----/
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code. National Eleclric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts. ;
V/' 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition J /
to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautffication Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or .__/ /
addition to an existin9 development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee.
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
J 4. StreetaddreSsessha~~bepr~videdbytheBui~ding~~iCia~~aftertraCt/parce~mapreC~rdati~n .__/ /
and pdor to issuance of building permits.
J, Existing Structures
1. Provide Compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the properly line clearances J /
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness ot existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for ---/ /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the _._/ /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for J /
building permit application.
K. Grading
v/ 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City ----/ /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
',//2. A sobs report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to J /
perform such work.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance .__/ /
Permit is requ fred. Please contact San Bernardino County Department of Agricuitu re at (714)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
__ 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at ----/ /
the time of application for grading plan Check.
' :/ 5. The final grading plans shall be Completed and approved priorto issuance of building permits. __J /
Comnledon Date:
6. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met:
a, Surety shall be posled and an agree merit executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site -.J /
drainage facilities necessary lot alewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of lhe Building
and Safety Division priorto final map approval and prior Io the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto -~/ /
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for alewatering and protecting the subdivided -~/ /
properties, are to be installed pdor to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety ---J /
Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses J /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Development Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all intedor public streets. / /
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas. street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets ----/ /
(measured from street centerline):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total leet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made .~J /
for all private streets or ddves.
4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: ._J /
5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&RS .~/ /
or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or pdor to the issuance of
SC - 12193 of 12
6. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated Completion Date:
or noted on the final map. .__~ /
__ 7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 10-foot minimum building restriction area on the __/ /
neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language:
"l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the
construction 0t (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated
On the map as building restriction areas."
A maintenance agreement shall als0 be granted from each lot to the adjacent,lot through the
CC&R'S.
8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on / /
the final map.
9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-el-way ___/ /
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private propera/.
/ 10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, To provide a minimum / /
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
t 1. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests / /
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 atsuchtimeastheCityacquiresthepropertyinterestsrequiredfortheimprovements.
Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security
for a portion of these costs shall be in the form el a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at devetoper's cost. The appraiser shall have
been approved by the City prior to commencement el the appraisal.
M. Street Improvements
/
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, /.__/
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to
City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and
gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches. sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A minimum of 26- foot wide pavement, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be / /
constructed for all half-section streets.
(/' 3. Construct the tollowing perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / /
STREET NAME CURS& A,C. SIDE- DRIV~ STREET SI~EET COI4M MEDIAN BIKE
GUI'FER PVMT WALK APPR. LIGHTS TREES TRA~, ISJ_AND TRAIL OTHER
Line..
frl/llike..~ v'/ i"/ (F)
Completion Datq;
Notes: (at Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruclion and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, side-
walk shall De curvilinear per STD. 804. (d) If so marked an 'n-lieu of construction fee shall
be provided for this item. "F'r~,f.t~..tl ~.r'k,.,y/~/J.n.a.~c,,-,p~n
4. Improvement plans and construction:
~i:: 8ii:eet improvement plans including'street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis-
feted Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improve-
ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance ot but Iding permits, whichever occurs
first.
b. Prior to any work b~ing performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a J /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement sihping, marking. traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit .__J /
shall be installed to the saltsfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Si0nalconduitwithpullboxesshallbeinstalledonanynewconsiructionorreconstruction J /
of major, secondary or collector slreels which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides ol the
street at 3 feet outside of BC FI. ECFI or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: ._J /
(it All pull boxes shall be No, 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all four corners of intersections per City "--J /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with ---/
adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may be required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of lhe construction to the satislaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / /
installed to City Standards, except for single family lots.
h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer. / /
i. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. /
5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provicled for / /
review and approval by lhe City Engineer. Prior to any work being pedormed on the pri-
vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City
Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required.
6. Sireel frees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be inslalled per City Standards in / /
accordance with the City's street tree program.
SC - 12/93 lOof12
proi ect No; ~/TT~/.D~ 77
7. Intersection line ot site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conlormance wifb ComDl¢~on Dame!
adopted policy. ~ /
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, -~/ /
including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by .~/_..~/
moving the 2 +/- close st street trees on each side away from t he street and placed in a street
-tree easement. ' · ,,, , -
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the tollowing right-of-way: .~/ /
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the --J /
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards J /
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways,
medians, paseos. easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
2. A signed Consent and waiver form to join and,'orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting .__/ /
Districts shall be filed with the City Enginee r prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the _._J /
developer until accepted by the City.
v/ 4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective __J /
Beautification Master Plan: 6c~e
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or podions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood ---/ /
protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone ~ /
designation removed from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
~ 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final / /
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
,,o,,, e--
4. A permit from the County Flood Control DistriCl is required for work within its right-of-way. Comol~uon DaLe:
___/ /
(,-/ 5, Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. .__/ /
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded Io convey overllows in the event of a ----/ /
blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, __J /
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
/"/ 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. .__/ /
v/' 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meel the requirements of the ---/ /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and lhe Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into / /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint use ddveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or / /
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for:
/ /
3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the
estimated Cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created parcels.
4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan / /
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance it
no map is involved.
5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: / /
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community / /
Facilities District shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be corn- / /
pieted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown
on Ihe approved tentalive map.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15477 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 153 DETACHED
CONDOMINIUM UNITS ON 20.15 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM AND
MEDIUM HIGH RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (8-14 AND 14-24 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE~:'RESPECTIVELy), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-691-01.
1. Matreyek Homes has filed an application for the Design Review of Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 15477 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On the 9th day of November 1994, the Planning Commission of the City or
Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho cucamonga as follows:
1. This commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on November 9, 1994, including written and oral staff
reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the
General Plan; and
b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the
Victoria Community Plan and Development Code and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located; and
c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each Of the
applicable provisions of the Victoria Community Plan and Development Code; and
d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable
thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1 and
2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and
every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR VTT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 2
1) The sidewalk within the main east/west greenway shall be
widened to 8 feet with elements such as lighting and special
landscaping, with the intent of pulling the focal point back
· ~= , further from the main entry and gradually diffusing as this
greenway moves toward the interior of the site. The final
design Of this area shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
2) The architectural feature at the corner of Base Line Road
and Milliken Avenue shall be designed in the same vocabulary
as the side entrance features at the Milliken Avenue access
location, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3) The final design of all "out" buildings (pool maintenance
building, etc.) shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
4) Additional adult-oriented active common open space amenities
shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Planner·
5) The final design of all street furniture (benches, lighting,
exercise station equipment, etc.) and playground apparatus
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to
the issuance of building permits.
6) The final design of the exterior perimeter walls and fences
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to
the issuance of building permits. Perimeter walls shall
match the established Victoria Planned community theme walls
(i.e., painted slump block and tan slump block pilasters).
7) Decorative paving such as concrete interlocking pavers shall
be provided at the main project entrances, key pedestrian
crossings from visitor parking areas to the residences,
common open space areas, and visitor parking spaces, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner. A material sample or
catalog cut of the proposed special paving material and
color shall be provided for City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
8) The chimney caps shall be painted to match the chimney stack
color.
9) Adequate lighting for the common Open space areas shall be
provided to improve functionality and safety, to the
satisfaction of the Planning Division and Rancho Cucamonga
Police Department.
10) The design and location of the on- and off-street visitor
parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Division prior to the issuance of building permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR VTT 15477 - MATREYEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 3
11) Sectional roll-up garage doors and automatic garage door
openers shall be provided on all models. The specific
designs of the garage doors shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building
permits.
.....~2) Retaining walls shall be composed of decorative masonry
materials and be limited to a maximum hefght of 4 feet.
13) A minimum 5-foot wide landscape area shall be provided
between corner side yard walls and sidewalks along the spine
street.
14) Wood fencing shall be treated with a water sealant.
1) All applicable conditions from the Resolution of Approval
for Vesting Tentative Tract 15477 shall apply.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day
of November 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
APPLICANT:
Those items chewed are Cond~ions of ~proval.
APPLICANTSHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. TIme LImits c..d.,i~,, D.te
1. Approval shall expire. unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are ---J /
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. DevelopmentJDesign Review shall be approved prior to ! / j /
/ o a, Tr= .o.
A~',,~ qV'-~r . iS granted subject to the approval of __/ /
/ 4. Thedeveiopershallcommence participatein andconsummateorcausetobecommenced __/ /
participated n. orconsummate~j, a Melio-Ro~s Community Facilities District (CFD) forthe
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire etalion to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station. the developer shall comply with all
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes __J /
first. the applicant shall consent to. or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District for Ihe construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
Facilities District. the applicant shall. in the alternative. consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes first. Further, it the affected school
district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project. this condition shall be deemed null and void.
Thie condition shall he waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all aitected
school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
impacts as a result of this project.
V/ 6. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is .__/ /
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to tinal map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to issuance
' of permits in the case of all other residential projects. : ·
B. Site Development
V'/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the appmved plans which .--J /
include site plans, architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and
.Specific Plan and
Planned Community.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon. all __/ /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. OccupancyofthefacilltyshallnotcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand ---J /
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
',.//5. Allsite, grading, landscape. irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for .---/ /
consistency pdorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in lhe case ol a custom lot subdivision. or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
L/' 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development / /
Code, all olher applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
~'/ 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and ---/ /
Sherltf's Department (989-6611 ) pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
V/' 8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, alt trash Pick-uP shall be for individual units / /
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations ---J /
and the number ot trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits.
L.// 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as translormers, AC condensers, etc., shall ----/ /-
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, betruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
PT°'¢~I ~'° V "T i9t7.7
Completion Date:
11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with __/ /
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the tinal map.
12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,' .__/ /
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum Slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and / /
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordalton ol the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and constn~ct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. Th~ Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine /..__/
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping ot said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
t/ 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of incorporation Of the / /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
· ~/' 16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained bythe property / /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or J /
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
!he subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordatidn ol the linal map or
~ssuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and / /
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit NO.
· Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark
trees, demolition, reiocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Design
I/ 1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units /..__./
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be
inclucled in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural / /
treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner
review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits.
',/ 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitled for ! .__.J /
Gity Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. All root appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or ---/ /
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buttered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satistaction ol lhe City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and VehiCular Access (indicate details on building plans)
J 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall __/ /
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be J /
provided throughout the.development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
7/ 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, / /
entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
1//. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if ddveways are less than18 feet in ---J /
depth from back of sidewalk.
V/ 5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restdct the storage of recreational vehicles .--J /
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation forthe owner and prohibit
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
~/" 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and / /
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape areas, refer to Section N.)
F/ 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- -.--/ /
ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction harder ---/ /
in accordance with the Mu nicipal Cede Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans.
The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations fortransplanted trees
Shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and tdmming methods.
Y/ 3. Aminimumot ~)" treespergrossacre,comprisedofthefoliowingsizes,shallbeProvided ---J /
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, J.O % - 36- inch bex or larger,
Jd) %- 24- inch box or larger, ~) %-15-galion, and__%-5galion.
4. A minimum of ~l.d) % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - / /
24-inch box or larger.
v//5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for eve W three .__/ /
parking stalls, sulficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
V/6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
7. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 orgreater slope, but less than
2:1 slope, shall be. at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion Control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
8. AIIprivateslopesinexcessofSfeet,butlessthanSfeet inve~icalheightandof2:lorgreater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-ga lion or la~er size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size sh~b per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and app~priate ground cover. In addSion, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 ~. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall ~
planted in staggered clusters to soften and va~ slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be incalied by the developer pr~r to
occupancy.
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu-
ously maintained in a hea~hy and Ihdving conditto n by the developer until each individual un~
is ~ld and occupied by the buyer. Prior to re leasing o~upancy for those un~s, an inspeCan
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in sati~a~o~
condition.
10. For mull-family residential and non-residential developmere, p~pe~ ownera are resin-
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as ~ntiguous
planted areas w~hin the public right-of-way. All la~scaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a hea~hy and thriving ~ndition, and shall receive
regular pruning, feRilizing, ~wing, and trimmi~. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be r~uired per the Development C~e a~/or
. This requirement shall be in addition to the required
sireel trees and slope planting.
12. The final design el the perimeter pa~ways, walls, la~scapi~, and s~ewalks shall be
included in the r~uired la~scape plans a~ shall ~ subje~ to C~y Planner review a~
approval and c~inated for ~nsiste~y with any pa~ay land~aping plan which may ~
required by the E~ineering Divisbn.
13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander-
14. Land~api~ a~ iffigation syste~ required to be installed w~hin the ~blic right-of-way on
the perimeter of this p~j~ area shall be conlinuously maintained by the developer.
1 ~. All walls shall ~ p~vided w~h dearalive treatment. If Iocat~ in public mainrename areas, the design shall be c~rdinated with the E~ineeri~ Division.
16. Tree maintenance cdteri8 shall be devebp~ a~ subm~ed for C~y Planner review a~
a~roval prior to issua~e of ~ildi~ perm~s. These cr~eda shall e~urage the natural
gro~h chara~eri~ics of the seized tree sp~ies.
17. Land~aping and irrigation shall be designed to consere water through the pri~iples of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cu~nga Mun~ipal Code.
F. Signs
~./1. ThesignsindicatedonthesubmittedplansareconceptualonlyandnotaPartofthisaPProval. ---J /
Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
2. A U nitorm Sign Program for this deve Iopment shall be submitted for City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
~/3. Directon~ monument sign(s.),shall. be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes .--/ /
pri01; t~ occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning
Division pdor to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, priorto accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted ---J /
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway / /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
-,// 4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the __/ /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level ol intedor noise
attenuationto below45CNEL, the building matedals and constructiontechniquesprovided,
and if appropriate, verity the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
t,/' 1. EmergencysecondaryaccessshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFire "J /
Protection District Standards.
l/ 2. Emergencyaccessshallbeprovided, maintenancefreeandclear, aminimemo1261eetwide "'/ /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements.
3. Prior to issuance ol building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be / /
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
V/' 4. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and --/ /
location of mail boxes. Muiti-lamily residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all ---/ /.
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department ol
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
life Development
'~/' 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- ---/ /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
V' 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition J. /
to existing u nit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or , J /
addition to an existing development, the applicanl shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such lees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
J 4. Streetaddressessha~~bepr~videdbytheBui~ding~~icia~~aftertract/parce~maprec~rdati~n ._j,. /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances .__/ /
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for ----/ /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shal be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the ~ /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for .__/ /
building permit application.
K. Grading
V/ 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City ---/ /
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
"-/' 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ---/ /
perform such work.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance .__/ /
Permit is required. Please contact San Bernardino County Department of Agriculture at (714)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance ol rough grading permit.
4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submilted at ---J /
the time of application for grading plan check.
5. Thefina~gradingp~anssha~~bec~mp~etedandappr~vedpri~r~~issuance~~bui~dingpormits. .__/ /
,P~9,~x 5;0: VT"T' /fly 7 7
6. As a custom-lot subdivision. the lollowing requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site
drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto ---/-~--/
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site diainage improvements, necessary for alewatering and protecting the subdivided
properties, are to be installed pdor to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety ----/ /
Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses ---J /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicantJdeveioper from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 I of the Development Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, ---/ /
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets ---J /
(measured Irom street centerline):
total feet on
total leer on
total feet on
total feet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made -.-/ /
for all private streets or ddves.
4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streetS: --J /
5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs ----/ /
or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or pdor to the issuance of
SC - 12/93 80[ t2
ProIce No ~/TT/5y 17
CornDlcuon Date:
6. Privatedrainageeasementsforcross-lotdrainageshallbeprovided andshallbe delineated
or noted on the final map. ,.--/ /
__ 7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 1 O-foot minimum building restriction area on the ~ /
neighboring lot adjoining the zero tot line wahl and contain the following language:
"l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the
construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated
on the map as building restriction areas."
A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lit to the adjacent lot, through the
CC&R's.
8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on .~/ /
the final map.
/'/' 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way __/ /
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property.
/ 10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum __J /
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane. a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests .~/ /
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 atsuchtimeastheCityacquiresthepropertyinterestsrequiredfortheimprovements.
Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests requ ired in connection with the subdivision. Secudty
for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developers cost. The appraiser shall have
been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
M. Street Improvements
v/" 1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, __/ /
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to
City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and
gutter, AC pavement. ddve approaches. sidewalks, street lights. and street trees.
2. A m n mum of 26- foot wide pavement within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be ._J /
constructed for all half-section streets.
(//' 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: __/ /
STREET NAME CURe,, A.C. SLOE- DRIVI5 STREET STREET COMM dEDIAN BIKE
Project
Noles: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconsl~ion and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) I1 so marked, side-
4. Improvement plans and constation:
a. Streqt improvement pla~ including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis-
tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and appmved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be ~sted and an agreement executed to the satisfa~ion of the C~ Engineer and
the C~y A~orney guaranteeing compietion of the public an~or pdvate street improve-
ments, priorto final map approval orthe issuance of building perm~s, whichever occurs
fi~t.
b. Prior to any wo~ b~ng pedo~ in public rigger-way, tees shall be paid and a
constation permit shall be obtained from the C~y Engineer's Office in addition to any
olher permits required.
c. Pavement stYping, ma~ing, traffic, street name signing, and interconne~ condu~
shall be installed to the satisfa~ion of the City Engineer.
d. Signalconduitw~hpull~xesshallbeinstalledonanynewco~t~ctionorr~nst~n
of major, seconda~ or ~lle~or ~reets which interse~ w~h other mjor, seconda~ or
colle~or streets for future traffic signals. Pull ~xes shall be placed on ~th s~es of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, EC R or any other ~cations appmv~ by the City E~ineer.
Notes:
(1) All pull ~xes shall be No. 6 unless othe~ise speckled by the C~y Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be install~ on all four comers of inteme~ions per City
Standards or as dire~ed by the C~y Engineer.
f. Existing Ci~ roads requiring constmmion shall retain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during const~ction. A street c~re perm~ may ~ require, A cash
deCsit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded u~n complet~n of the const~ction to the satisfa~ion of the C~y Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage f~ws shall not cross s~ewalks. U~er s~ewalk drains shall ~
installed to C~y Sta~affis, except for single family lots.
h. Handicap a~ess ramp des~n shall be as specitied by the C~ E~ineer.
i. Street names shall ~ approv~ by the Ci~ Planner prior to subm~al for first plan che~.
5. Street improvement plans ~r C~y Standards for all prOate ~reets shall be pmvi~ for
review a~ approval by the C~ Engineer. Prior to any wo~ being pedo~ on the pri-
vate streets, fees shall be paid and const~ct~n pe~s shall be obtained from the C~y
Engineers O~e in addition to any other perm~s required.
6. Street trees, a mini~m ol 15-gallon size or larger, shall be incalied per C~ Standa~s in
ac~rdance w~h the C~y's street tree program.
pr~>J~ct No: P'TT/_.n"z/' 77
7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with c:o,~n~uo, Dace:
adopted policy. __/ /
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, ---/ /
including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight,
Landscaping and other obstructions within the lines of sight shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
b. Local residential street intersections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by ~ /
moving the 2 +/- close st street tree s on each side away from the street and placed in a street
tree easement.
8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any work within the following right-of-way: ---/ /
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete pdor to the ---/ /
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards --.J /
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways,
medians, paseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
2. A signed consent and waiverform to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting ._J /
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pdor to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the ---/ /
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective ----/ /
Beautification Master Plan: 6cL3~/.,.4 ne F~o,,~ I ~ TM I ij.r,e.~/:) Vet, ~_
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood / /
protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
appmved by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone _._/ /
designation removed from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all
necessary repods, plans. and hydrOIogiclhydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
__ 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final --.-/ /
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
prelec~ No.J/'TF'I-:fY 77
4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required lor work within ilsright-ot-way.
__./ /
G// 5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge ol a mature tree trunk. ---J /
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overllows in the event of a ----/ /
blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, .__/ /
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
StandardS. Easements shall be provided as required.
/'//' 2.The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. ___/ /
/ 3.Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the -.--/ /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into '--'-/ /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or ~ /
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, Ion
__./ /
3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created parcels.
4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan / /
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if
no map is involved.
5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: .--J /
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community ..--/ /
Facilities Distdct shall be liled with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the
Developer,
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be com- / /
pieted beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown
on the approved tentative map.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 94-05, A REQUEST
TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATION FROM 15 FEET
TO 8 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE FOR THE CLOSEST VISITOR
PARKING SPACE FROM A DWELLING UNIT FROM A MAXIMUM OF 150 FEET
TO 240 FE'~T~t~OR'~' PROPOSED 153-UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT ON 20.15 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM AND MEDIUM HIGH
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (8-14 AND 14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE,
RESPECTIVELy), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE
ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-691-01.
1. Matreyek Homes has filed an application for the issuance of a Variance
No. 94-05 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject
Variance request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 9th day of November 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. ~a~:
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced hearing on November 9, 1994, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue with a Base Line Road frontage of 902.59
feet and a Milliken Avenue frontage of 1249.2l feet and is presently improved
with curb and gutter along the street frontages; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site consists of railroad
right-of-way and single family homes, the property to the south is developed with
a commercial shopping center, the properties to the east are single family
subdivisions under construction, and the property to the west is vacant; and
c. The site is zoned for Medium and Medium High residential
development by the Victoria Community Plan. A density of 7.6 dwelling units per
acre, more typical of Low-Medium density residential development (detached
dwellings on smaller lots) is proposed; and
pLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 94-05 - MATREYEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 2
d. The variance for the minimum building separation Of 15 feet is
needed to allow side building separations to a minimum of 8 feet in 99 situations
throughout the project; and
e. The 15-foot minimum building separation requirement stems from the
multiple family development standards (Ordinance No. 465) and is intended
specifically for more massive multiple unit buildings where breaking up large
building masses is more critical; and
f. The 10-foot building separation is permitted in lower density
single family residential zones governed by the Development Code, typical of the
proposed density; and
g. In these situations where the units are separated by less then 10
feet, the units have been designed and plotted as to not create any privacy
concerns between units. This issue is not normally required to be addressed
where units are as close as 10 feet apart in single family residential detached
subdivision; and
h. The application contemplates an increase in the required distance
between visitor parking spaces from 150 to approximately 240 feet. The 150 foot
maximum distance between visitor parking and all dwelling units is required per
Development Code Section 17.08.050F; and
i. The proposal includes 81 visitor parking spaces, well in excess of
the 38 spaces required by the Development Code for this application; and
j. Driveways for two cars are available to 19 Of the 25 units in
excess of 150 feet from the closest visitor parking space, thereby mitigating the
visitor parking availability concern for these units; and
k. Staff surveys have found that visitor parking provided at the
minimum ratio of one space per four units are often utilized by residents of the
development that are using their individual garages as storage space. With
visitor parking available well beyond the required ratio, visitors should be able
to find an open visitor parking space more readily and in many cases, closer than
would be normally open in projects where visitor parking is provided at the
minimum ratio.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set
forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this commission hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the Objectives of the Development Code.
b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances of
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 94-05 - MATREyEK HOMES
November 9, 1994
Page 3
c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement Of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district.
d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties
c~a,~sified in the same district.~
e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day
of November 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CH'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 9, 1994
'TO: Chairman ana Member ofthe Planning Commissic;n ·
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-11 - BERTINO - An appeal of the City
Planner's conditions of approval requiring a 25-foot setback on Eighth Street,
dedication of right-of-way for the entry monument, relocatinn of the driveway access,
and undergrounding of utilities serving the site as related to a 770 square foot
addition to an existing automotive repair shop in the General Industrial District
(Subarea 1) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the northwest comer of
Vineyard Avenue and Eighth Street - APN 207-271-33.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Minor Development Review 94-11 was reviewed by the Planning
Commission as an appeal of the City Planner's conditions of approval on October 12, 1994 (see
artached minutes). The applicant's letter of appeal requested modification to Planning Condition
Number 4 and relief from Engineering Condition Numbers 2, 4, and 5 (see attached appeal letter).
Staff has worked with the applicant to reach an acceptable compromise to each item upon the direction
of the Planning Commission.
Staff has met with the applicant and discussed Minor Development Review 94-11. The applicant has
subsequently prepared a new site plan which is attached as Exhibit "B." The Planning Commission
is hereby reviewing and approving the whole MDR application.
Planning Condition No. 4 has been separated into two conditions which will read:
"A 25-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the Eighth Street frontage in front of the auto
repair business. The 6 feet closest to the street shall be landscaped with tuff only since this will be
the ultimate location of the sidewalk. A landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the issuance of any permits. The
landscape plan shall provide trees, tuff and shrubs to be consistent with the landscaping to the west
of the project site along Eighth Street."
and
"A decorative masonry wall shall be provided in the location noted on the approved site plan. The
material and color of the wall shall be consistent with the wall to the west. The height of the wall shall
be at least 5 feet to provide screening from Vineyard Avenue and Eighth Street. Gates which are
provided in the wall to provide access to the auto body business shall also be view obscuring.
Location of the gates shall be as noted on the approvcd site plan."
EERIE
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
MDR 94-11 - BERTINO
November 9, 1994
Page 2
Engineering Coadition No. 2 will now read:
"Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the entry monument at the northwest comer of Vineyard Avenue
and Eighth Street. It shall be 10 feet deep as measured from the back of the existing right-of-way
along a radial line that extends through the tangent intersection."
The 10 foot dimension has been agreed upon by staff and the applicant.
The Engineering conditions regarding undergrounding utilities serving the site and paying for future
undergrounding of the rail road communication lines have been removed. The applicant has revised
his site plan and indicated to staff his intention to reduce the ~quare footage of the building addition.
He has proposed a reduction from 770 square feet to 740 square feet. The square footage of the
addition is now 24.8% of the existing square footage on the parcel. The application is now exempt
through Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96.
The access points as proposed by the applicant on the new site plan are as presented to the Planning
Commission at the October 12, 1994 meeting. The Engineering Condition regarding the driveway
location has been eliminated from the conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the conditions as
revised and approve the MDR application by adopting the attached Resolution of Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:MEP:dlw
Attachments: City Planner Approval Letter
Applicant's Letter of Appeal
Monument Location Plan
Memorandum RE: City Entry Monumentation-Concept Approval
Undergrounding Policy Resolution
Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B" - Site Plan
Draft Minutes of October 12, 1994 Planning Commission Hearing
Resolution of Approval
August 15, 1994
Mr. Charles Bertino
11047 Furman Court
Rancho Cu~amonga, CA .91730
SUBJECT: MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-11
Dear Mr. Bertino:
The Minor Development Review process for the above-described project has
been successfully completed and approval has been granted based upon the
following findings and conditions. Thank you for your participation and
cooperation during this review process.
Findings
1. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The proposed project is in accordance with the objectives of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, the purpose of the district in which
the site is located.
3. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable
thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
4. The proposed project will comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Conditions
This project is approved subject to the following conditions:
Planning
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Comission,
if approved use has not comenced within 24 months from the date of
approval.
2. Prior to any use Of the proposed building expansion, all conditions
of approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City
Planner and City Engineer.
%~o¥or Dent. Is L STOUT Councnmerneer W+lhorn J Aiexonaer
--
Mr. Charles Bert
MDR 94-71
August 15, 1994
Page 2
3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all
sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City
ordinances, and applicable Comunity Plans or Specific Plans in
effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
· ~ 4. The site shall be provided with landscape screening material and a
decorative masonry wall along the 8th Street frontage. A landscape
and irrigation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to installation. Such plan shall be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect. Landscape setback shall be 25 feet
from the face of the ultimate curb location.
5. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water
through the principles of the Xeriscape Ordinance as defined in
Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
6. The portion of the site which is currently gavel shall be paved
with asphaltic concrete.
En~ineerin~ Division
1. An additional 14 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along
8th Street frontage for a total of 44 feet as measured from street
centerline.
2. Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the entry monument at the
northwest comer of Vineyard Avenue and 8th Street to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. A contribution in-lieu of construction for one-half the cost of the
future undergrounding of the railroad comunication lines fronting
the northerly property line shall be deposited with the City prior
to occupancy.
4. The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical)
on the project side of 8th Street shall be undergrounded to the
first pole off-site on the south side of 8th Street, within the City
of Ontario prior to occupancy.
5. The driveway access shall be relocated a minimum of 200 feet west of
the intersection in accordance with the City Driveway Policy
(reference the attached copy).
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate
Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City
Engineer prior to issuance Of building permits. Formation costs
shall be borne by the developer.
Please note that conditions may specify completion of certain plans or
work prior to issuance of building permits.
Mr. Charles Bert_
MDR 94-71
August 15, 1994
Page 3
This decision shall be final following a ten-day appeal period beginning
with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the
Planning Co~ission Secretary, state the reason for the appeal, and be
accompanied by a $62 appeal fee.
If you shoul~ have any questions, please feel free to contact Beverly
Luttrell at (909) 989-1861.
Sincerely,
COmMUNITy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANN IV
ty Planner
BB:BL:m!g
Attachment: Driveway Policy
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANOMGA - ENGINEERING DIVISION
DRIVEMAY POLICY
A. Project Submittals: A map (pla~) to scale shall be provided showing the location of
existing, epproved, and proposed driveways and streets within the vicinity of the
driveways proposed for the project. The required distance offsite will vary with the
project type and location. As a general rule, 600' from the project boundaries will be
sufficient; however, in some cases more or less distance will be required.
8. Arterial Streets 4 lane (64' curb to curb width) or larger:
~. 5pactng (measured between .driveway centerlines):
:~ a; Same stde of street'- 300'.'
b. Opposite side of street align or separate by 300' (preferred) 235'
(minimum). goes not apply to streets WIth medians.
c. Additional service only driveways may be allowed.
d. Foothill 81vd. (east of Haven Ave.) -spactng shall be 660'.
Distance from intersections (measured from BCR to near edge of driveway):
a. Signalized (existing or future) - 200' b. Other - ZOO'
For corner properties, driveways shall be restricted to the smaller side street
whenever possible.
4. Stacking (distance from street face of curb to nearest edge of a parking stall
perpendicular to the drive aisle}:
a, Commercial, servtce, and truck drives - 75' b. Others * 50'
5. Deceleratton lanes for driveways shall be provided as required by the City Engineer.
6. Shared driveways with adjacent properties shall be used where appropriate for the
proposed site or master plan, to meet spactng requirements, or where located near
property lines,
7. Single family residential shall not take direct access.
C. Local ]ndustrtal/Commerctal Streets 2 lane (44' curb to curb width):
Spacing (measured between driveway centerlines)
a. Same side of street - ZSO'.
b. Oppostte stde of street - align or separate by
2Distance from intersections - same as B.2.
3.Stacking - 25'.
4.Shared driveways - same as 8,6.
D. Residential Collectors 2 lane (44' curb to curb width):
Single family residential shall not take direct access. Mhen absoqutely necessary,
provide e circular drive (preferred) or hammerhead to prevent backing into the
street.
2. Driveways for larger projects (other than stngle and duplex residential) shall
conform to Section C above.
3. Thts criteria shall also apply to local residential streets (36' curb to curb) that
act as functional collectors carrying 1500+ ADT (now or in the future).
E. General:
Construct Ortve Approaches in accordance with Standard Drawing Nos. 305 and 306.
Driveways with medians shall have rye 20' wide drtve aisles separated by a ZO' wide
median. The median shall not extend into the public right-of°way.
2. Ortveways and the projected onsite drive aisles shall be perpendicular to the
street.
3. Project site plans shall provide for backing onstte to prevent backtrig from and tnto
public streets, except for single famtly residential fronttrig local residential
streets.
4. Cared entries for residential projects shall conform to the separate 'Residential
Project Cared Entrance Design Guide". Other projects rill require a special design
allowing for vtsitor truck turning.
5. In general, driveways serving corner single family units shall be placed on the
approach versus away street to reduce conflicts between backing out and bltnd right
turn movements, except where approach street is a functional collector. Ortveways
on away streets shall be located 50' mtnimul from the BCR to the near edge or the
maximum distance allowed by the lot size.
6. Nora restrictive requirements than stated harmon may be tmposed on occasion to
insure traffic safety as deemed necessary by the City Engineer.
3/27/90
September 8, 1994
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: MDR 94-11
Dear Sirs:
First please allow me to explain my position concerning the
subject property. I purchased the subject property with the
intention of moving my business, Bertino Automotive Service, to
the site when the lease runs out on the existing location.
My grandfather established the business in this area in 1924 and
at present we have a customer base of over four thousand and
growing. The primary reason for the addition is for storage space
and light mechanical work. I plan on moving the business there
whether or not the addition is approved. I intend to run the
business at the subject property for the next thirty years and
possibly beyond if my son would like to continue with the
business.
I believe that the overall appearance of the property can be
greatly improved and I am ready to make the investment to make
the improvements given the appropriate timetable. I spoke with
Beverly Luttrell in early August and she said the letter of MDR
94-11 findings would be sent to me around the 15th of August. I
did not receive the letter until September 2, 1994. This is the
reason that my appeal is late.
Page 2 Item 4: I have no problem with a decorative masonry wall
along 8th Street frontage or a landscape and irrigation plan.
However, I must appeal the 25 foot setback due to the fact that
this property is already very shallow in depth and combined with
the 14 foor street dedication, I would lose too much usable
space. I can do a 15 foot landscape setback which would allow
enough room for the business to run at its current level. The
loss of the extra space would be a severe hardship. I am
respectfully requesting a variance on the setback code.
Page 2 Item 2: I have no problem with an entry monument as long
as it does not encrouch more than 10 feet on to my property. The
size at which the general plan is drawn would eliminate three
very necessary parking spaces.
Page 2 Item 4: I appeal the undergrounding of the utilities due
to the cost being too high for such a short distance.
Page 2 Item 5: I cannot relocate the driveway access 200 feet
from the intersection because there would be no access to the
restaurant and the property is too narrow for a drive strip
along the front. I depend on the restaurant income to pay
property,expenses. I can, however, move the auto ~hop driveway
west which would result in two driveways. I am respectfully
requesting a variance on the driveway policy.
Owner
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
~ .~.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 24, 1989'
.. . , : ...... . _ ~ .. _ |977
Mayor, Members of the City Council a Cit Manager
TO:
FROM: Russell H. Maguire, City Engine
BY: Laura Bonaccorsi, Landscape Designer
SUBJECT: City Entry Monumentation - Concept approval
On January 9, 1989 the City Council sub-con~ittee appointed to review
City entry Monumentation concepts mot with City staff and the Planning
Con~ission sub-conmnittee appointed for the samo purpose. After review
and discussion the Council sub-committee approved the attached Entry
Monumont sign program. The approved concepts are based on the concepts
forwarded by the Planning Con~isston sub-committee which were modified to
moet budget constraints.
The Engineering Division is proceeding with these concepts to the
construction documont phase in anticipation of having the two major
gateways out to bid in late Spring.
Full size colored plans, along with material and letter samples are
available at City Hall should anyone wish to review the concepts in more
detail.
Any questions regarding the monumonts should be directed to Laura
Bonaccorsi in the Engineering Division.
RHM:LB:dlw
cc: Planning Comisstoners
Brad Bullet
John Martin
RESOLUTION NO. 87-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
P~ANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A REVISED POLICY FOR THE
UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 86-77
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
wishes to repeal Resolution No. 86-77 which was adopted on the 28th day of
May, 1986 and establish the revised policy contained herein;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
wishes to remove unsightly existing overhead utility lines in order to promote
a more aesthetic and desirable working and living environment within the City;
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish a policy to inform property
owners and developers of the City goal.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and established t'hat all developments,
except those contained in Section 7 and any others sPecifically waived by the
Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing
overhead utility lines including the removal of the related supporting poles
adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows:
1. ,Lines on the project side of the street*:
a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the develoPer,s expense.
b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that
undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as a short
length of undergrounding {less than 300 feet and not undergrounded
adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users,
disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an
in-lieu fee for the full ~nount Per Section 6.
c. The Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost
of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on the
opposite side of the street.
2. Lines on the opposite side of the street from the project: The Developer
shall pay a fee to the City for one-half the amount per SeCtion 6.
3. Lines on both sides of the street: The DeveloPer shall comply with
Section 1 above and be eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees
so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one-half the total cost of
undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street.
4. Pole lines containin 66KV or larger electrical lines: All lines shall be
undergrounded or in-~ieu fees paid in accordance with section l, 2 or 3,
above, except for 66 KV or larger electrical lines.
5. Limits of Responsibilities:
a. In-lieu fees shall be based upon the length of the property being
developed from property line to property line {the center of adjacent
streets for corner properties).
b. Undergrounding shall include the entire project frontage and extend
to: {1)~the first existing pole ~ffrsite f. rom the project boundaries
{across the street for corner properties), {2} a new pole erected at a
project boundary {across the street for corner properties), or (3} an
existing pole within 5 feet of a project boundary, except at a corner.
6. Fee Amount: The amount for in-lieu fees shall equal the length (per
Section 5. a) times the unit amount as established by the City Council
based upon information supplied by the utility companies and as updated
peri odi cal ly as deemed necessary.
7. Exemptions: The following types of projects shall be exempt from this
pol icy:
a. The addition of functional equipment to existi,ng developments, such
as: loading docks, silos, satellite dishes, antennas, water tanks, air
conditioners, cooling towers, enclosure of an outdoor storage area,
parking and loading areas, block walls and fences, etc.
b. Building additions or new free standing buildings of less than 25% of
the floor area of the existing building(s) on the same assessor's
parcel, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less.
c. Exterior upgrading or repair of existing developments, such as:
reroofing, addition of trellis, awnings, landscaping, equipment
screening, repainting and exterior finishes, etc.
d. Interior tenant improvements and non-construction CUPs.
e. The construction of a single family residence on an existing parcel.
f. Existing overhead utility lines located in trails, alleys, and utility
easements with a heavy concentration of services to adjacent
developments, and the utility lines are 500' or more from the right of
way .line of a Special Boulevard.
g. Residential subdivisions of four or fewer single f~nily residential
parcels, where the utility lines extend at least 600' offsite from
both the project boundaries and the adjacent property is not likely to
contribute to future undergrounding.
* All references to streets shall also mean alleys, railroad or channel
rights-of-way, etc.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS lOth DAY OF J~E 1987.
ATT~..y v. ' ' ' r
/~~ 5ec etary
I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Cm~,tssion of the City of
Rancho Cucanmnga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning C,,m, lSsion of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Conmnission held
on the 10 day of June, 1987, by the following vote-to-wit.-
AYES: CORRISSIONERS.. ERERICK, CHITIEA, RCNIEL
NOES .' COf(4ISSIOIERS .. TOLSTOY
ABSENT.' CORMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN': CO)ISSIONERS.. BLAKESLEY
--8 fh STREET' i
c~TY OF ON'FA~tC~
N
CITY OF rr~
RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trr~~
ENGINEEEING DIVISION ~r~r~l,p:. ~
Chairman Barker hated to slow down the process when there are no problems ~
Commissioner McNiel commented that developments on the hillsides have always
been a source of problems because the vast majority ~pplicants want to
severely grade the lot and build a large home. He,~Yd there have problems
even with the existence of the ordinance. _,,~,~,
Commissioner Lu~pp felt all projects shoul8'go to Design Review.
Motion:: Moved by McNiel, sec~n~ by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
recommending approval of Dev~t6~ment Code Amendment 94-05 as written. Motion
carried by the following ~'~:
NEW BUSINESS
B, MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-11 - BERTINO - An appeal of the City Planner's
conditions of approva~ requirin~ a 25-foot setback on Eighth Street,
dedication of right-of-way for the entry monument, revocation of the
driveway access, and undergrounding of utilities servinq the site as
related to a 770 square foot addition to an existing automotive repair
shop in the General Industrial Distr~ct (Subarea ~) of the Industrial ~rea
Specific Plan, located on the northwest corner of V~neyard ~venue and
Eighth Street - APN: 207-271-33.
Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer, preeented the staff report.
Commissioner HcNiel thought there had been a variance for other properties
along 8th Stree~ because of the narrow depth of the lots. He aeked if other
parcels along 8th Street have a 25-foot setback.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, replied the standards call for a minimum of 25 feet
and an average of 35 feet of landscaping along the boulevard but ~he pro~ects
~mmediate~y to ~he west were granted a variance to a~low a 25-foot setback.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the addition has already been buil~.
Ms. Perez responded affirmatively.
Commieeioner Melcher asked if the eetback was from the right-of-way ~ine or
from the curb.
Mr. Bu~ler replied it is from the ultimate face of curb.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 12, 1994
r-.~-.~.~-~
L_ ~'.,-,,." ~
Commissioner Melcher asked what impact that would have on development of the
property.
Mr. Bullet replied that the applicant contends that any setback impacts the
property and would like as little of a setback as possible.
Commissioner Melcher noted that there are small concrete block businesses
elsewhere on 8th Street that seem to share a driveway between businesses with
rather nice landscaping. 'He asked if those properties are deeper between the
railroad and the street right of way.
Mr. Bullet responded those properties have a 25-foot setback and were granted
a variance from the standard 35-foot setback.
Commissioner Tolstoy noted that those properties were built after the
landscaping was planned and were not preexisting when the condition was
imposed.
Mr. Buller confirmed it had been vacant ground when the project was built.
Commissioner Melcher felt it is possible to develop on the street and have it
be rather attractive from the street. He did not understand the applicant's
objection to the condition.
Chairman Barker invited public comment.
Charles Bertino, 11047 Furman Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the property is
very narrow in depth and the buildings already exist. Be said the property
next to him was able to design their buildings to fit the narrow property but
he could not afford to tear everything down and do a major development. He
did not think it would be feasible to develop the property with the landscape
setbacks which are required. Be showed a drawing of the landscape setback and
monument size requested by the City. Me did not feel the property is long
enough to move the driveway 200 feet west of the intersection. He said he
would lose too much parking space and vehicles would have to back out and turn
around in the shop area with the proposed design. Be stated that would take
up over 41 percent of the property including 14 feet for the street
improvements and 25 feet for the landscape setback. Be indicated the biggest
problem with moving the driveway to the west, would be that he could not
secure his automotive service business with a fenced yard. He said the
restaurant customers would also have to park too far from the restaurant. He
felt the parking at the corner is just large enough for the restaurant
business. He showed another plan with a 15-foot landscape setback, a
downsized monument, a driveway 30 feet from the beginning of the curb return
(BCR), and a second driveway to the west. He said that would allow a wall and
landscaping and fencing off of the shop area to provide security. He felt the
property on the north side across the street had not developed because of the
setback requirement. Me said the addition had been only .8 of a percent over
the 25 percent trigger point to require the undergrounding and he thought
perhaps he could do the undergrounding Over a 3 to 5 year timetable. Me
stated he had spoken with Dan James, who said the parking would not be lost
because the City does not currently have the money to construct the
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 12, 1994
monument. He said it would cost him approximately $1,000 to dedicate a part
of the property to the City. He observed he is also being requested to pay an
in-lieu fee of over $7,000 for future undergrounding of the railroad
communication lines along the north property line and he would have to borrow
all of the money to do any improvements.
Commissioner Lumpp asked why the conditions were applied since the building
already exists.
Mr. Bertino stated the building was there when he bought the property and when
he was in the process of reroofing, an inspector came by and discovered that
the addition had been built without a permit. Be said he then applied for a
permit because he was told he would have to tear down the addition if he did
not apply for a permit and pay the fees. He questioned if there would be
permits on any of the buildings since they were built before the city was
incorporated.
Commissioner Melcher asked when Mr. Sertino had purchased the property.
Mr. Bertino replied he bought it in 1989 and had been leasing it out since
then. Be said he planned to move his automotive business to the property as
soon as his lease expires at his present location.
Commissioner Melcher asked if there is a need for a permit for reroofing.
Chairman Barker replied there is. He asked when the building addition was
constructed.
Mr. Bertino said it was probably built a few years before he bought the
property in 1989.
commissioner Lumpp noted that the applicant has a right to apply for a
variance from the 25-foot landscape setback requirement. He thought there was
not much the Commission could do about that.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the current tenant would take all of the parked
vehicles when he moves.
Mr. Bertino replied that he will and that the current tenant runs his business
differently from the way he runs his business. He said the current business
is run like a wrecking yard. He said all of the junk would be cleared out,
there will be nice landscaping, and a decorative wall will be built when his
current lease runs out in a year.
Commissioner Melcher felt the parking situation at the restaurant on the
corner is not good and is very difficult to access and park.
Chairman Barker agreed it is hard to get in and out of the restaurant.
Mr. Bertino noted that the driveway for the restaurant is right at the BCR and
he was proposing to move it down 30 feet. He acknowledged that was not the
distance the City wants the driveway moved but said it would work for him.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 12, 1994
Commissioner Lumpp asked the applicant's proposal regarding the monument sign.
Mr. Bertino proposed reducing the amount of dedication, which would require a
reduction in the size of the sign.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Bertino was offering some dedication of land
with a reduced monument size.
Mr. Bertino responded he was offering a reduced dedication for the monument.
He noted the full size ~onu~ent plan calls for 22 feet deep from the inside of
the sidewalk curb and 54 feet across; he proposed 10 feet deep and
approximately 30 feet across. Be said the smaller dedication would allow two
more parking spaces.
Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that it is difficult to develop lots with such a
narrow depth and he noted that the buildings are already there. Me expressed
support for a landscape variance if one is requested.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed.
Commissioner McNiel stated his heart went out to the applicant and he
acknowledged the situation is awkward. He noted the applicant had improved
the restaurant. He asked if all parking requirements would be met with the
conditions as imposed by staff.
Mr. Bullet did not believe that parking had been reviewed. He said that the
parking does not have to be removed if the monument sign area is dedicated
because the sign will not be built at present. Me thought the project on the
opposite side of Vineyard may have received a variance reducing the dedication
down to 16 feet of landscape frontage along 8th Street. He thought that if
that is correct, there may be grounds for approving a variance on this side
because of the uniqueness of being an existing, non-conforming site
development.
Commissioner McNiel stated he could agreed.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed.
Commissioner Melcher preferred to try to negotiate an agreement with the
property owner so that over time the uses would be allowed to expire so that
when the property is redeveloped, it could be redeveloped consistent with the
remainder of the neighborhood. He thought that the city should not try to
exact thousands of dollars worth of improvements after the business had been
in existence for over 5 years.
Chairman Barker thought that Planning Condition No. 4 could be addressed by a
variance. He asked the Commissioners to address Engineering Condition No. 2
regarding the entry monument dedication.
Commissioner McNiel asked if the entry monument has been designed.
Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 12, 1994
Mr. Buller replied that the concepts have been designed. He said the project
On the east side of Vineyard provided dedication. He did not feel staff would
be in favor of reducing the size if the full size was dedicated on the east
side of the street. Me noted the City is not asking that the monument be
installed at this time, so the parking would not be reduced. He thought a
compromise could be worked out regarding the interim landscaping prior to
installation of the monument sign. ~
Commissioner Melcher noted that if the property is dedicated, it would then be
City property. He asked if the City would be accepting potential liability by
allowing parking in that area.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the property would not be
dedicated at this time, it would merely be an offer to dedicate and would be
perfected in the future, which would not increase the City's liability.
However, he noted that when the City does take possession and the monument is
installed, the parking would be replaced and he thought the problem should be
addressed now.
commissioner Lumpp asked if the physical structure of the monument sign is 22
feet deep and 50 feet long, or if that would include landscaping area.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, replied that there is typically room for
landscaping surrounding the monument signs.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the City could work with the applicant to reduce
the dedication to the physical limits of the actual sign.
Mr. Bullet stated that all of the various hierarchy of monument signs had been
designed in concept.
Mr. James said staff could look at it in more detail. He said that typically
the sign itself is toward the back Of the dedication with landscaping in front
and the length of the sign governs the easement width.
Mr. Hanson noted that the monument signs were adopted by policy, not an
ordinance.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if the applicant will have to pay for the sign.
Mr. James replied the condition as written only requires a dedication. Me
said that if the site is completely redeveloped, then further conditions would
be applied which could include installing the monument. Me noted that the
condition as written does not specify the size of the monument dedication. He
suggested staff could look at that during the plan check review process at the
direction of the Planning Commission.
commissioner McNiel felt the setback should be comparable to that on the other
side of the street. Me acknowledged that all Of the 22 feet may not
necessarily be used, but he felt the offer Of dedication should be the same
and the City could reduce the dedication if it is found that not all of the 22
Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 12, 1994
feet is needed. He said in the meantime, the applicant would have an
opportunity to use the land.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the Planning Commission participated in the
development of the monumentation policy.
Mr. Bullet responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the entry~ monumentation map shows an
assortment of sizes. He asked if the Commissioners had considered the
relationship of the monuments to the railroad tracks and the resulting
constrained location. He suggested a different design, such as the one on
Base Line Road at the west entrance to the City, might be more appropriate and
would take up considerably less space.
commissioner McNiel responded that the Commission had considered the various
entrances to the City. He stated he was not opposed to reconsidering the size
of the monument sign. He acknowledged that perhaps the entire 22 feet would
not need to be consumed, but he felt the city should protect itself and
request the dedication. He said the Commission had looked at entrances to the
community with respect to the monuments and laid out a general overview as to
what the monuments might be. He said a hierarchy was established, but not
every entrance to the community was measured to see what might fit based on
existing conditions.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that the corner of 8th Street and Vineyard is a
special case because of the railroad tracks and because the business has been
there for a long time. He thought it would be best not to require the 22 feet
at this time. He felt the size of the monument should be reduced because Of
the size of the property, the position of the railroad tracks, and the scale
Of the building. He suggested that the City work with the applicant to
determine what would be a reasonable size dedication which would allow the
applicant to accommodate the necessary parking. He thought the monument sign
could be redesigned to better fit the property. He felt the scale of any
buildings on that corner will be small, and the monument size could therefore
be reduced.
Commissioner Melcher agreed with Commissioner McNiel that this intersection
was designated to get a monument similar to those at several other places in
the City; such as 4th and Etiwanda, Miller at East, and Arrow and Grove.
Commissioner Tolstoy pointed out that those intersections have larger
properties and do not have the nearby railroad tracks.
Commissioner Melcher agreed but felt it would be worth looking at the concept
sketches once again to see if there may be a way to uniformly change them so
that the hierarchy concept could be preserved. He suggested that whatever is
granted in this case could become the standard for the other intersections.
Chairman Barker felt the design of the monument should relate more to the size
of the expected buildings. He thought it may only be required that the size
Planning Commission Minutes -9- October 12, 1994
DRAFT
l
be reduced in this location, but he agreed it could be looked at for all
locations.
Commissioner Eumpp agreed with CommiSsioner Tolstoy. He stated there are
currently at least three different entry monument designs in the City and he
was not sure they need to be uniform.
Chairman Barker noted that Commissioner Tolstoy did not indicate an exact
amount of land, while Commissioners McNiel and Eelchef thought the dedication
should be for the 22 feet.
Commissioner McNiel stated the hierarchy of entry monuments into the community
was based On the significance Of the entrance to the community with Milliken,
Haven, and Archibald being the three main entrances. He said the other
monuments were then reduced in size by hierarchy down to the size for the
entrance from Upland on Base Line Road. He felt that Vineyard Avenue is a
significant entrance to the community and therefore was given this particular
size.
Chairman Barker agreed the City should get the 22 feet but he felt the City
should meet with the applicant to make it work. He asked for comments
regarding undergrounding.
Commissioner Lumpp suggested the applicant evaluate the cost of undergrounding
the utilities and weigh it against removal of 25 square feet from his building
so that the addition would be less than 25 percent and would thus not trigger
the undergrounding requirement.
Commissioner McNiel acknowledged the site is small and he felt there was a
legitimate complaint regarding the cost of undergrounding the utilities;
however, he noted the policy of the City is to underground as frequently as
possible. Me supported requiring the undergrounding but preferred that the
city negotiate a timeframe which would be acceptable to the applicant.
Commissioner Tolstoy also supported the undergrounding and suggested that the
applicant be permitted to make the improvements over a period of time.
Commissioner Melcher noted the addition was built more than 5 years ago and
contains a number of square feet that is slightly in excess of the 25 percent
that could have been built without triggering the requirement. He commented
that in 1981 priorities were set for the use of the fees paid by Southern
California Edison towards undergrounding On a street-by-street basis, but the
City Council recently decided to change those priorities and use the money
elsewhere. He therefore saw no reason why the Planning Commission should not
be willing to overlook this policy in that it is only an .8 percent
variance. Me agreed with Commissioner Lumpp.
Chairman Barker stated he agreed with Commissioners McNiel and Tolstoy that
the undergrounding should be required, but a reasonable length Of time should
be permitted to accomplish the undergrounding. He asked for comments
regarding Engineering Condition No. 5 requiring that the driveway access be
moved a minimum of 200 feet from the intersection.
Planning Commission Minutes -10- October 12, 1994
~.~.~. .~
DISCUSSION PU 'OS S
Commissioner Lumpp noted that it is a standard requirement and he understood
why it is a requirement. He also observed that it is an existing property
with certain limitations. He was not sure the 200-foot requirement could be
met.
Commissioner McNiel asked the length of the property.
Mr. Ja~s replied it is 216 feet from the BCR. He acknowledged the 200-foot
requirement could not be met, but stated the intent of the condition would be
to move the driveway as far west as possible.
commissioner Lumpp noted that when Mr. Bertino moves his business into the
facility, there will be two different uses on the property with the applicant
wishing to fence the automobile shop. He noted that if the applicant is
required to eliminate the driveway into the restaurant and only have one
driveway, he would not be allowed to secure the automotive business. Me
coramented that the applicant had expressed a willingness to move the driveway
for the restaurant westerly from the BCR and install a second driveway to the
west and he thought that was the best that could be done on this property.
Commissioner McNiel noted that the 200-foot setback from BCR is for safety
purposes. He felt that the current driveway is unsafe. He said driveways
have been moved on other projects and houses have even been moved so that
driveway entrances would be on the more visible side of an intersection. He
felt that unfortunately a driveway in the location desired by staff would not
best serve the two businesses, but it would eliminate the existing unsafe
condition. Me supported the intent of staff's proposal.
Coramissioner Tolstoy supported allowing two driveways because the corner is
signalized and cars would be able to safely exit the driveway when the signal
is red. He favored moving the driveway for the restaurant as far to the west
as possible.
Commissioner Melcher agreed that Commissioner McNiel was correct about the
intent but he noted that it would work a serious hardship On the automobile
repair business because it would make it impossible to secure the yard. He
felt the applicant'e plan is a reasonable alternative for the interim period
of time. He thought it important to gain control over the use of the property
on a longer basis so that it can be brought into full conformance at the time
of redevelopment.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt that when the property is redeveloped, additional
conditions could be applied to adjust the driveway.
Chairman Barker felt that moving the driveway to the west end of the property
would not only create a hardship for the automotive repair business, but would
effectively eliminate the restaurant business. He supported two driveways.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the applicant had also discussed
undergrounding on the railroad right-of-way but that issue had not been
mentioned in the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- October 12, 1994
Mr. James stated the issue had not been discussed in the staff report because
the letter of appeal did not mention that condition.
Mr. Bullet suggested the matter be continued to allow staff to work with the
applicant on the design presented this evening and the direction given by the
Commission. Be noted that staff had not previously seen the proposal and
suggested that the application may then be amended.
commissioner Melcher suggested staff and the applicant work on the project.
chairman Barker and Commissioner Lumpp agreed.
Conunissioner McNiel agreed and felt the commission had established direction
that could be followed.
Mr. Buller requested clarification on the time schedule the Commission would
like for undergrounding.
Chairman Barker noted the applicant had mentioned a 3 to 5 year time frame.
Be noted the Commission had expressed support for a variance for Planning
Condition No. 4 and had indicated 3-2 support in favor of a 22-foot dedication
for the monument, 3-2 support in favor of undergrounding, and 4-1 support in
favor of moving the existing driveway further west and allowing a secondary
driveway at the western end of the property. Be asked Mr. Bertino if he was
willing to review the matter fur=her with staff.
Mr. Bertino said he would prefer a decLsion tonight.
Chairman Barker said that the applicant would still have to work with staff on
the design.
Mr. Bertino feared the area dedicated for the monument would be increased over
the downsized monument plan he had shown.
Chairman Barker said the feeling of the Commission was that there could be
findings to support an application for a variance regarding the landscaping
and that the monument dedication would be required, but that it could be less
than 22 feet.
commissioner McNiel noted that in the interim the lend could be used for
parking. He said that in all probability, the amount would be less than the
25 feet.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt Mr. Bertino should know what the actual conditions
will be and his working with staff would establish a better understanding. He
urged Mr. Bertino to allow the matter to be continued eo that he could work
with staff.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the only resolution before the Commission was
a resolution of denial of the appeal and the commission could therefore not
act this evening to approve any part of the appeal.
Planning Commission Minutes -12- October 12, 1994
Mr. Bullet suggested that staff and the applicant meet and return with a
resolution at the November 9 meeting.
Mr. Bertino agreed to the continuance.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to continue Minor Development
Review 94-11 to November 9, 1994. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCBER, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried
Commissioner Melcher commented that if a variance is to be granted, it should
take into consideration if any variances have been granted to the east and
west and should have some sort of a life span that it be tied to the remaining
life of this project so that when the property is redevelopmd, it not
necessarily go along with the redevelopment.
Mr. Hanson stated that although variances run with the land, they are unique
as to the specifics as to why a variance is granted. He said that uses may
change which would negate the reasoning for the variance.
DIRECTORS R~ TS
C. TOWN CENTER S~RE UNIFORM SIGN PROGPJ%M - WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CO.
Nancy Fong, Senior Pla'~nnn&kpresented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher questi~A~d the approximate number of
development. "~ square feet of the
Ms. Fong replied it will be approximately 222,000 square feet.
Chairman Barker invited public comment.
Chuck Beechef, Project Manager, Western Dev~'[ol~nent Company, 1156 North
Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they agreed to ~n~.~tting the 4-foot high
trademark on the free standing pad signs and fel~;~hey can design the
project/tenant monument sign to allow approximately 2 fea%~of landscaping in
front of and behind the sign on the median. He felt that pedestrian signs are
normally for smaller tenant spaces where there is a lot of pe ~s%{ traffic
iand
and this center would have a lot of big box, destination tenantS% He said
they would like the ability to do pedestrian signs in the future,~t they
preferred that be an option rather than a requirement. Mr. Beecher
they had provided staff with an elevation depicting the Best Buy sign
Planning commission Minutes -13- October 12, 1994
"' :~' DISCUS~!C~4 Ptrmp~S~S OrqhY
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING MINOR DEVELOPMET REVIEW 94-11 AS RELATED TO A 740
SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP IN THE GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF VINEYARD
AVENUE AND EIGHTH STREET - APN: 207-271-33
A. Recitals.
1. On August 15, 1994, the City Planner conditionally approved Minor
Development Review 94-11.
2. On September 8, 1994, an appeal was filed by Charles Bertino requesting
modification to a condition requiring a 25-foot setback on Eighth Street and
relief from the conditions requiring dedication of right-of-way for the entry
monument, relocation of the driveway access, and undergroundinG of utilities
serving the site.
3. On October 12, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and directed staff to work with
the applicant to return for their consideration with an acceptable compromise.
4. On November 9, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on
that date.
5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Resolution have occurred.
B. ~
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning
Cor~nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth
in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this commission during the
above-referenced meeting on November 9, 1994, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the northwest corner
of Vineyard Avenue and Eighth Street with street frontages of 104 feet along
Vineyard Avenue and 243 feet along Eighth Street. The property is currently
developed with an auto repair shop and a restaurant; and
b. The properties to the north, east, and west of the subject site are
designated for industrial use. The property to the west is an existing
automotive repair business. The property to the east is vacant. The property
to the south is a residential development within the City of Ontario.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
MDR 94-11 - BERTINO
November 9, 1994
Page 2
c. The 740 square foot addition to the auto repair shop is consistent
with the General Industrial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and
the General Plan; and
d. The application, together with the attached conditions of approval,
will comply with all applicable standards of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
and the Development Code.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of the facts set
forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the
General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the
Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located;
and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code; and
d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable
thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
and 3 above, this Corm~ission hereby approves the application subject to each and
every condition set forth below.
Engineerina Division
1) An additional 14 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along
the Eighth Street frontage for a total of 44 feet as measured
from street centerline.
2) Right-of-way shall be dedicated for the entry monument at the
northwest corner of Vineyard Avenue and Eighth Street. It
shall be 10 feet deep as measured from the back of the existing
right-of-way along a radial line that extends through the
tangent intersection.
3) A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the
appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed
with the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building
permits. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
Planning Division
1) A 25-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the Eighth
Street frontage in front of the auto repair business. The 6
feet closest to the street shall be landscaped with turf only,
since this will be the ultimate location of the sidewalk. A
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
MDR 94-11 - BERTINO
November 9, 1994
Page 3
landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the
issuance of any permits. The landscape plan shall provide
trees, turf, and shrubs to be consistent with the landscaping
to the west of the project site along Eighth Street.
2) Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water
through the principles of the Xeriscape Ordinance as defined
in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. The
plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
3) A decorative masonry wall shall be provided in the location
noted on the approved site plan. The material and color of the
wall shall be consistent with the wall to the west. The height
of the wall shall be at least 5 feet to provide screening from
Vineyard Avenue and Eighth Street. Gates which are provided
in the wall to provide access to the auto body business shall
also be view obscuring. Location of the gates shall be as
noted on the approved site plan.
4) The portion of the site which is currently gravel shall be
paved with asphaltic concrete.
5) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all
sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City
ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific Plans
in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
6) Prior to any use of the proposed building expansion, all
conditions of approval shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the City Planner and City Engineer.
7) A revised site plan indicating the proposed reduction in square
footage Of the building addition shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
8) Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Comission, if approved use has not commenced within 24 months
from the date of approval.
5. The Secretary of this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
MDR 94-11 - BERTINO
November 9, 1994
Page 4
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad ~uller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day
of November 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: