Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/05/13 - Agenda Packet CITY OF t- RANCI-E) CUCA~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - 1977 WEDNESDAY FAY 13, 1992 7: 00 P .M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. Pledge of Allegiance II. Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Vallette Commissioner Melcher III. Announcements IV. Approval of Minutes April 8, 1992 V. 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. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 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 42 and 227-681-01 through ° 87. B. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11738 - HERMOSA/ALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. (NORDIC) - A subdivision of 2.48 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street - APN: 1074-051-04. C. TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-42 - PITASSI DALMAU - A request to develop a 45,150 square foot YMCA facility on 4.83 acres of land within the Recreational Commercial District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, north of Church Street - APN: 227-151-13. VI. 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. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11640 AND THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO MOUNTAINVIEW DRIVE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY EAST - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 9.8 net acre parcel for the development of an elementary school in the Elementary School Development District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway East and Mountainview Drive - APN: 227-151-14. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related project Development Review 92-02. (Continued from April 22, 1992.) E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-13 - TOMMY WONG AND AHSAN HABIB - A request to establish a 1,170 square foot office for a professional/design service within an existing industrial park on 7.38 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10700 Jersey Boulevard, Suite 105 - APN: 209-144-83. F. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 92-01 - ROSE'S CAFFE LUNA - A request to conduct live music and poetry readings in conjunction with a restaurant/ coffee bar within the existing Virginia Dare Winery in the General Commercial District, located at 8038 Haven Avenue, Suite C - APN: 1077-661-03. VII. New Business G. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-16 - ALLEN - The development of a single family house totaling 3,573 square feet on 0.161 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7712 Valle Vista Drive - APN: 207-061-28. VIII. Commission Business H. ROUTE 30 UPDATE - (Oral report) I. DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES - (Oral report) IX. 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. X. 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 CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 13, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753 - LEWIS HOMES - The design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 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 42 and 227-681-01 through 87. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of building elevations, site plan and conceptual landscape plan. B. Project Density: 5.1 dwelling units per acre C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single Family Residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Vacant; Low Medium Residential; (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant; Park Site West - Vacant; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Medium Residential North - Low Medium Residential South - Low Medium Residential East - Low Medium Residential West - Low Medium Residential E. Site Characteristics: The entire site has been rough graded and side yard retaining walls and perimeter walls constructed per the previously approved design review on this site. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 3 percent. ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 13753 - LEWIS HOMES May 13, 1992 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. Background: On January 27, 1988, the Planning Corm~ission reviewed and approved Tentative Tract 13753, including conceptual grading and the subdivision design. The design review for this tract, which included a detailed site plan and building elevations, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 1990. This Design Review application included four floor plans with three elevations each ranging in size from 2,605 to 3,175 square feet- B. General: The new property owner (Lewis Homes) is proposing to, develop this subdivision with different house products than those previously approved for this tract. All of the two-story products have been constructed within the Rosecrest project in the Terra Vista Planned Community. The applicant is proposing to build these homes because the Rosecrest models are selling relatively well given the current economic conditions. In addition, the applicant is proposing to introduce a one-story model to address streetscape issues mentioned during the recent processing of similar small lot projects- The new models range in size from 1,623 to 2,369 square feet on lots that average 6,750 square feet. All models have two-car garages that front-on to the local streets- In addition, 34 of the 129 lots have recreational vehicle storage access to the side and rear yards. C. Issues: The primary issue for the Planning Commission to consider in conjunction with this project is the side yard separation between units. The proposed models were originally designed for the "wide-shallow" lots within the Rosecrest tract where lots have typical dimensions of 50 feet by 70 feet · The recorded lots associated with the project are typically 55 feet by 120 feet, slightly wider and much deeper than lots in Rosecrest. The majority of the units are plotted with side yard building separations of 15 feet or greater on the north/south cul-de-sac lots. However, along the south side of Candela Drive, a majority of homes are plotted with 10-foot minimum si de yard building separations- Technically, the 5-foot side yard setbacks meet the minimum setbeck requirements for this tract since a product prototype was approved with the tentative map indicating 5-foot minimum side yard setbacks on beth sides. However, since that time, the Victoria Community Plan has been amended to require 5- and 10-foot minimum side yard setbacks. Practically, the only way to increase building separations along Candela Drive would be to eliminate one lot- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 13753 - LEWIS HOMES May 13, 1992 Page 3 D. Pre-Application Review Workshop: On March 19, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed conceptual site plans and streetscape elevations for the proposed project. The con~nents forwarded to the applicant during the workshop were incorporated into the formal plans for review of the Planning Commission. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission Minutes from this workshop (See Exhibit "F") for issues specifically mentioned during that meeting. E. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Tolstoy, Vallette, Coleman) will review the project on May 7, 1992. Staff will provide a detailed oral update of the Committee's comments and. conditions at the Planning Commission meeting and incorporate all applicable conditions into the Resolution of Approval for discussion that evening. This "fast track" process was requested by the applicant because of deadlines imposed by the bank for sale of the property. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the Victoria Planned Community and the General Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed uses are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Victoria Community Plan, the Development Code, and City Standards. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for Tract 13753 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and any new conditions as forwarded by the Design Review Committee. BB:SH:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations Exhibit "E" - Streetscape Elevations Exhibit "F" - Planning Commission Minutes Resolution of Approval with Conditions ~',H~rj/7 "c-r" V:NVO~nV rUg~.'ON DV'a.L -;~".'.-.j.":-.'E-.'%C--'.,~-~:.-,~:-.~..C-~.=',',--',E-, .e~d , i~i il't'JNOlfiV'Jfi3 OH3NVl:I SNOtLv^aqa J. NOU., J |;' · - i:~ ~ z w. ...17 I-i ~T~NOI~N~) OH:DNV! let, .~ NYqd ENOLLV/Lq'T.J .Z, NOIbl I ¢: > ,,I=, I--,' z:- 0i WN"O',q'qV eSLr., 'ON .,L,OVI=LL ........t'~; ............... . ! .~ i 'VDNOIN~)rlQ OH:)NVI:I Nvqd $NOIlVA]'I*= J !:!~-'- , ,:, ... i%!1 .?. ';" # iii~ii ,1 ...'~k , , ;;:,,; , ajija] · :-. . a,' a*,,' q ,,, Z 0 0 w 't :. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 19, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning COmmission to order at 8:35 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Larry McNlel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT ~ Suzanne Chitiea STAFF PRESENT: Nanerrs Bhaumik, Assistant Landscape Designer~ Brad Buller, City Planners Dan Coleman, Principal Planners Artthee Herrig, Associate Planners Steve Hayes, Associate Planner~ Otto Kroutll, Deputy City Planner~ Betty Miller, Associate Civil Engineer~ Scott Murphy, Associate Planners Beverly Nlssen, Associate Planner. OWNER/DEVELOPER PRESENT: Don Thompson, Jaz7 Cockroft, George Chu, Ernie Parilla~ Lewis Homes PRE- APPLICATION REVIEW 92-01 (DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13753] - LEWIS HOMES - Review of conceptual site planning and housing product within a recorded subdivision within the Victoria Planned Community. Brad Bullet, City Planner, opened the workshop by explaining the purpose of the new pre-application review process and the history of its formation. He then outlined the presentation procedures for the applicant and Commission. Don Thompson,. Lewis Homes, stressed the importance of expediting the processing of this project if Lewis purchases the recorded tract from the bank. He asked. the Coemissioners to consider waiving design review of the housing type previously constructed in Lewis' Rosecrest project in order to concentrate on the unit plotting and the one-story unit design at the future Design Review Committee meetings. He felt the depth of these recorded lots and the introduction of the one-story plan will help in giving this project a more open feeling than that created in Rosecrest. Jary Cockroft, Lewis Homes, stated that the Rosecrest product is selling relatively well in the current economy. He indicated that one of the two- story house designs used in Rosecrest was eliminated for the project and replaced with a.one-story model, per staff's direction. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented an overview of the proposal and highlighted potential issues/discussion topics for Commission consideration. Chairman McNiel felt that the unit mix along the south side of Candela Drive should be modified to produce a more open streetscape appearance and additional side yard setbacks should be provided to allow for recreational vehicle storage access to side and rear yards. He liked the introduction of the single story plan but did not feel circumventing the design review process relative to its review was appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed his concern for the minimal side yard setbacks between units. He felt that the entire project should be closely scrutinized a= Design Review as ideas about develo[xnent mature. He also indicated that single story units should be plotted on the corner lots closest to the two vehicular entrances to the project. Commissioner Melcher shared similar concerns as the other Commissioners relative to the plotting of the one-story plan. He felt that the lower profiles of the one-star7 plan will reduce =he crowded streetscape appearance and side yard tunnels created by minimal separations between adjacent two- story units. He agreed that the one-story plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. He commended the applicant on the houses built in their Rosecrest tract and the high percentage of one-story models proposed within the new project. Commissioner Vallette agreed that the one-stor~ plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. She felt that all lots should be plotted to comply with the current side yard setback requirements (5 feet one side, 10 feet other side), additional front yard setback variation should be provided given the extra leeway with the deeper lots, the side yard setbacks for units adjacent to the railroad should be increased, and the footprint of the one- story plan should be narrowed to allow for larger side yard setbacks. Mr. Buller observed that the housing product could technically fit on the lots and meet the required minimum setbacks~ hence, the side yard separation issue is only one of design. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the architect clip roof lines on some two- story homes with small hips to alleviate the concern of continuous roof lines. Commissioner Vallette asked staff for clarification about the required minimum side yard setbacks. Mr. Hayes stated that the tract was approved with a product prototype with 5-foot minimum side yard setbacks on both sides, hence this tract was 'grandfathered' with that criteria. Commissioner Tolstoy stressed the importance of getting the best product possible from both a site planning and architectural perspective. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 19, 1992 Mr. Bullet summarized the Commission's concerns. He stated that a majority of the Commissioners expressed concern with the unit plotting, especially in areas where lot widths do not allow for additional side separations with the proposed units. He noted this issue may be resolvable without adjusting lines or modifying the unit type; but he reminded the Commission that if the project moves forward, the changes in side yard setbacks and building separations will not significantly change from what was presented for this review. He acknowledged that a majority of the Commissioners favor the introduction of the single story plan, provided it is plotted on more lots and those lots leading into the project. In addition, he stressed the Commissioners' desire for additional front yard setback variation and direction to possibly "clip" roof lines on some two-story models (if room volumes make this possible) to improve the streetscape appearance within the project. Finally, Mr. Buller concluded that the Commission will place emphasis on the referenced site planning issues and the architecture of the one-story plan at the Design Review Committee Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting concluded at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 19, 1992 ~ ~& 0 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 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 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 227-671-01 THROUGH 42 AND 227-681-01 THROUGH 87. A. Recitals. (i) 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." (ii) On January 27, 1988, the Planning Commission 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- (iii) On June 13, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 90-72 thereby approving the Design Review for all lots on the subject property- Since that time, the property has been sold and the applicant (Lewis Homes) has submitted the application- (iv) On May 13, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (v) 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 meeting on May 13, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: /¢ -2/ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 13753 - LEWIS HOMES May 13, 1992 Page 2 (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 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 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 Division: 1. Stucco return walls shall be provided for all front yard return walls. Said walls shall have a neutral color to be approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits- 2. On corner lots, the corner side yard shall be enclosed with a slump block wall to match the Victoria standard for interior streets. Said wall shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet behind the public sidewalk. This condition exists on Lots 1, 20, 21, 41, 42, 60, 61, 77, 78, 91, 92, 106, 107, 123, and 129. En~ineerin~ Division: 1. The release of occupancies for the homes contained in this project is subject to the provisions of City Council Resolution No. 88-557 which shall apply to the conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-18 for Tentative Tract 13753, in particular Condition No. 8 under Engineering Division requiring the construction of the Kenyon Way crossing of the Southern Pacific railroad- 2. Casoli Place, Crema Place, and the portion of Candela Drive between the two, shall be constructed full curb-to-curb width including street lights with the first phase. /q PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 13753 - LEWIS HOMES May 13, 1992 Page 3 3- Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections. 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+/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street tree easement- 4. All pertinent conditions of Resolution No. 88-18 approving Tentative Tract 13753 shall apply. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, 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 13th day of May 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: /q DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: ~':',:~ ~ '7~; ~ Those items checked are Conditions of Approval APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION ,. (714) 98i,1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ....... A. Time Llmlte .C, matea. D~ ~/ 1. Apl:x'oval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are / / not issued or approved use has not commenced witL~ 24 months from the dale of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shell be aplxoved prior Io I I.. / / 3. ,~val of Tentative Tract I%1o. is granted subject to the approval of / /.__ 4. The developer shell commenCe, perticipatein,'m:lConSUrmaleorCausetobecommenced. / / participated in. or consummated. a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection D.isqlct to finance .construction and/or maintenance of a tim station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shil become the Districts property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by me District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a mation, ~ developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulalion8. The CFD shell be formed by the District and the developer bythetime recoKlalion of the final map occura. / 5. Prior to recordation of the finn map or the issuance of buildktg pefftilS, whichever comes / / first, the al~icant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishn~nt of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the constnjction and ffm of necessary school facilities. However, ff any school district has previously establshed suc~ a Community Facilities District, the applicant shell, 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 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 finn map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. SC-2/91 lor12 //~ "2~7~ This coMiion shall be waived it the City rsceiv~ notk~ that the agg~iicant aM all school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts 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 affecteed water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shell 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 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, exterior materials and colors. landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Developmere Code regulations, and. -' .Specific Plan and V i~.+~" .,~ Planned community. ; -' 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be corrq:~leted to the satlelaotion of the City P~qner.. 3. OccupancyofthefadlityshallnotcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand State F'ht Marshairs regulations have been compiled with. Prior to occupancy. plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compilanoe. The building sh'all be irtslNIcted for compliance prior to occupancy. ' .... 4. Revised site plan~ and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review arid ap~' prior to issuance of building parrnits. · / 5. AIIslte, graclkqg, larldscape, irrtgation, and street irq3eovemenl plans ahall be coordinated for consistency priorto issuance of anypermits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case ol a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has comme~ced, whichever comes first, ,-,, ......... : .i 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Developmere Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable CommunEy Plans or Specific Plans in effect af the time of Building Peffnit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site Ighting plln shall be reviswecl and al:q:~oved by the City Planner and Sheriffs Depaflmerl {N11 ) prior to the Issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, alumtnation, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adJacem pmpefttes. · v/ 8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shieldlid from public view. 9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standarclt The final design, locations and me number of trash recefXackts shall be subject to Cily Planner review and al:Ixoval prior to issuance of building parmitt · v/ 10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as translormers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and edecluately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. sc-2/gl 2of12 //~ "2 Proiect No.: ¢~ (-'- /, - 11. Street names shall I~ submittal [or G~ ~ann~r roylaw aM approval in a~Ma~ wRh / / th~ a~ ~r~t Na~ ~1~ p~r to ~mval of th~ final m~. '/ 12. All ~iMi~ ~m~ a~ iMiv~ual unRs shall ~ ~entffi~ in a clear a~ ~ise manner, / / i~ludi~ p~r illuminm~n. ,/ 13. A detailed plan ind~mi~ trail w~hs, ~imm s~s, ~ys~l ~~, fendS, a~ / / we~ ~mml, in a~ffia~ w~h C~ Mamer Trail dr~in~, ~il ~ ~mt~ for C~y Planner m~e a~ a~mval ~ r to ~val a~ r~ffim~n ol tM Final Tra~ Map a~ p~r to ~mval of street improvemere a~ grMi~ ~ans. ~ve~r s~ll u~ a~ ~nmm~ all tmi~, i~i~ fe~ing and dmin~ ~vm, in ~n~n weh mr~ i~mvements. 14. The ~venams, ~MH~ns a~ Remains (CC&Rs) sMII ~t ~h~ t~ k~ of ~ine / animls where zoni~ r~uiremms for the kee~ of u~ animls Mve mn ~. I~i~al ~t ownera in su~Ms~ns ~all have t~ ~n ol k~ sa~ animl w~ the n~ess~y of ~eali~ to ~a~s of dir~om or ~m~wnem' m~b~ for ammm to the CC&Rs. / 15. ~e ~venants, ~ns, a~ Re~~ (CC&Rs) aM ~es of I~rm~n of the / / Ho~nem' ~=im~n am ~ to t~ ~vi of tM Pi~ a~ E~need~ DMsbns aM t~ C~ A~omy. T~y sMH N r~ffi~ ~~ w~h t~ RMI M~ or p~r to tN issua~e of ~i~i~ ~Rs, wh~ver pmv~ed to t~ C~ Engi~r. '/ 16. Nl~ays, oenareas, a~~~sMII N~~m~ma~ byt~e~ / / ow~r, ~nem' as~im~n, or ot~r m~ a~i to tN C~. Pmf of this lan~ maimensue s~il N m~ for C~ Plan~r aM C~ E~i~r mvlw a~ ~oval ~r to ~sua~ of ~ ~M~,~, ' ........ ~ 17. ~lar ross ease~ms s~ll ~ ~~ for t~ ~ ~ a~m~ t~ e~ ~t or / /-- ~elli~ u~ shall have me ~ to r~Ne ~nl~ m N~m ~s or unh for use of a ~ir ene~ system. ~e erierams my ~ ~~ ~ a ~~n d Re~ns for t~ ~ivisbn wh~h all ~ ~ffiN ~~ ~ ~ ~~ of t~ ~ ~ or is~ of ~es, wh~er ~as f~. ~ emma md mh~ t~ ~ng of shins ~ v~tm~n, m~ures, f~m ~ aW o~r ~N, ~ ~ mil~ Wes a~ simi~ ~s, ~mm i ~ve~ ~ ~n 17.~~. 18. T~ m~ ~maia a ~s~H Himo~ U~ h are s~l ~ ~ve~ a~ / / maimai~ in ~m~ dh t~ Hi~ . A~ ~r ~~ to t~sRe ~~, ~ m ~eN to, e~em aeermi~ a~or ime~r aerm ~ ~ t~ e~e~r d t~ ~i~V ~ m~m, mmvN of i~ma~ trees, ~mlRbn, re~bn, r~~n of ~iMi~ ~ m~re, or ~s to t~ s~e, shall rlim a ~bbn ~ ~ H~o~ ~a~ ~ermbn Pe~ ~b~ to H~todc Presew~ ~mm~ rwN a~ ~~. C. Building iign 1. An ane~e e~ symem ~ r~i~ to ~vl ~~ ~t wmer ~r all ~elli~ un~s / / a~ for ~ati~ a~ ~im~ ~1 ~ ~, un~ ~ aee~e e~ syme~ are dem~mH to ~ ~ ~Mm ~ ~ eff~. NI ~~ ~i ~ at the tim d in~il devemm s~ i~d~ in t~ ~i~i~ ~m a~ s~ll ~ mt~ for C~ R~Nr rw~ a~ ~mval ~r to t~ ~ame of ~iMi~ ~es. '/2. All ~elli~s shall have t~ from, treatram, detaili~ a~ imre~ ~li~m~n of ~d~ tramram ~ to C~ Planner revi~ a~ a~mval p~r to Ssua~ of ~iMi~ ~Rs. ~ - 2/91 3 3. Sta~ffi ~ ~ver ~ans for use ~ the Ho~wnem' ~it~n shall be sum~ for / / C~ Pin~r ~ ~i~i~ ~ial revi~ a~ ~pmval ~r to i~a~e of ~i~i~ ~s. '/ 4. All mf ~m~s, ind~i~ air ~nem a~ ot~r mf mum~ ~uipmnt a~or / / projeJUne, s~ll ~ shi~ from vi~ a~ t~ s~ ~er~ from adjacent paddies a~ ~reets as r~uir~ by ~ Planni~ Div~n. ~ ~rHning shall ~ amh~urally im~rat~ w~h the ~i~i~ des~n a~ ~m~ to t~ smita~n of the C~ P~nner. Detail s~l ~ indud~ in ~i~i~ ~a~. D, Pa~lng a~ Veh~ir Ac~ (Indite dmi~ on bulMIng ~n8) 1. Aft ~i~ ~t ~ isla~s s~ll ~ve a miniram ~sl dimeneOn of 6 feet a~ ~all / / ~ain a 12-i~h wa/M~m to tM ~ sail (i~i~ ~). 2. Te~r~ ~m~ Nt~ays aM rearm Mvemm ~mss ~m~n alls shall ~ / / m~d th~~ tM ~vemm to ~ ~e~i~Nu~i~ wRh ~n sN~ ~a~r~mat~nal uses. 3. All N~ ;~ shall ~ ~bl i ~r C~ ~m aM a~ d~w~ ales, / / eraames, aM exh shall ~ m~ ~r C~ ma~. 4.Aft unHs eMIl ~ ~vld wRh gar~ ~r ~em ff d~eays are iH t~ 18 feet in / / d~h from ~ of s~al~ ': 5. ~e CoveMms, ~MR~ aM Re~b~ shall ~ ~e stor~ ~ ~mbni v~is / ' / on thl s~e un~ tMy am tM ~m~ ~ d ~n~mbn for ~ owNr ~ ~hibe ~i~ on ime~r ci~bn aliH otMr ~ in des~e ~Ror ~ areas. · / 6. Ram ~r a~ s~ ~es eMIl M ~mtM for tM C~ 'P;er, C~ .E~r, aM / / RamM C~m~ Fire Paten D~ ~ ~ ;vi ~r~ ima~ ~ ~i~i~ E. ~nd~pl~ (f~ MIIcN mlNll i~ a/~r t am N.) ~ 1. A ~t~ I~ aM ~bn ~, i~ s~ ~ ~ ~1 ~m IM~ / / i~ in tM ~ ~-mlal deve~, i M ~~ W a I~n~ I~ ~es or ~r fi~ ~ ~i in tM ~ d a ~mom ~ ~M~n. in ~~e~ i~ ~ ~ 19.~.110, ~ ~ ~eontMgri~ ~a~. ~e ~ d ~ N i M mwM in ~ ~ nw ~iM f~ ~amM tree 3. Aminimm~ t~gmHm,~~dffiefo~sbes, sM~Mpm~ / / w~hin tM m~: % - ~- imh ~x or I~r, % - 3& i~ ~x or i~er, % - 2~ i~ ~x or i~r, __ % - 15~, ~ __ % - 5 ~lln.' 4. A ~n~m d % of tree NaN ~n the ~ md M mn she tree - / / 2~i~ ~x or ~. 5. W~hin N~i~ ~, tree s~l ~ ~ame t a rme d one 1 ~ tre for e~ three / /__ ~i~ ~all, ~im to ~ 5~, of tM Nmi~ area m ~; ~n on ~m 21. SC-2/91 4of12 /~ '2 7 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. 'v/ 7. AIIprivateslopebanksSfeetorlessinverticaiheightandofS:l orgreaterslope, but less than 2:1 slope, shell 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. AIIprivate siopes in excess of 5 feet, but lessthan8 feet invertical height andof2:l orgreater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-galion or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. 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 siope shell also include one 5-gaiion or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shell be plamed in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shell include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to ,//9. For single family residential development, a,. slope planting and irrigatiOn shell be contim- ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units. an inspection shall be conducted by the Ranning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory 10. For multi-family residential and non-residential developmentproperly ownersare raspon- sible for the continual maintenance of all ianc~ aleas on-site. as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landsc~ areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healhy alqd-lhtiving co4qdilie~, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, deed, diseased, or decaying plato material shall be replaced within 30 days from the dale of damage. 11. From yard landscaping shell be recluire~ per the Deveklxnem Code and/or · This requiremeN shell be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. ,, :. . =:,; _ _ 'v/ 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required lanciscape plans and alla/l. be mjI3iect to C~y Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any padewa~ landacaping planwhich may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape feature such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- ing sidewalks (with hortzonlal change), and inleneilled landscaping, is required along '.// 14. Landscaping and ifftgation systems required to be instalisd within tha pubic right-of-wayon / / the perimeter of this projecl area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. ,//15. All walls shell be provided with decorative treatment. ff located in pubic maintenance areas, / / the design shall be coordinmed with the Eng~ng Division. 16. Tree maintenance criteria shell be developed and submitted for City, PlaFme~ review and / / alexoval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteda shall encourage me mural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 'v/* 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to consewe water through the principles of / / Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. SC-2/91 5of12 A F. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. / / Any signs prol:x)sed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Pinning Division prior to installation 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) shell be pmvicled for apartment, condominium, or townhomes / / prior to occupancy and shell-require separate ar1~lication and approval by the Pinning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 1. The developer shell 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 shell provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standardformat as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any properly. 3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway /. / pmjecl in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 4. A finel acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the / / issuance of building permits. The finN. reix~rt shall difAra8-the level of--interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building matedale and constmction technique provided, 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 re:on. H. Other Agencle~ ~'/ 1. EmergencysecondaWaccessshallbe~inaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFke / / Protection District Standards. v/ 2. Emergencyaccessshaill)eprovlded, rnalntenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide / / at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. Y/3. Prior to ismmnce of building pannits for combustible conslnaction, evidence shall be / / submitted to the Rancho Cu~monga Rre Protection District that temlx~rary water supply for fire protection is available, pending conl)ietion of required fire protection system. 'v/4. The applicant shal contact the U. S. Posts Service fo determine the aplxoprlate type and / / location of mall boxes. MuitNamily residential developments shall Wovk~ a solid overread structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final localion of the mall boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be sul3tect to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building perthlie. 5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all / /- supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino County Departrnem of Environmenfal Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. SC-2/91 6of12 ~ '2 ~ APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1868, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. SIte Development \/' 1. The applicant shell cornply 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 Safely Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. ,/ 2. Prior to issuane of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(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 induatdal development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shell 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. V/ 4. Street addresses sha~ be pr~vided by the Building ~f~cla~ a~tertrac~/pame~ map rec~rdati~n J. Existing Structuree ......... . 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Buildinl) Code for the property line clearances considering use, area. and~re-resistiveness of exlatingq:)uiltngs; *. 2. Existing buildings shall be rnacle to cornl~f with correcl bui:ling arKI zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be remove, filed andfor capped to comply with the Uniform Plumping Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Uncie~gmurt~l on-site utlltee are to be Iocale~ and N~we oelNt;llrlg pine. eteimitted for building perme appi:at~rr:TM ~' '- K. GrMIng / 1. Grading of the s. d:)~ecl l)mperty shall be in accordance wilh the Uniform Building Code. City Grading SlarK~IRM. I~l li::ceptKI grading pratttoes. The final grading plan shall be in subetalltii ~ with the al)l)toved grading 2. A soils repo~ ittll be prepare~ by a qualifii~ engineer licensed by the State of California to perform suctt wodt. 3. The development is located within the soil erosion co~llrol boundaries; a Soil Distutoance Permit is required. Please cor~act San Bemar(lino County Def)artmenl of AgriculNre at (714) 387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such penM shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of rough graffing perme. 4. A geological report shall be Ixepared by a qualified engineer or geologlat and submitted at the time of app/ication for grading plan check. ~/ 5. Thefinalgradingl~ansshallbecompietedandapFovedprtortoissuanceofbuildingpermits. sc-2/91 7ofi2 A 6. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site / / drainage facilities necessary for dewatedng all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Divlslin priorto final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that am conducted onto / / or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satiafactlin of the Building and Safety Divlslin prior to issuance of grading and building permits. c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatedng and protecting the subdivided / / properties, are to be installed prior 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 slipe banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses / / or plamed with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other aiternattve method of erosion control shall be coml)leted to the satisfaction of the Building Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not reieese the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 1 of the Development Code. APPUCANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (714) 98~-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: L Dedication and Vehlculer Acc~u 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. Prlvale easements for non-i:xjblic facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. I::)edicatlon shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerfine): 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 for all private streets or drives. 4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: 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 prtor to the issuance of building permitS, where no map is involved. SC-2/91 8of12 ///~ 8. Private drainage easernents forcross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or holed on lhe final map. 7. The linal rrt~ el'hill clearly delineate a 1 O-tool minimum building restriction area on the neighboring lot edjoining the zero lot line wall anci contain the foliowing language: -' ..... '!/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the fight to prohibit the construction of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated on the .map as l;uilding resltiction areas." -. A maintenance agreement shall also be granted trom ~ lot tothe idjec, ent lot through the CC&R's. 8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be qu itclaimed or delineated on the final map. 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the pubic right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property. 10. Additicnal street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right tum lane, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If cu~ edjacent 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-see property interests the developer sl~all:=at-lsast 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agraernent to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the Cily acquires the property interests required forthe in1:lrovernents. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property intsreste required Inconnectlonwtlh the sulxlivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be In the form ot a-cash del3osit In the amount given In an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developers cost. The appraiser shall have been appmved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. M. Street Improvsmertts 1. All public irnprovements (inteslor streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) st~wn on Ihe plans end/or temative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvemente shall include, 13ut ~rs not llrnitecl to, curo and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and sireat tree. 2. A minimum ol 26- foot wide pavetaunt, wtlltln a 40 -fool wide dedicsled righi-of-way shall be constructed for all hall-ss~ion streets. 3. Construcl Itte folowing perimeter irest Improvements including, I~t not limited to: STREET N~ C~ & A.C. SIDE; ~ DRIV!~ ~ ~ COMM. MEDLMi OTHER GUTTER PVlltr WALK ' APP!I. LIClI-rI'S~ TRAIL ISLAND 5C-2/91 9of12 //~ -32' Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and ove~ays will be determined dudng plan check. (c) ff so marked, side- wak shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 4. Improvemere plans and construction: a. Street improvement plans 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 posted and an egmement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Altomy guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private stmst improve- ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being pedormed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineeta Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be instiled on any new construction or reconstruction of major, seconclaP/or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BC R, ECR or any other locations approved by the CIty Engineer. Notes: (1) NI pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otheewtsespedled by the City Engineer, (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pulrope. e. Wheel chair ramps shall he Installed on al fourcomers.of intersections per City Sindam or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads recluidng comnatm-shal ramsin open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construclion. A street closure pafml may be required. A cash refunded upon coml~tion of ~e constnjclionlo Ihe setiiBclkm of the City Engineer. g. Concentraed clminage flows shall not cross sldewats. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Slam, excelX for single family lots. h. Handicap access ramp design shall he as specified by the City Engineer. i. StreetnamesshalbeaplxovedbytheCityPlennerpriortosubmittalfor~rstPlancheck- 5. Street intlxovemen~ plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any wo,k being palformed on the prt- vale streets, fees shall be paid and cortetmclicn permits shal be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 6. Sireel trees, a minimum of 15-galicn size or larger, shell be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. SC - 2/91 lOof 12 e,~,~ .,%.: ]~Q..I 7. Imem~bn line of s~e des~ shall ~ mview~ by the C~y E~ineer br ~nforman~ w~h a~t~ ~1~. / /__ a. ~ ~ll~r or lair ~reets, lines of s~ shall ~ plo~ for all pmj~ ime~ions, / / i~di~ d~a~. Wa~, s~ns, a~ sb~s s~ll ~ ~ o~s~e the lines of s~. La~i~ ~ other o~m~ns w~hin the lines of sighl shall ~ ~mv~ by the C~y E~ineer. b. L~I res~emial ~reel ime~ s~ll have t~ir ~t~l~ improve, u~al~ by / mvi~ the 2 +/- cb~ ~met tr~ s on e~ s~e ~ay from the ~met ~ plac~ in a street tree ease~m. 8. A pe~ shall ~ o~ained from CALTR~S br any wo~ w~hin t~ folbwing ~f-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 Engineedng Public Works Standards / / 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 area are required to be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: 2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/orform the al~N'opriate Landscape and Lighting / / Districts shell be filed with the City Engineer priorto final map apl)roval or issuance0f building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be berne by the developer. 3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously rosinlathed by the / / developer until accepted by the Cily.. . 4. Parkway landscaping on the toliowine, street(s) shall conform to Ihe results ot the respective / / Beautification Master Ran: O. Drainage and Flood Control 1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood / / protection mea~ms shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and appmved by me City Engineer. 2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone / / designation removed from the Ixoj~t area. The devek w's engineer sh~l prepare all necessap/reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculatione. 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 o~qjrs first. 3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and aCq:xoved by the City Engineer prior to final / /__ map al:q:N'ovai or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. SC-2/91 llof12 4. A permit from the County Flood Control Distrio1 is required for work within its right-of-way. / / 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 to convey ovedlows 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 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided.as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocatlon of ~xisting 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 Ctr, amonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of compiiance from the CCWD is required prior to final map ~al or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Q, General Requirements and AppflWaI$ 1. The separate parcels contained within the project bout. silent. be legally .combined .into '--/' / one parcel prior to L~-3jance of building permits.. ..- :, ... , 2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided ~r to final map approval or / / issuance of building pemtts, W~h._iC~.,.er .o;:urs tilst, for: ...... 3. Prior to al:;rovaJ of the final map a deposit shah be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of aplx)rtioqjllg the.q~fiqssrrle.fqs under .~rtt District among the newly created parcels. 4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Se{~ndaly;~e~rml, and Master Plan / / Drainage Fees shall ,be paid pdotto [.1Oal map al;$:arova$ orpriortobuikang permit issuance ff no map is involved. 5. Permits shag be obtair~d~.f..mm..the folk:FWi.~ng ~Jgen$:~.. for work within their right-of-way: / / 6. A signecl consent and waJver form to Join and/or form the Law Enforcemem Community / / Facilities DIIIFIcl shall be filed with the City Engineer I:xtor to final map a;:q:H'oval or the issuance of building penTtits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the Developer. 7. Prior to ~rmlization of any development phase, sufficient hqNxwement plans shall be cam- / / plated 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 tentalive map. SC - 2/9 1 12 of 1~1 ~ ,.5,~/ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT ATE: May 13, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 11738 - HERMOSA/ALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. (NORDIC) - A subdivision of 2.48 acres of land into 3 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Hermosa Avenue and Almond Street - APN: 1074-051-04. BACKGROUND Tentative Parcel Map 11738 as shown on Exhibit "C" was initially approved by the Planning Commission on March 22, 1989, for an initial two-year period until March 22, 1991. The first of a possible three one-year time extensions was granted on May 22, 1991, extending the approval period until March 22, 1992, with modifications to the conditions of approval. The applicant is now requesting the second of the possible three one-year extensions. The letter of request (Exhibit "A") is attached for your reference. RECO!~NDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving a one-year time extension for Parcel Map 11738. The new expiration date would be March 22, 1993. Respectfully submitted, ~aenn~or~eer DJ:BAM:jk Attachments ITEM B HERMOSA/ALMOND PARTNERS, Post Office Box 2745 Orange, California 92669-0308 (714) 731-2225 (714) 730-1695/Fax March 20, 1992 Vicki Day Department of Engineering City of Rancho Cucamonga Post Office Box 807- Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Parcel Map 11738 Dear Ms. Day: We, as owners of the above-referenced property, are hereby requesting the 'time in which to record the Parcel Map for the above-referenced property be extended for an additional one (1) year period of time. A substantial portion of the improvements which are a condition of the Map have already been installed. Additional improvements will be completed by the developer of Tract 12902, which will substantially reduce the needed bond. We are sending a check in the sum of $549.00 by way of separate cover to you for the extension fee. I am sending you a copy of this letter by facsimile, with the original being sent by regular mail. Per our engineer, I believe the Parcel Map expires shortly. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Very truly yours, HERMOSA/ALMOND PARTNERS, LTD. Harri J. Keto President of Managing General Partner HJK: dll DAY.LTR Copy sent via facsimile, original by regular U.S. mail. i,Z,g FRREF, I, M RP l l 7 3 TZTI, TsPtE EXTE/VSIg)N .2. EX]4TRfi': "FI " # I"-- ICOO N C~'Y OF rrk'mm: PIIRCE. L MR P I I '7 ...x, B, RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trrr.,~.. VICINITY Ht~P n ENG/NEERING DFfISION ~,~-r~l'~. TENTATIVE P ARCEL NO. 11738 1N T~E CITY O;' RANCHIC) CUCAnONGA OF TIACT ~2g,02 ·6 I'[I ieLAT I[~,OlbEb IN BC)C~ ~7./AC~S '~2 Tt'IqCXJGIN ~ OF M~ i~ECOm. D6 c3r I~ B~mNAmDI~VO .C.~TT, ITATIr OF CAiwtFCIW.N|A.o //RI /#. .LTd.".? .,, ., ,,, ~ I"'- lOG' N CITY OF l"ri~: P/l~,t,SL M/:t/3 1173~ RANCHOCUC~ONGA ~ TENTATIVE ~G~G D~ON ~~: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11738, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND ALMOND STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-051-04 A. Recitals (i) Hermosa/Almond Partners, Ltd., has filed an application for the extension of Tentative Parcel Map 11738 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On March 22, 1989, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 89-40, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Parcel Map 11738 and issued a Negative Declaration. (iii) On May 22, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-46, thereby approving a time extension and addition to the conditions of approval for Tentative Parcel Map 11738. (iv) On March 20, 1992, the applicant filed a request for a 12-month Time Extension. (v) 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, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: {a) The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes, and Policies; and (b) The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances, Plans, Codes, and Policies; and (c) The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11738 MAY 13, 1992 PAGE 2 (d) The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a Time Extension for: Parcel Map Applicant Expiration 11738 Hermosa/Almond Partners, Ltd. March 22, 1993 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bull er, 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 13th day of May 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 13, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Con~nission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-42 - PITASSI DALMAU - A request to develop a 45,150 square foot YMCA facility on 4.83 acres of land within the Recreational Con~nerciel District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, north of Church Street - APN: 227-151-13. BACKGROUND: On April 26, 1989, the Planning Commission originally approved Conditional Use Permit 88-42 for the development of the YMCA facility. Since that time, construction documents have been completed, but no further processing of the plans has been conducted because of the lack of available funds to construct the YMCA building and related site improvements. As a result, on October 9, 1991, the applicant presented to and received approval from the Planning Commission for a phased development scheme which would allow for the construction of the YMCA facility in five phases over an eight-year period. Each phase of the building will be constructed to present a finished appearance through the use of common elements found throughout the original design. Pads for future building phases will be irrigated and hydroseeded until such time as the construction phase is ready to commence. Even with the reduced scale of the initial phases of the YMCA facility, sufficient funds and the current economic conditions preclude the construction of the YMCA facility at this time · As a resu It, the app li cant is requesting a one-year time extension. The extensions may be granted in one-year increments up to a maximum of five years from the original approval date. With approval of this time extension, the applicant has utilized four out of the five years available. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension as compared to the proposal with the development criteria outlined in the Terra Vista Community Plan. Based upon this review, staff has determined that the project is consistent with the development standards for the Recreational Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Community Plan. The project is also in compliance with the objectives of the General Plan · ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 88-42 - PITASSI DALMAU May 13, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for Conditional Use Permit 88-42 through adoption of the attached Resolution- Respe ly~ BB: SM: mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Phasing Plans (Floor Plans & Elevations ) Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Resolution No. 89-60 Resolution of Approval for Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit No- 88-42 Pitassi. Dalmau Peter J. Pitassi, A.IA. Architect March 30, 1992 ~dain Dalmau. A.IA. Architect Mr. Scott Murphy Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Conditional Use Permit 88-42 Rancho Cucamonga YMCA Dear Scott: The C.U.P on the above referenced project will be expiring on April 26, 1992. On behalf of our client, we are requesting a time extension of one year. The Construction Documents have been completed, however, the acquisition of funding for this project has delayed our start date. If you have any questions please call and we thank you in advance for your assistance. Very Truly Yours, Pitassi' itects AIA PJP:cas cc: Mr. Bob Huether 9267 Haven Avenue. Suite 220 · Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91730 · (714) 98~136~ PHASE I -..,. ..... ~ . TrI'LE:~A/ PLANi~ING,. DMSION . .. · . EXI-LrBIT: ~.-/SCALE: · UCAMONGA ~ F.: ~ CFI~ OF ' P~~'N,. ION - , ...... -- E~~: ~-~ SC~E: iTY' Or ~d::TT~UCAMONGA =Trn. E:.,~,aa.t,q.,,v/~.~e.,,.,,a4,dN- PLANI~/1NCr,. DMSION ' = EXHIBIT: ~-~' SCALE: L · _~--- C-7 CITY OF 'UCAMONGA TrrLE:~ PLAN~TI'N. ION ~ --,--~ EXHIBIT: ~'-~ SCALE: I' '1 ..... · . , · ..i . '---/ ;,,r I u , · · ! ,-;[j; ...... · ": ~' PHASE 3 _ , · · _i -~.- .... TY OF ~~"~'~.;~'.~T, TC,~u'VION(3A ITEM: ~'~'/,r'-,'~'Z ~ .., .... ~; ~... ~E: ~~/~~~~ P~~NO-. D~SION ' ':' ~ E~~: ~'~ SCALE: c-9 C ~ O F ' U C AM O N G A TITLE: t'au~ PLAND71'N.. ION · ,.. -~ - - : EXHIBIT: ~-~ SCALE: C-/o _ ,, ...... UCAMONGA TITLE: N - PLANNING-. DMSION =- EXHIBIT:/%7 SCALE: , · ·- C -// · UC ONGA TIT~-~: OF AM CITY PLAN~'N. ION - ........ - : E~~: ~-~ SC~E: , ~ ~ ..... CITY OF UCAMONGA TITLE:~ P ION - i !.Z~,' ,,.. EXI-RBrr: ~'-/~ SCALE.: C NORTH "'ITY OF z'rsM: cup88-,:, ,/. RANCHO CUCAMONGA TITLie,: LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING DIVISION [_/5~EXHiBiT: D SCALE: none RESOLUTION NO. 89-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COI~ISSION APPROVING CO!~ ITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-42 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 45,150 SQUARE FOOT YMCA FACILITY LOCATED ON 4.83 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COf~UNITY ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN, NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FILINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-13. A. Recitals. (i) West End YMCA has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 88-42 as described in the title of, this Resolution. Heretnafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On the 26th of April, 1989, the Planning Con~ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iti) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Con~ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Con~ission 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 Con~ission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 26, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testin~ny, this Con~ission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application appltes to property located on the east side of Nilliken Avenue,' approximately 649 feet north of Church Street with a street frontage of ,465 feet and lot depth of ,535 feet and is presently vacant; and (b) The vacant property to the north of the subject site is a future park and community trail, the property to the south of that site is vacant, the vacant property to the east is vacant and zoned for n~lti-family · residential, and the vacant property to the ~st is an apartment complex under construction. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Conmission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Conmission hereby finds and concludes as fol lows: PLANNING COMMISSION qESOLUTION NO. 89-6(9 CUP 88-42 - PITASS JALMAU April 26, 1989 Page 2 (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, Terra Vi s ta Conmu nity P1 an, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) 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. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Community Plan. 4. This Conmission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Conmission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Conmnission 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 Division 1. A paintad metal coping trim shall be utilized to cap the top of the parapet on the gymnasium facades. 2. This approval is granted subject to the approval of a land use amendment to the Terra Vista Community Plan. A Terra Vista Conmunity Plan amendment shall be submitted and approved by the City Planning Conmission and City Council prior to issuance of building permits. The Amendment shall revise the land uses in the area around the YIqCA facility. 3. A minimum of 181 parking spaces shall be provided on site. At least one (1) additional parking space shall be provided on the final plans. 4. Sandblasted and painted concrete column bases shall be used on the building elevations to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Engineering Division 1. Construct Nilliken Avenue full width from Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard, including a landscaped median and the traffic signal at the Nil liken/Foothi l 1 intersection. C,-17 PLANNING CO!IqISSIO' ESOLUTION NO. 89-60 CUP 88-42 - PITASSI UALMAU April 26, 1989 Page 3 Parkway improvements beyond the project boundaries may be deferred until development of the adjacent property. 2. Northbound right turn deceleration lanes shall be ~ constructed south of both project driveways. The lanes shall be 230 feet long (including 90 feet of taper) and 11 feet wide. 3. The parkway and medi an i sl and 1 andscapi ng on Nilliken Avenue shall conform to the results of the City's beautification study for Nilliken Avenue. 4. Construct the following Iqaster Plan Storm Drain facilities: a. Line I from Deer Creek Channel to Nilliken Avenue, b. Line 5-1 within Nilliken Avenue, and c. The retention basin in La Hission Park, located at the northwest corner of Church Street and Elm Avenue. 6. The Secretary to this Comtssion shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THZS 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 1989. PLANNING COIqHISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCNqONGA n A :ry I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Conmnission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comnission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Conm~ission held on the 26th day of April, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit: C PLANNING COf~4ISSION 'SOLUTION NO. 89-60 CUP 88-42 - PITASSI ~ALMAU April 26, 1989 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COIvI4ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:, BLAKESLEY c -/f I I I I I . I l ,,. :, ,...,..-=,- ,,, i ,:ii, : ~' '~ ~i'i j:j' :" :~f ~ [~ I j ii,tr= ""' '," I i" l]~s ~1 I xl xl I I I I C-~I I ~ III "1 I I [--: ;-, i l.iiai;-i"li-:~ ."~ I,I ' -, ,,i, !t~; "i, i;iil' ::i' .:i '1,': ~[;j - i Li~ ': ":',! =,.1. :, ':" ['ii i][] ~ j ":. il ""'i ' ":' i] ': ;l: I I I ~'<1Ixl I ~ c-2~, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-42, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 45,150 SQUARE FOOT YMCA FACILITY ON 4.83 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, NORTH OF CHURCH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-13. A. Recitals (i) Pitassi-Dalmau Architects has filed an application for the extension of Conditional Use Permit No. 88-42 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On April 26, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 89-60 thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Conditional Use Permit No. 88-42. (iii) 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, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The previously approved Conditional Use Permit is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and (b) The extension of the Conditional Use Permit will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific pkan, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and (c) The extension of the Conditional Use Permit is not likely to cause public health or safety problems; and (d) The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 88-42 - PITASSI-DALMAU May 13, 1992 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a Time Extension for: Conditional Use Permit Applicant Expiration 88-42 Pitassi-Dalmau April 26, 1993 Architects 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF MAY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, 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 13th day of May 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 13, 1992 TO: ...... Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11640 AND THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO MOUNTAINVIEW DRIVE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY EAST - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 9.8 net acre parcel for the development of an elementary school in the Elementary School Development District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway East and Mountainview Drive - APN: 227-151- 14. (Continued from April 22, 1992. ) BACKGROUND: On April 22, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive testimony on a proposal to create one lot for an elementary school for the Etiwanda School District. During the hearing, the Commission expressed concern abut the School District's desires not to enter into a joint use agreement with the City and that the District may construct a fence/wall between the school and the adjacent park. As a result, the Commission continued the item with the request that the applicant, Lewis Homes, negotiate an agreement with the School District which would prohibit the School District from constructing a wall between the two sites- DISCUSSION: Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff contacted the Etiwanda School District to discuss the concerns of the Commission- The Etiwanda School District Superintendent, Carlton Lightfoot~ stated that the District had discussed the possibility of a joint use agreement with the City but that the requirements of the City for use of school buildings was not consistent with the desires of the District- City staff also indicated that, in exchange for use of school facilities, the District requested changes to the park layout which impacted the City design parameters. Because the park was not necessary for the school to meet the State requirements for play area, the District opted not to enter into a joint use agreement at this time- The possibility does remain, however, that a joint use agreement may be reached at some future time. Staff is continuing to pursue the joint use agreement- ITEM D / PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TPM 11640 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY May 13, 1992 Page 2 The other concern of the Commission centered around the possibility of the School District constructing a fence/wall between the school and the park which would bisect the open space being created by the two sites. The Commission suggested that the applicant, Lewis Homes, enter into an agreement with the District that would prevent the District from constructing such a fence/wall- Lewis Homes has stated that they do not feel it appropriate for the City to place this condition on them because this is an issue between the City and the District. They do not wish to be placed in a situation of having to enforce an agreement that they do not want- Any agreement between the applicant and the District would not give the City the right to enforce it should the District decide to construct a fence/wall at some later date. Also, if the District received approval from the Office of the State Architect for the fence/wall construction, it is doubtful that the applicant would have the ability to enforce the. agreement. For legal reasons, the City Attorney's office is advising against the placement of such a condition on an action dealing with subdivision of land- However, the District indicates they have no desire to construct a fence/wall between the school and the park and have followed it up in writing to the City (see Exhibit "B"). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 11640 through adoption of the attached Resolution and issue a Negative Declaration. BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report (dated April 22, 1991) Exhibit "B" - Letter from Etiwanda School District (date April 24, 1992) Resolution of Approval with Conditions CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT ( DATE: April 22, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 11640 AND THE VACATION'OF A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO MOUNTAIN VIEW 'DRIVE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY EAST - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - The creation of a single 9.8 net acre parcel for the development of an elementary school in the Elementary School Development District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway East and Mountain View Drive - APN: 227-151-14. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related project Development Review 92-02. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: · A. Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on EXhibit B. Parcel Size: 9.8 net acres C. Existing Zoning: Elementary School Development District in the Tetra Vista P1 armed Community. D. Surrqunding Land Use: North - Single Family Residential South - Single Family Residential and Vacant East - Vacant West - Single Family Residential under construction E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Low' Medium (4-8 dwelling' uni{s per acre) South - Park and Low Medium (4-8 dwell ing units per acre) East - Low Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) West - Low Medium (4-8 dwell ing units per acre) F. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and slopes gently at approximately 2% from north to south. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this Parcel ~p is to create a single parcel for the development of an el ementary school wi thin the Tetra Vista P1 anned Community. The development plan for the site is on tonights' agenda as D.R. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENT P M 11640 - LEWIS DEV CO April 22, 1992 Page 2 92-02 (see Exhibit "C"). In conjunction with the parcel map, the developer has requested the vacation of 6 feet of right-of-way previously dedicated for trail purposes along Tetra Vista Parkway East and Mountain View Avenue. The trail has been relocated making the dedication unnecessary (see attached Exhibit "D"}. The public streets adjacent to the site are improved with the exception of sidewal k, drive approaches. and 1 andscaping which are required to be constructed at the time of development of the site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial StOdy. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has al so been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 11640. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Decl aration would be appropriate .' Respectful ly submitted, Ba~rrye~R. Hanson * Senior Civil Engineer BRH:BK:dl w Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Greenway Trail s Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval CITY OF rTEM: PI~RP.E:L M RANCHO CUCAMONGA TIn, F,: VICINITY %1 EI~TGIN'F':~[NG DIVI,gIONEXlt:IBIT: kANNING DIVfglON Au APR 71gg2 ~,lSiglililZ~|~,j.l.j~,lSl~;l~!f~P.O. Box 248. Etiwanda, California g1739 (714) 899-2451 FAX (714) 899-1656 Apri 1 24, 1992 Mr. Scott Murphy Planning Department* Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Scott, Please be assured that the Etiwanda School District has no present or future plans to place a fence between the hard-court area of the Terra Vista site school and the turf area of the adjoining park. Sincerely, CPL:rg Board of Trustees David W. Long Marshall B. Pruitt Cecilia Solorio Carleton P. Lightfoot Andy Solorzano Pro posed Regional Trail Trail crosses Base Line at (.cdywide) F signalized intersection for , greater safety. Trails align with sidewalks tor continuity ........ TRAILS __.~' S,~.ItR. ..... .'.:'/: -- [ ......... J - , I ~', i: NC ~/" .... ' . "!"i .... j i .. ,::.~ ................................................................. ..... ' ""k "' ..... '~ *' ' i"'~/~' ~ i: M. I LM/~i/ M **'*'Y' MH LM i //~7 ," (~) LM M ** LM M \:%.® (~ I' MH . · i CC OP MFC ,' MHO li~ ." uv..n,x. : Greenway connection Trail connections to employment center Trails generally cross major to Town Center and propose Foothill transit mute perimeter roads at intersections for greater pedestrian safety N CZ'Z~ OF zl']l: PRjO. ZF, L M RP I / E, '.1 C) TE,e, tl A' V I S T ~ .. RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trrr.-~. t_-_~ItltNMIItY TRFI I L ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT:. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 11640, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TERRA VISTA PARKWAY AND MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227- 151-14 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 11640, submitted by Lewis Development Company, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into i parcel, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN: 227-151-14, located at the southeast corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Mountain View Drive; and WHEREAS, on April 22, 1992, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. Said hearing was continued to May 13, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map and the vacations are consistent with the General Plan and the Terra Vista Community Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the Tetra Vista Community Plan. 3.That the site is physically suitable for the proposed dev~ opment. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: This Commission finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 11640 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Condition: Special Condition 1. The excess existing right-of-way as shown on the tentative parcel map, shall be vacated as approved by the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TENT PM 11640 - LEWIS DEV CO May 13, 1992 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bull er, Secretary I, Brad Bull er, Secretary of the P1 anning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby ~certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regul amy introduced, passed, and adopted by the P1 anning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1992, by the loll owing vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: | CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 13, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-13 - TOMMY WONG AND AHSAN HABIB - A request to establish a 1,170 square foot office for a professional/desi gn service within an existing industrial park on 7.38 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 10700 Jersey Boulevard, Suite 105 - APN: 209-144-83. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a non-construction Conditional Use Permit to allow an office for a professional/design service within the General Industrial District. B. Applicable Regulations: The Industrial Area Specific Plan allows professional/design services in Subarea 8 subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit- C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Office, Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution; General Industrial (Subarea 8), Industrial Area Specific Plan South - Medium Manufacturing; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9), Industrial Area Specific Plan East - Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (Subarea 9), Industrial Area Specific Plan West - Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution; General Industrial (Subarea 8), Industrial Area Specific Plan D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - Heavy Industrial East - Heavy Industrial West - General Industrial E. Site Characteristics: The site is a fully developed multi-tenant business park. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-13 - TOMMY WONG & AHSAN HABIB May 13, 1992 Page 2 F. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Multi-Tenant 107,568 1/400 269 (includes 35% office) Other Offices 8,220 1/250 33 Professional/Design Service 1,170 1/250 5 TOTAL 307 366 ANALYS I S: A. General: The applicants, Tommy Wong and Ahsan Habib, are currently operating a professional/design service at the site without a Conditional Use Permit, as is required by the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The applicants were recently notified of the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit and subsequently submitted the application- The applicants are proposing to use a 1,170 square foot office suite within a 20,000 square foot multi-tenant building as the offices for a soils and structural engineering business owned individually by the two applicants- B- Land Use Compatibility: The basic premise of all zoning is the separation of incompatible uses. Subarea 8 is zoned for General Industrial activities and is intended primarily for industrial type users · Typical uses permitted would include custom and light manufacturing and building contractor's offices and yards, as well as business support services, communication services, and research services- Secondary uses, such as professional/design services or administrative offices, may be permitted subject to review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The 7-acre business park is made up of more than 50 small businesses, occupying from 864 to over 3,000 square feet- The business park was designed for a variety of small business users, including office space in the suites fronting Jersey Boulevard that the applicant desires to operate within- Staff does not anticipate any land use conflicts. For your information, there are a number of other .tenants in this business park requiring Conditional Use Permits that do not have them, and the Code Enforcement and Business License Divisions have been working with Planning staff to encourage these businesses to submit the required applications as soon as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-13 - TOMMY WONG & AHSAN HABIB May 13, 1992 Page 3 C. Parking: The Jersey Business Park is composed of seven multi- tenant buildings totaling 107,568 square feet. Although the parking ratio for this type of use is 1 space per 400 square feet and allows up to 35 percent office area, the project was "overparked" to accommodate extra office space. The site has 97 parking spaces more than required for existing uses; therefore, an additional 24,250 square feet could be utilized for office uses amounting to a total of 61,500 square feet of office area. A total of 59 extra parking spaces would still be available if the Commission approves this use- FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must make all the following findings. in order to approve this application: A. The proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea in which the site is located. B. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valle7 Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit ~2-13 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval- BB:SR:jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval TOMMY H. WONG & ASSOCIATES Consulting Engineers - Structural 10700 Jersey Blvd., Suite 105 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (714) 9~.~ 8045 April 3, 1992 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear member of Planning Commission, Tommy H. Wong & Associates and Ahsan & Associates are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to legally operate our office and to obtain City of Rancho Cucamonga Business License for our office at 10500 Jersey Blvd, Suite 105., Rancho Cucamonga. Tommy H. Wong & Associates is a consulting structural engineering office and Ahsan & Associates is a consulting soil engineering office. We provide structural plans, calculations and soil reports to Architects and Building Contractors. The hours of operation will be between 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Monday to Friday. The number of employees will be two between this hour of operation. We would be grateful for your approval of this request. Thank you. Yours Sincerelly, Tommy H. Wong Tommy H. Wong & Associates Ahsan & Associates ITEM: TITLE: S~rf P.ta~ :N : = EXHIBIT: C SCALE: -- ._ ~_ ·' .~'c~ bF--: ~'~ % II'1:)11 ITEM: cU? q/_-I~ ~ TITLE: 'V~o,.. ~ ExHmrr: b SCALE: '/e" !' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-13 FOR A PROFESSIONAL/DESIGN SERVICE, LOCATED AT 10700 JERSEY BOULEVARD, SUITE 105, WITHIN AN EXISTING BUSINESS PARK IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-144-83. A. Recitals. (i) Tommy Wong & Ahsan Habib have filed an application for ~he issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 92-06 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 13th day of May 1992, 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. (iii) 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 public hearing on May 13, 1992, 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 10700 Jersey Boulevard, Suite 105, which is part of an existing business park developed with 366 parking spaces (97 more than Code requires for multi-tenant industrial); and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a light industrial building, the property to the south of that site consists of an office and storage yard, the property to the east is a warehouse building, and the property to the west is a warehouse building; and (c) The application contemplates the use of the space as a structural and soils engineering office. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-13 - TOMMY WONG & AHSAN HABIB May 13, 1992 Page 2 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 proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) 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. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan- 4- Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following conditions: Planning Division 1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and all other City ordinances. 2) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and 'possible termination of the use. 3) This approval is for a professional/design service only- 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-13 - TOMMY WONG & AHSAN HABIB May 13, 1992 Page 3 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 13th day of May 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT ( DATE: May 13, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 92-01 - ROSE'S CAFFE LUNA - A request to conduct live music and poetry readings in conjunction with a. restaurant/coffee bar within the existing Virginia Dare Winery in the General Commercial District, located at 8038 Haven Avenue, Suite C - APN: 1077-661-03. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of Entertainment Permit No. 92-01 to allow passive entertainment of live blues and jazz music and poetry readings at Rose's Caffe Luna. B. Background: The Virginia Dare Winery Business Center is a multi-use center featuring office, banking, theater and co~nercial uses- The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1983. GENERAL AND ANALYSIS: A. General: Rose's Caffe Luna has been located within the Virginia Dare Winery for three and one-half years. Caffe Luna is an espresso/coffee bar which also features a variety of snack food and sandwich items. The applicant occupies a total of 925 square feet of interior area and 408 square feet of outdoor seating area (see Exhibit "B" ). The applicant is proposing to provide entertainment in the form of live blues and jazz music Friday and Saturday evenings from 8:30 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. and poetry readings on Thursdays from 8:30 p.m. to 12:00 p.m- The music groups will range in size from two to six persons. There is no cover charge to patrons, no beer, wine, or alcohol is served, and no dancing is permitted. In accordance with the Entertainment Ordinance, the applicant has indicated that neither the applicant nor any persons responsible for the supervision of Rose's Caffe Luna has, within the previous ten years, been convicted of a crime nor has the applicant ever had any permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provision of entertainment revoked at this establishment- ITEM F PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT EP 92-01 - ROSE'S CAFFE LUNA May 13, 1992 Page 2 B. Analysis The primary issue related to providing live entertainment within this center is compatibility with surrounding land uses- A variety of uses are located within the center. The Edwards Cinemas, a variety of sit down and fast food restaurants, commercial, and office uses are located within the center. Caffe Luna is located within the food court area, which includes several restaurants. Caffe Luna is flanked by a candy store and a yogurt ice cream store- All these uses are consistent with the original intent of the Virginia Dare Winery, which was to provide a variety of uses and support activity for the entire center. Shelly's restaurant, located southwest of Caffe Luna, has an entertainment permit and provides live music on Friday evenings from 9:00 p.m. 1:00 a.m. Therefore, there is no anticipated conflict with other users within the center providing entertainment. In addition, the closest residential uses are located abut one-quarter of a mile away from the center- A condition has been included within the Resolution of Approval that should the operation of this Entertainment Permit cause adverse impacts upon adjacent businesses or operations, it shall be brought before the Planning Commission for the consideration and possible suspension or revocation of the permit, in accordance with Section 5.12.100 of the Entertainment Ordinance- FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve Entertainment Permit No. 92-01. A. That the conduct of the establishment or the granting. of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare. B. That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner. C. That the applicant or any other person associated with him as principal or partner, or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving the presentation, exhibition or performance of any obscene show of any kind, or of a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude, nor has had any approval, permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provision of the entertainment revoked within the preceding five years- D. That granting the application would not create a public nuisance- E. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood- F. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EP 92-01 - ROSE'S CAFFE LUNA May 13, 1992 Page 3 To the best of Staff's knowledge, there is no information to indicate anything contrary to these findings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conditionally approve Entertainment Permit 92-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. BB:ALH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan Exhibit "B" - Floor Plan Exhibit "C" - Entertainment Permit Application Resolution of Approval NORTH c, rY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION /c_~/EXHIBIT:ZA"SC^x.E: · I ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Applicants for entertainment permits shall complete the following questionaire: PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE A. The name and permanent address of applicant: ~__~ ~ ~_e.._~ ~ ~___~ _t,3 ~ .__e-"T__ ................ Permanent Address q~711 B. The name, proposed and current, if any, and business address of the applicant: ...... :__ Name (Current and Proposed) .................. C. A detailed description of the proposed entertainment, including type of entertainment, and number of persons engaged in the entertainment (may attach seperate sheets ff necessary): D. The date or day. of-week, hours and location of entertainment (attach floorplan), and the admission fee, ff any, to be charged: -- -~ ~-~,'~'---~-2-~_~,-'c~__F_~,~_~-_c_~o~__,).,,~--2 ~ f_-r-,H/,D iT "c E. The name(s) of the person(s) responsible for the management or supervision of applicant's business and of any entertainment: _ _'~xQ;~_ _;:4~z_~:_ ~ _ _~_~-~,__~_"T_. - - - ""7-;~tf~f,,b (B_b~e'~__ ........................... F. A statement of the nature and character of applicant's business, if any, to be carried on in conjunction with such entertainment, including whether or not alcohol will be served as part of such business: C. Whether or not the appncant or any person responsible for the management or supervision of appncant's business have been, within the previous ten years, convicted of a crime, the nature of such offense, and the sentence received therefor including conditions of parole or probation, if any: .... - ......................... H. Whether or not applicant has ever had any permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or provision of entertainment revoked, including the date thereof and name of the revoking agency: Any false, misleading or fYaudulent statement of material fact in the required application shall be grounds for denial of the application for an entertainment permit. ...... I I.I Y 13 199a aar 13, 99a Planning Dlvis ion i ~ity of Racho Cuc~onga ~0500 Ci~Ic Center Drive Rancho . Cuc~onga, CA 91730 ~P: Entertai~ent Pe~it 9~-01 - Rose's Caffe Luna We are the o~ers of Sweet Dre~s Cady ~d Confectionery Comply located at 8038 Haven Avenue, Suite D. Our candy store is right next door to Rose's Cafe. We started business in July of 1989. Since that ~e we have held the misconception that the cafe had a pe~it for the entertalmen~ often offered there. ~e to our sincere desire to be a good neigh- bor and work together, we have attempted to accept and deal with the extra noise, foot traffic ~d result~t litter created by sme. It has become our belief that Rose's Cafe Is ~oo small a area to accomoda~e the size of the groups that have usually perfoxed there. The vol~e created by these groups have, on at least one occasion, llter~lll~ shaken our candy containers off the wall adjacent to Rose's. The increased foot traffic, unfortunately, has not always provided potential customers. Some come merely to listen ad talk, often blocking the walkway ~d occasionally our doorway as well. The cafe's tables ad chairs are constatly moved ~d rearraged to the exten~ that our customers complain with regard to gaining entr~ce to our shop. There is, of course, even more litter left on ~he ground after these gatherings. Please advise: ~) ~at da~s/t~es are berg requested for enterraiment? A few days before Easter ~here was a group practicing until at least 3:~5 A.M. ~ Last weekend there were musicians again playing after hours. Is there no petit needed for practice session~ as described above? ~) Would ~here be restrictions regarding the type of music or vol~e allowed~ We are ~ old fashioned c~dy store md canot play our background music (60's - soft rock ~d roll) when there is loud music next door. We believe that everyone should be allowed to conduct their business In the style and manner of their on choo~Ing, but within their on physical boundaries ~d not t~ the detr~ent of their neighbors. ~he noise level origlnati~ from Rose's Cafe has be~n especially annoying on the weekends when Shelly's Restaurant already has a band playing. This one band seems sufficient for our small court. Thank you for your time and efforts in considering our plight. YOur~ truly, :' ,'5' ,,,¢.,(> -~ / ~ ' ~ ~,, ,,. Davld:E. Skelton 0 WNER [ SWEET DREAMS CANDY AND CONFECTIONERY COMPANT' Patricia e OWNER SWEET DREAMS CANDY' AND CONFECTIONERY COMPANT BRUNSWICK CORPORATION LAW DEPARTMENT ONE BRUNSWICK PLAZA '.C; i~ CUCAr,,4CN SKOKIE. ILLINOIS 60077-1089 Q'~:".,'~;;~'G DI~.'~BION QA 708-470 4700 · ,-.,..-× No. ','.',' r,:,:, y ,l FAX NO. 708-470~4330 ELIZABETH MCGRAIL WRITER'S.~IRECT DIAL NO, AI'FORNEY 708-470-4315 May 11, 1992 Planning Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 RE: Entertainment Permit 92-01 Rose's Caffe Luna Gentlemen: By way of introduction, I am the attorney for Leiserv, Inc., owners of Deer Creek Village Shopping Center located at 7890 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California. We are in receipt of your Notice of Public Hearing regarding the request for Entertainment Permit by Rose's Caffe Luna. Rose's Caffe Luna is located approximately 200 yards south of our facility in the Virginia Dare Shopping Center. Currently, there is an overflow of Virginia Dare Shopping Center patrons parking in our parking area. Leiserv, Inc. would request that the issue of adequate parking be addressed prior to granting Entertainment Permit 92-01 to Rose's Caffe Luna. If I can be of further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, Elizabeth McGrail EMcG:kmm EMr05011 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 92-01, TO CONDUCT PASSIVE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT OF BLUES AND JAZZ MUSIC AND POETRY READINGS AT ROSE'S CAFFE LUNA, LOCATED AT 8038 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE C, AND MAKINGS FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-661-03. A. Recitals. (i) On May 21, 1986, the Planning Con~nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No- 290 providing for the regulation of entertainment. (ii) On May 13, 1992, Rose Marie Krantz filed an application for the issuance of an Entertainment Permit (EP 92-01) described above in the title of this Resolution- (iii) On the 13th day of May 1992, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the above-described project. (iv) 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 May 13, 1992 public hearing, including the written staff report, as well as the written, signed, and verified application of the applicant, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue on a lot presently improved with structures and parking areas which constitute the Virginia Dare Center; (b) The property to the north of the subject site is developed with restaurant and retail uses, to the south is office uses, to the east is a vacant restaurant, and to the west is Edwards Theater and a vacant site; (c) Rose's Caffe Luna is an expresso/coffee bar. The proposal is to provide live musical entertainment on Friday and Saturday evenings from 8:30 p.m. to 12:00 p.m- The band will be located in the indoor eating area. There will be no admission charge and no dancing will be permitted; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 92-01 - ROSE'S CAFFE LUNA May 13, 1992 Page 2 (d) Poetry readings will be held on Thursdays from 8:30 p.m. to 12:00 p.m. within the indoor eating area; and (e) No beer, wine, or alcohol is served on-site. 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 conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals,. or welfare; (b) That the premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner; and (c) That the applicant has not had any approval, permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provision of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years; and (d) That granting the application would not create a public nuisance; and (e) That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding commercial center; and (f) That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following conditions: 1 ) This approval is for poetry readings and small bands playing musical instruments for listening pleasure only. 2) No beer, wine, or alcohol shall be served. 3) No dancing is permitted. Any change of intensity of entertainment shall require an application for modification of this permit- 4) If the operation of this Entertainment Permit causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Entertainment Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for the consideration and possible suspension or revocation of the permit. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EP 92-01 - ROSE'S CAFFE LUNA May 13, 1992 Page 3 5) Exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 dBA during the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA during the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 6)Access to the expresso/coffee area must be from the main entrance to the primary use and not from a separate exterior entrance. The rear exist shall be for "Fire Exit Only", 7) The applicant shall annually renew this permit in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 5.12,110 and 5.12,115. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPRDVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, 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 13th day of May 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 13, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-16 - ALLEN - The development of a single family house totaling 3,573 square feet on 0.161 acres of land in the. Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7712 Valle Vista Drive - APN: 207-061-28. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of the Site Plan, Grading Plan, Landscape Plan, and building elevations for a single family residence subject to requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single family residence; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Single family residence; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Valle Vista Elementary School; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Single family residence; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Residential East - Elementary School West - Low Residential D. Site Characteristics: The site contains an existing 400 square foot structure used as a single family residence. The property to the north, west, and south contain one-story single family residences (see Exhibits "C" and "D"). E. Applicable Regulations: The Hillside Development Ordinance establishes that projects proposing cuts or fills equal to or exceeding 5 feet in depth and exceeding 15 percent natural grade shall be subject to Planning Commission consideration- ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 91-16 - ALLEN May 13, 1992 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The Hillside Development Ordinance establishes that in the development of a hillside condition (i-e., 8 percent slope or greater), specific architectural and design techniques to minimize grading must be utilized. Use of the ordinance as the basis of design considerations in the development of a project will realize its greatest benefit to a tract of homes as all structures can be designed within its limitations, but it can also be used effectively to miDimize potential adverse effects in the development of an infill single family residence- During review of the project, staff maintained that the project's design. was contrary to the intent and requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and could not be supported by staff- Specifically, the standard "flat-pad" floor plan configuration is not sensitive to the natural grade which falls approximately 8 feet from front-to-back of the proposed structure. It was recommended that the structure be completely redesigned to conform to the existing contours using various techniques as described in the ordinance (i.e., split-level foundations and stem walls). Further, the applicant is proposing a three-story floor plan that is plainly evident on three elevations, including the streetscape view. The applicant's design concept stems from several considerations: preserving the existing structure, making the house handicapped accessible, and providing a size of house commensurate with the land value. The applicant has an elderly handicapped family member who wishes to reside in the existing structure. Because of the desire to preserve the existing structure, it forces the project design to take garage access from the north- The floor plan for the lower level of the structure, which includes a three-car garage and several other activity rooms, is provided with a flat building pad. Splits in the foundation could be provided, but would not accomplish a great deal. The garage itself cannot be split as it would create an awkward design. Providing splits at other portions of the lower level would not achieve much of a result as lowering the eastern third of the lower level would only result in additional grading (see Exhibits "E" and "J"). Proposed grading for the pad cuts into the grade 6 1/2 feet at the west side of the structure and results in approximately I foot of fill on the east side. Aside from grading for the pad itself, all other project grading results from providing access to the garage. Reducing the amount of cut into the grade will only raise the building pad and increase the effective mass of the proposed structure which is a design consideration the ordinance attempts to keep at a minimum. Also, raising the building pad may negatively impact adjacent property. Because of the contours of the existing lot, the western half is relatively flat and the eastern half slopes steeply to the street; any development of the site will necessitate some cut and fill. The Planning Commission should determine whether further modification to the project should be provided to reduce the building size and provide steps in the foundation to follow the natural grade or accept the proposal as consistent with the design requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 91-16 - ALLEN May 13, 1992 Page 3 B. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Melcher, Vallette, Buller) first reviewed the project on October 3, 1991. The major issue identified by staff was that the overall house design was contrary to the intent of the Hillside Development Ordinance and appeared overbuilt (see Exhibit "M"). The Committee concurred and did not recommend approval because of the following concerns: 1. The size and location of the garage causes excessive grading. The applicant was encouraged to revise the site plan by possibly locating the garage in the northeast corner of the site and also by utilizing minimum side and rear yard setbacks- 2. The "flat-pad" floor plan configuration is not sensitive to the natural grade and should be stepped, using stem walls and a split-level foundation, as the grade falls from the rear to the front property line. 3. The floor plan and building mass of the three-story structure is out of character with the existing neighborhood- The applicant was encouraged to revise the building mass of the three-story structure by stepping the building back from the street as its height increases- 4. The proposed architecture emphasizes the vertical elements and should be rethought to highlight the horizontal. The applicant was encouraged to provide additional details to accentuate horizontal architectural elements. 5. The design of the structure and driveway appear to overbuild the property for this neighborhood. The design of the structure should give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of overbuilding, crowding, and to minimize the blocking of views. 6. Architectural detailing should be provided on all elevations to break-up large blank areas- The applicant then revised the development package and submitted it for additional Committee review- On March 5, 1992, the Committee (Vallette, Tolstoy, Coleman) reviewed the project and recommended review by the Planning Commission with the following comments (see Exhibit "N"): 1. Architectural concerns, in terms of the building floor plan and effective mass, have been revised to the satisfaction of the Committee. No additional architectural modifications were recommended as the plans are consistent with previous Committee direction- 2. The site plan, proposed grading, depth of cut and fill, access to the out-building, etc-, will require review by the Planning Commission to determine the project's conformance with the Hillside Development Ordinance- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 91-16 - ALLEN May 13, 1992 Page 4 3. Provide additional landscaping with trees and larger plant material to effectively screen the structure from adjacent property. During the last review by the Design Review Committee, the Committee felt the architecture had been revised to their satisfaction, based upon previous Committee recommendations, and did not recommend further modification; however, they felt that the full Commission should have the opportunity to review the project and comment on its design- FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Planning Commission must make the following findings before approving this application: A. That the proposed project is in accordance with the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code; and B. That the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and C. That the proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review Development Review 91-16 for consistency with design requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance and direct staff to prepare either a Resolution of Approval or Denial. Respect ly submitted, Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "D" - Streetscape Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Floor Plan Exhibit "G" - Building Elevations Exhibit "H" - Building Envelopes Exhibit "I" - Roof Plan Exhibit "J" - Site Plan Detail Exhibit "K" - Out-Building Elevations/Floor Plan Exhibit "L" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "M" - DRC Action Comments, October 3, 1991 Exhibit "N" - DRC Action Comments, March 5, 1992 HOWARD BAUMGARTEN SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT August 7, 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department Conditional Use Permit 91-18 Change to Design Review Application Ref: Hillside Building Design relationship appeal. Site Address; 7112 Valle Vista Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Ron Allen Comments: Building envelope analysis in reference to Hillside Design C'riteria. Site is a infill lot with a existing guest unit (which had been built by ajoining owner for their use) A existing drive access to guest unit is also used by ajoining residences. Design analysis locates required two car garage ajoining existing drive (N.E. elevation) This location provides a flat base for building pad. Base cannot be stepped as requested in Hillside Design Criteria. (Difficult to step garage.) To provide a living area above garage commensurate with lot value requires a minimum of three bedrooms. Because of limited building area requires a two story building envelope. To ameliorate building envelope perspective a arbor with a planting of vines is provided at first floor level at N.E. (garage) and S.E. (street) elevations. Also landscape contour at terrace level E.E. (street) elevation is proposed to provide a natural setting. Building is designed to compliment existing older residences along Valle vista. Lot was purchased to take advantage of a million dollor view of San Bernardino valley and mountain ranges to the East. Property across the street drops 35-40' below street level to a school site. The only ajoining residence that would be effected by proposed residence is situate to S.W. rear of property. Proposed residence is situated to S.W. property line to protect the view from rear property. Note, Main entrance to proposed residence is located facing S.W. with a 'handicap'access drive servicing residence and guest unit. Thank you for your consideration of these items. ................................ BASEL NE RD FOOTHILL BL · FZ · · ........,TrrLE ~,,r fi~ C- -/2___ 0 '17 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Tom October 3, 1991 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-16 - RANDAL ALLEN - The development of a single family house totaling 3,573 square feet on 0.161 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7712 Valle Vista Drive - APN: 207-061-28. Design Parameters: ~= This application pertains to the development of a single family house on property subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance. The subject property contains an existing structure totaling 418 square feet which will be converted into a guest house. Staff Cce~ents: The following comments are intended. to provide an outline for Committee discussions: Ma~or Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The house design is contrary to the intent and requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance. Specifically, the standard "flat-pad" floor plan configuration makes no attempt to be sensitive to the natural grade which falls approximately 8 feet from front-to-back of the proposed house. The house should be completely redesigned to conform to the existing contours using the various techniques as described in the Hillside Development Ordinance, including but not limited to, split-level foundations and splits on the second floor. 2. The massive bulk of the elevations should be reduced. 3. The design of the structure should give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of over-building or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views. SecondarX Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide additional quoins to tie the elevations together. Quoins are typically used on elevations oriented towards public views, however, those used on the proposed structure orient north away from any possible public view- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-16 - BAUMGARTEN OCTOBER 3, 1991 Page 2 2. Provide additional detailing, such as stucco or wood trim around all windows and doors. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: John Melcher, Wendy Vallette, Brad Buller Staff Planner: Tom Grahn The Committee reviewed the application but did not recommend approval due to the following concerns: 1. Revise the sibe plan by possibly locating the garage in the northwest corner of the site and also by utilizing the minimum side and rear yard building setbacks. 2. The building pad should be sensitive to the natural grade as it falls from the rear to the front property line. 3. The floor plan should be revised to reduce the apparent building mass of the three-story structure- 4. Provide additional movement in the vertical plane to reduce the apparent building mass- 5. The design of the structure should give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of over- building or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views- 6. Provide additional architectural details to break-up large blank areas. 7. Provide additional architectural detailing on all elevations- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 6:30 - 7:00 Tom March 5, 1992 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-16 - ~T.T.EN - The development of a single family house totaling 3,573 square feet on 0.161 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 7712 Valle Vista Drive - APN: 207-061-28. Design Parameters: This application pertains to the development of a single family house on property subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance. The subject property contains an existing structure totaling 418 square feet which will be converted into a guest house. Background: On October 3, 1991, the Design Review Committee (Melcher, Vallette, Bullet) reviewed the application but did not reco0z0end approval due to the following concerns: 1. Revise the site plan by possibly locating the garage in the northwest corner of the site and also by utilizing the minimum side and rear yard building setbacks. 2. The building pad should be sensitive to the natural grade as it falls from the rear to the front property lines. 3. The floor plan should be revised to reduce the apparent building mass of the three-story structure. 4. Provide additional movement in the vertical plane to reduce the apparent building mass. 5. The design of the structure should give consideration to the lot's size and configuration in order to avoid the appearance of over-building or crowding and to minimize the blocking of views. 6- Provide additional architectural details to break-up large blank areas. 7. Provide additional architectural detailing on all elevations. Staff Co~ents: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Comittee discussion: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS DR 91-16 - ~TJ.EN MARCH 5, 1992 Page 2 Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. The house design is contrary to the intent and requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance · Specifically, the standard "flat-pad" floor plan configuration makes no 'attempt to be sensitive to the natural grade which falls approximately 8 feet from front to back of the proposed house- Additional splits could be provided in the building pad to minimize proposed grading; however, this may not accomplish the desired result as a large. portion of proposed grading is for access to the garages · Additionally, the location of the splits will have a minimal effect on grading as that portion of the pad that could be lowered is close to existing grade. Alternate design modifications that could effect the level of grading should be reviewed- 2. The building floor plan and effective mass have been revised. The northeast comer of the upper level has been significantly revised to step the building plane back as the height of the structure increases. The adequacy of architectural modifications should be reviewed for consistency with previous Co~nittee comments. Design Revie~ ~ttee Action: Members Present: Wendy Vallette, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman Staff Planner: Tom Gram The Commttee reviewed the project and reco-~ended review by the Planning Commission with the following comments: 1. Architectural concerns, in terms of the building floor plan and effective mass, have been revised to the satisfactio~ of the Committee. No additional architectural modifications were recommended as the plans are consistent with previous Committee direction · 2. The site plan, proposed grading, depth of cut and fill, access to the out-building, etc., will require review by the Planning Commission to determine the projects conformance with the Hillside Development Ordinance · 3. Provide additional landscaping with trees and larger plant material to effectively screen the residence from adjacent property-