HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/05/27 - Agenda Packet - (2) C~CAMO
,~, .~ CITY OF
· ~ ~, RANEl-K) CUCA1VEt'W_~
PLANNING COMMItION
AGENDA
U '
1977
~EDHESDAY ~ay 27 t 1992 7: 00 P .~.
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 16, 1992 Adjourned Meeting
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. TIME EXTENSION FOR TRACT 13298 DESIGN REVIEW -
LEWIS HOMES - Design Review of 112 condominium
units on 9.36 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per
acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community,
located on the southwest corner of Mountainview
Drive and Milliken Avenue - APN: 1077-091-36.
B. 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.
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.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-14 - FORREST PERRY -
A review of the revised master plan for the
Perry's Shopping Center in the Community
Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue -
APN: 208-261-119, 20, 22, 37 through 40, and
56. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 88-
28. (Continued from April 22, 1992.)
D. VARIANCE 92-01 - HERNANDEZ - A request to
reduce the minimum lot size from 7,200 square
feet to 7,100 and 6,400 square feet, the
minimum average lot size from 8,000 to 6,750
square feet, and the minimum corner width from
70 feet to 64 feet for two lots in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per
acre), located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Center Avenue - APN: 209-104-15,
16, and 17. Related file: Lot Line Adjustment
No. 357.
VII. Old Business
E. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-15 - MONARCH FOODS -
Selection of the roof element for Shakey's
Restaurant, located in the Terra Vista Town
Center - APN: 1077-421-76.
VIII. Director's Reports
F. FISCAL YEAR 1992/93 ENGINEERING'S CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
IX. Commission Business
G. ROUTE 30 UPDATE - (Oral report)
H. DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES - (Oral report)
X. 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.
XI. 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.
The Planning Commission will adjourn to a workshop
regarding Environmental Assessment and Vesting
Tentative Tract 14475 - Sahama Investments
immediately following their regular meeting.
VICINITY MAP
I' i ...........
I ~: ':':':':
I Sumrail ~ /
~1,Banyan ~ BanYan /
.~ Lemo~
V~"~ona Pare L n
I
~ · I
/ !-: A,T.& S.F. RR
. _~_ _.
'k CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
,,-- CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA :,,:,
STAFF REPORT '
DATE: May 27, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13298 DESIGN REVIEW -
LEWIS HOMES - Design Review of 112 condominium units on 9.36
acres of land in the Medium Residential District ( 8-14
dwelling units per acre ) of the Terra Vista Planned
Community, located at the southwest corner of Mountainview
Drive and Milliken Avenue - APN: 1077-091-36-
BACKGROUND: On April 11, 1990, the Planning Comission approved the
development of 112 condominium units, comprised of two-bedroom stacked
flats and three-bedroom townhouses- The plans call for recreational
amenities to include a pool, spa, tot lot, recreational building, and
large central open space area-
Following the Planning Commission approval, the applicant began work on
plans for the final map and street improvements. The final map was
subsequently approved by the City Council and recorded with the County-
The applicant is now completing construction documents for the buildings
to be submitted to the City for plan check.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Since the project approval, the City has adopted
new standards and guidelines for multi-family development- These
standards address such things as building separations, recreational
amenities, storage and laundry facilities, and design guidelines- The
multi-family standards, however, are not applicable to this time
extension in that the project was approved prior to the adoption of the
ordinance- In comparing the project with the new standards, staff has
found that the project is generally consistent with the multi-family
requirements including:
1. The project meets the requirement of five recreational amenities
with the recreation building, pool, spa, tot lot, and central open
space area.
2. Building to building separations are being maintained-
3. These units are being designed "For Sale" and include washer/dryer
hook-ups within each unit-
ITEM A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TE/TT 13298 DR - LEWIS HOMES
May 27, 1992
Page 2
In addition to the multi-family standards, staff has reviewed the
project for compliance with the Medium Residential standards of the
Terra Vista Planned Community in effect at the time of approval and the
General Plan- Based upon this review, staff has determined that the
project is consistent with standards and objectives of these two
planning documents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one-year Time
Extension for Tract 13298 Design Review through adoption of the attached
Resolution.
BB:SM:js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from applicant
Exhibit "B" - Location Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations
Resolution No. 90-46 Approving Tentative Tract 13298
Design Review
Resolution of Approval for Time Extension
Lewis Homes Management Corp.
1156 Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 670 / Upland, California 9178543670
714/985-0971 FAX: 714/949-6700
RECEIVED
APR -' 1992
April 10, 1992
CityotRancho Cucamonga
Mr. Scott Murphy planning Division
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729
Re: Time Extension for Terra Vista, Tract 13298
Dear Scott:
We request a time extension of the Design Review and Tentative
Tract Map for Tract 13298, located within the Terra Vista
Planned Community on the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue
and Mountain View Drive in the medium residential district.
Resolutions 90-45 and 90-46 expire on April 11, 1992.
Sincerely,
LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP.
Donald M. Thompson
Terra Vista Project Manager
DMT:cjc/dly20423
z
Z
,(
; ~, >o,
l.l.I
(..1.
)-
RESOLUTION NO. 90-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR
TRACT NO. 13298 LOCATED WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED
COMMUNITY ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND
MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
1077-091-36
A. Recitals.
(i) Lewis Homes has filed an application for the Design Review
of Tract No. 13298 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter,
the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On April 11, 1990, the Planning Commission oflthe City of
Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application.
(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 meeting on April 11, 1990, including written and
oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives
of the General Plan and the Terra Vista Community Plan; and,
b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objective 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-46
DR FOR TT 13298 - LEWIS HOMES
April 11, 1990
Page 2
3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each
and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
1) Gas meters and/or any other utility fixtures
shall be screened from view with low walls,
berming, and/or landscaping. These fixtures
may also be enclosed within outdoor storage
areas if possible.
2) The project shall be constructed consistent
with the preliminary acoustical study. A final
acoustical study shall be prepared and
submitted for review prior to issuance of
building permits. The study shall address the
noise generated along Milliken Avenue and shall
identify mitigation measures to be incorporated
into the final project design.
3) The project shall comply with Ordinance No. 411
which establishes Xeriscape requirements and
criteria for the landscape construction
documents.
4) An enhanced landscape plan shall be provided on
the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue and
Mountain View Drive. The design details shall
be shown on the final landscape plan and
reviewed and approved by the City Planner.
5) A minimum of two (2~ 36-inch box-size trees
' shall be provided along Building 3 !west
elevation! to provide an enhanced entry.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 1990.
~ L~rr~ ~1 ,' Ch ' n ~
s
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-46
DR FOR TT 13298 - LEWIS HOMES
April 11, 1990
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 11th day of April, 1990, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION
FOR TRACT NO. 13298 DESIGN REVIEW, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF
112 CONDOMINIUMS ON 9 · 36 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ( 8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE )
WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MOUNTAINVIEW DRIVE AND MILLIKEN
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
1077-091-36-
A. Recitals-
(i) Lewis Homes has filed an application for a Time Extension for
Tract No. 13298 Design Review 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 July 12, 1989, this Commission adopted its Resolution No- 90-
46, and thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits,
Tract 13298 Design Review.
(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 Design Review is in substantial
compliance with the City's current General Plan, Specific Plans, Ordinances,
Plans, Codes, and Policies; and
(b) The extension of the Design Review will not cause
significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, Specific Plans,
Ordinances, Plans, Codes, and Policies; and
(c) The extension of the Design Review is not likely to cause
public health and safety probleM; and
(d) The extension is within the time limits prescribed by
state law and local ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TE/TT 13298 DR - LEWIS HOMES
MAY 27, 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:
Tract Applicant Expiration
13298 Design Review Lewis Homes April 11, 1993
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution-
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH 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 Comission held
on the 27th day of May 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
i
DATE: May 27, 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.
On May 13, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed this project to
determine its compliance with the objectives and intent of the Hillside
Development Ordinance- At that meeting, the Planning Conunission
recommended approval of the project and directed staff to return with a
Resolution of Approval (see attached).
Re~~e _lc~
City Planner
BB:TG:mig
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated
May 13, 1992
Resolution of Approval
ITEM B
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,~"~'~i';;:,.~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 13, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the ~lannin~ Comission
F~M: Brad Bullet, City ~ianner
BY: Tom Grahn, ~ss~stant ~lanner
SUBdECT: DEV~O~T ~VIEW 91-~6 - ~EN - The development of a ~inq~e fa~ly
house totalin~ 3,573 s~are feet on 0,161 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwe~inq units per acre), located at 77~2
Va~le Vista Drive - ~PN: 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.
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 hi llside condition ( i · e ·, 8 percent s lope 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 mi.nimize 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 1 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 (Melther, Vallette,
Buller ) first reviewed the project on October 3, 199 1. 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, ~992
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 Criteria.
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.
332 STANFORD DRIVE, CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA 91711 * (714) 624-1784 '
BASELINE RD ~
FOOTHILL BL
TY OF ~'8~.",~UCAMONGA ITEM: ~- ~1-1~9
pLANm. N~.:;D:.~SiON TITLE: L~C~'~m ~P
~ ~ EXHIBIT: SCALE:
CITY ~C~..~c,¢UCAMONGA
::-'-.,' ......................,;z: II p B
........ "':. '::" "!;";:' EXHIBIT: SCALE: ....
......... ~'.-....!~-.~!. ,,.....:iL...-......:
DESI~ 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~nts:
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 redesigued 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.
Secondary 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 Cr~m~ttee 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 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 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 ~VIEW COMMENTS
6:30 - 7:00 Tom March 5, 1992
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.
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 Desiqn Review Committee (Melcher, Vallette~-.
Buller) reviewed the application but did not recommend 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 Cements:
The following coments are intended to provide an outline for Co~nittee
discussion:
DESIGN REVIEW COMME~, fS
DR 91-16 - ALLEN
MARCH 5, 1992
Page 2
Ma~or 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 ~he
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 Conmittee comments.
Design Review Co__tttee Action:
Members Present: Wendy Vallette, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Tom Grahn
The Committee reviewed the project and recommended review by the
Planning Conw4 ssion 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-bui lding, etc ·, wi 11 require review by the P lann in g
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-
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO- 91-16, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSE TOTALING 3,573 SQUARE FEET ON 0.161 ACRES OF LAND,
LOCATED AT 7712 VALLE VISTA DRIVE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-061-28.
A. Recitals.
(i) Rondal Allen has filed an application for the approval of
Development Review No. 91-16 as described in the title of this Resolution-
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review 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 meeting on the application and concluded said
meeting directing staff to return with a resolution of approval at their next
meeting. On May 27, 1992, the Planning Commission adopted the resolution of
approval for the application.
(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 meetings on May 13 and May 27, 1992, including
written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at 7712 Valle
Vista Drive with a street frontage of 12 feet and lot depth of 109 feet and an
average lot width that exceeds 70 feet; and
(b) The property to the north, west, and south consists of
existing single family residences, and the property to the east consists of an
elementary school; and
(c) The project site consists of an existing structure used as
a single family residence that totals 418 square feet, this structure will be
converted to a guest house-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 91-16 - ALLEN
May 27, 1992
Page 2
(d) The application is subject to development requirements of
the Hillside Development Ordinance as the average grade exceeds 15 percent and
depth of cut into existing grade exceeds 5 feet.
(e) The application is consistent with the intent of the
Hillside Development Ordinance as the structure was designed to follow
existing contours, grading for the building pad and garage access is kept to a
minimum, and the structure complies with the building envelope-
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced meetings 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 project is consistent with the objectives
of the General Plan; and
(b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of
the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located; and
(c) That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code; and
(d) That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this 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
~) Additional landscaping shall be provided to
effectively screen the proposed structure from
adjacent properties. This landscaping shall
consist of trees and shrubs and shall be shown
on the Landscape and Irrigation Plan, subject
to City Planner review and approval prior to
issuance of any permits-
2) All retaining walls shall be constructed out of
masonry block and shall include a decorative
finish and decorative cap- The design of the
retaining walls shall be shown on the Landscape
Plan- Material samples shall be submitted for
City Planner review and approval prior to
issuance of any permits-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 91 - 16 - ALLEN
May 27, 1992
Page 3
3) The existing building shall be inspected by the
Building and Safety Division to verify
compliance with all Uniform Building Code
requirements prior to occupancy as a guest
house. The guest house is not permitted to
contain any kitchen facilities.
4)Driveway' access to the guest house shall be
designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.
5) All necessary permits shall be obtained from
the Building and Safety Division.
En~ineerin~ Division
1) An irrevocable offer to dedicate 5 additional
feet of right-of-way will be required for a
total of 300 feet from centerline to meet City
standards for residential streets, prior to
grading or building permit issuance-
2) Provide a lien agreement for the future
construction of street improvements, prior to
grading or building permit issuance, these
shall include, but are not limited to, curb and
gutter, ac pavement, drive approaches,
sidewalks, street lights, and street trees-
3) Provide reciprocal access easements in
perpetuity as needed for this property and the
other two adjoining properties prior to the
issuance of grading or building permits.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution-
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH 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-
DR 91-16 - ALLEN
May 27, 1992
Page 4
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 27th day of May, 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: ~
Those items checked am Conditions of Approval.
APPUCANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION., (714) 98~-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. TIme LImits CmaimimJ2m
./" 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Pinning Commission, if building permits am / /
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to I I / /
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of / /
4. The developer sham commerce, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, / /
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance conlnaction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to sewe the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cuc, amonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the
Districts property upon eompletion. The equipment shsII be selected by the District in
accordance Wilh b needs. In any building of a marion, the developer shall comply with all
ap~icable laws and regulaliorm. The CFD shal be Iorrned by the Distdct and the developer
bythetime mcordatlonolthe~nalmapoccum.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of bulkling permits, whichever comes / /
first, the applicant shall cort~enl to, or participate in, the establishmenl of a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District Ior the construction and maintenance ot necessary school
facilities. However, ff any school district has previously established such a Community
Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alterniNe, 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 ol building permits, whichever oonms first. Further, il the affected school
district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Dislrict within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
sc- 2/9 ~ ~
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
impacts as a result of this project.
6. prior to mcordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no rnaP is ./ /
involved, written certification from the affected waler district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter mum have been issued by the water
district within 90 days priorto final map appmval inthe case of subdivision orpriorto issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the 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 heroin,
Development Code regulations, and
.Specific Plan and
Planned Community.
/"' 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all / /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
/"' 3. Occupancy of the fadlity shall not commence untll such tirne as afi Unitorm Building Code and / /
Site Fire Marshall's regulations have been cornplied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
f 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / /
submitted for City Planner review and approval pcior to issuance of building permits.
/"' 5. Allsite, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street inlxovernent plane shall be coordinated for / / '
consistency prior to issuance of any parrnits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
/ 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development / /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Perill
7. A detailed on-site aghting plan shall be reviewed and appmved by the City Planner and / /
Sheriffs Depa~ (9896611 ) prior to the issuance of building parrnits. Such plan shall
indicate style, Illumination, localion, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units J /
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations / /
and the number of trash receptacles shall be ~ to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building parmifs.
J l 0. All ground-rnountad utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall / /-
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
11. Street names shell be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with , / /__
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, / /
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fenring, and / /
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval priorto approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgracle and construct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shell not prohibit the keeping of equine / /
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the / /
Homeowners' Association am subject to the approval of the Pinning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs tirst. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City EngineeF.'
16. AllparkwayS, openareas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property / /
owner, hornsowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shell be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. -
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or / /
dwelling unit shall heve the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for
the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements sham prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to 0evelopmem Code Section 17.06.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and / /
maintained in accordance with the Historio Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further modificatiorm to the ~e including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or
interior altermlmm which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark
trees, demelitbn, relocalion, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or chenges to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Deign
1. An altemative energy system ts required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units / /
and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplemented wtlh solar heating. Details shell be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shell heve the from, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural / /'-
treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for
City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
J4. All roof alXHJrtermnces, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacem properties and
streets as required by the Planning DiVision. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Parking and Vehicular AcceSs (Indicate detalla on building pins)
1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch wa/adjacent to the paddng star (including curb).
2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be
provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/
plazas/recreational uses.
3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,
emrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.
4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers ff driveways am less than 18 feet in
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles
on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and proh~it
parking on interior circulation aisles other than in d~signated visitor parking areas.
6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitf~l for the City Planner, City Engineer, and
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits.
E. Landscaping (for publicly matntalned landscala areas, mist to Smctlon N.)
/ 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaP-
ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and submitted for City Planner review and 8plxov81 priorto the issuance of building
permits or prior final map 8plxoval in the case of 8 custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier
in accordancewtth the Municipal Code Seclion19.0e.l10, and Bo noted on the grading plans.
The iocation of those trees to ba pmserved in place andnewlocationsfortransplantedtrees
shall be shown on tbe detailed landscape plans. The ap~ shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendlions regard~ preservation, miming and trirnni~ methods.
3. Aminimumof treespergrossacre,conlxisedofthefollowingslzes, shall be Provided
within the project: % - 48- inch box or larger, % - 36- inch box or larger,
% - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15-gallon, and .__ % - 5 gelion;'
4. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees -
24-inch box or larger.
5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three
parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
C.~,_dcdo,
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building. ---/ /
/ 7. AIIprivateslopebanks5feetorlessinverticalheightandofS:l orgmatersiope, butlessthan / /.~
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landScapsd 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. AII private slopes in excoss of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:l orgreater / /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 eq. It. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clustem to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
9. For single family residential development, all slope .,I.,~ing and irrigation shall be continu- / /
ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the ~
.............. Priorto releasing occupancy forthose units an inspection
shall be conducted by the Ranning Division to deternlne that they are in satisfactory
condition.
10. For rnuiti-family resldenllal and non-residential development, property owners are respon- / /
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped ames shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any imaged, deed, diseased, or
decaying plant matehal shall be replaced within 30 days~from the date of damage.
,,' , ,
· Fro y rd I 'ng hall required per the Development Code and/or
· This requirement shall be in addition to the required
12. The final design of the perimeter perkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be / /
included in the required landscape pins and 8hall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as m~unding~ al~uvial r~ck~ specimen size tmes~ rneander- / /
ing siclewaks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along
Y 14. Landscaping and irrigation m/stem required to be installed within the public right-of-way on / /
the pealmater of this project me shall be continuously maintained by t~v~('
/ 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. ff located in public n~lntenance areas, / /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division,
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and / /
aplxoval prior to issuance of building permits. These cdteda shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
f,"' 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of / /
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucarnonga Municipal Code.
SC - 2/9 ! 5
Co-,d,do.
F. Signs
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a Part of thisapproval. / /
Any signs proposed 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. AUnfformSignProgmmforthtsdevelopmentshallbesubmittedforCitYPlanner reviewand / /
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Directon/monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes / /
prior to occupancy and shell require separate application and approval by the Pinning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / /
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shell provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted / I
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shell provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway / /
project in a standard format as determined by the CIty Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shell be submilted for City Planner review and approval prior to the / /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuse the level of Interior noise
attenuation to below 45 CNEL the building materials and construction techniques provided,
and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
*,,/1. EmergencysecondaryaccessshallbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFire / /
Protection District Standards.
f//' 2. Emefgertcy access shall be provtded, rnalntenancefree srglclear, a mirdmumof26feetwlde / /
at all times dudn0 consInaction in accordance with Rancho ~ Fire Protection
Distdct requirements.
/ 3. Prior to issuance of bulking paRnits for combustible construction, evidence shall be / / ....
submitted to the Rancho Cucsmonga Rre Protection District trm temlxH'aW water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
4. The applicam shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the aPPfoPdate tYPe and / /
location of rnall boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overheed
structure for mall boxes with adequate lighting. The finn location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shal be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building parmRs.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, incksding all / /-
supportive information, sham be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE E~UILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
COMPUANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. SIte DevelopmeN
· ,/ 1. The applicant shall cornply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Un~orm Mechani-
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
/ 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition
to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautificatlon 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 cornmercial or inclustdal development or
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay developmeN 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.
4.Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/!~rcel map recordation
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J, Existing Structures
f,/' 1. Provide cornpllance with the Uniform Building Code for me property line clearances
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
,,/,a 2. Existing buildings shall be made to cornply with correct building and zoning ragulatlons for
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3.Existingsewagedisp~sa~fac~~itlessha~~berem~ved~fliledand/~rc~ppedt~comp~ywiththe
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
,,,"" 4. Uncleqiround on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for
building permit application.
K, Grading
,,/1. Grading of the mabiect property shall be in accordance wilh the Unifonn Building Code, CitY
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shell be in
y"" 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The development is locate within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance
Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardino County Department of Agrtculmre at (714)
387-2111 for permit application. Documentalion of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading peltnil.
~ 4. A geological report shell be prepared by a qualitlecl engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
5. ThefinNgradingplansshallbecornpletedandappmvedprtortoissuanceofbuildingPermits.
sc- 2/9~ 7~
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --~"~'
STAFF REPORT
.
DATE: May 27, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-14 - FORREST PERRY - A review of
the revised master plan for the Perry's Shopping Center in
the Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Malachite Avenue - APN: 208-261-19, 20, 22, 37
through 40, and 56. (Continued from April 22, 1992 ).
Related File: Conditional Use Permit 88-28.
ABSTRACT: The Commission reviewed this Master Plan at the April 22,
1992 meeting. The applicant was unable to attend the meeting and
because there were unanswered questions, the Commission continued the
item- Clarification was requested on the following items:
Circulation/parking lot layout, circulation on Hampshire Street, phasing
of improvements and site maintenance, especially along Hampshire-
BACKGROUND: The Perry's Market Center was built prior to
incorporation. As a result, the center does not comply with many
current development standards including streetscape setbacks,
landscaping coverage, parking lot design and architectural guidelines.
The majority of the parcels comprising Perry's Market Shopping Center
are all currently owned by one entity. However, several of the parcels
are under long term leases, with options to develop until the year
2058. This makes coordinated site improvements more difficult,
The project site has been reviewed by the Planning Commission on
numerous occasions, as follows:
o Planning Commission denied a proposal for a 5,380 square feet
addition to the east side of the project site (CUP 88-28) on
September 28, 1988.
o This decision was over turned by the City Council on November 16,
1988. Council directed the applicant to return to the Design
Review Committee to resolve those issues raised by the Planning
Commission- City Council also directed the Commission to work with
the applicant on the phasing of improvements, which were to occur
in a reasonable and timely manner.
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 92-14 - FORREST PERRY
May 27, 1992
Page 2
o On January 10, 1990, the Commission approved CUP 88-28 with
conditions. A special condition was placed requiring that the
applicant return to the Planning Commission for review of the
revised Master Plan (see Exhibit "A") for the entire shopping
center prior to occupancy of Phase I (CUP 88-28). The revised
Master Plan now under discussion has been developed to satisfy this
condition-
o The 5,380 square feet addition is under construction and nearing
completion-
o On April 22, 1992, the applicant returned to the Commission for
review of the revised Master Plan for the entire shopping center in
compliance with Conditions of Approval for CUP 88-28.
ANALYSIS: Staff has been working diligently with the applicant to
ensure that the concerns listed above are adequately addressed- Before
you tonight is the revised Master Plan. In addition, the applicant has
indicated that he will be present to answer questions- Below, staff
offers the following information to address those concerns identified
above:
Circulation/Parking Lot Configuration: The previous design combined
both one-way and two-way parking- The applicant has redesigned the
primary parking lot (the primary parking lot in front of the market) to
be two-way, angled parking (see Exhibit "A")- This is generally a
better solution. The revision adequately addresses the Commission's
safety and efficiency concerns and complies with the new parking
standards-
Ha~shire Street: Hampshire Street provides a continuous connection
between Malachite and Helms. This is necessary to accommodate proper
local circulation and to provide for adequate truck movements to and
from the area (Helms and Malachite are closed to trucks south of
Hampshire). In addition, a continuous Hampshire Street provides the
necessar~ two points of access for emergency vehicles to the existing
mini-storage facility located directly to the south, and improves fire
access to the shopping center.
Phasing of Improvements: Conditions and the 'attached staff report
address the Phasing Plan. One primary reason the streetscape
improvements are conditioned to occur as presented is due largely to the
lot configuration and the difficulty in coordinating the numerous owners
and leasees of the shopping center. The Master Plan shows the phasing
of improvements in general terms, and as each phase comes in, the
Commission will have the opportunity to ensure overall consistency with
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Development Code.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 92-14 - FORREST PERRY
May 27, 1992
Page 3
Maintenance of the Property Along the South Boundary: Code Enforcement
has conducted an on-site inspection and is currently working with the
applicant to ensure proper maintenance, especially in the rear of the
shopping center. In addition, a condition has been added to ensure
proper site maintenance and will be placed on all future applications
within the center.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends .that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit 92-14 through the attached Resolution of
Approval-
BB:ALH:js
Attachments:' Exhibit "A" - Revised Master Plan
April 22, 1992, Staff Report
Resolution of Approval
f'~.
" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 22, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Anna-Lisa Hernandez, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-14 - FORREST PERRY - A review of the
revised master plan for the Perry ' s Shopping Center in the
Community Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan, located at the southwest corner of Foothi 11 Boulevard and
Malachite Avenue - APN: 208-261-19, 20, 22, 37 through 40, and '56.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Rec~uested by Applicant: Approval of the revised master plan for
the Perry's Shopping Center.
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Project Site - Existing Perry's Market Center; Community
Commercial, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
Subarea 3.
North - Existing Single family Residential; Mixed Use, Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea 3
South - Existing Storage Facility and Single Family Residential;
Community Commercial, Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea
3 and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)-
East - Existing service station and office uses; Commercial Office,
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea 3
West - Existing Nurseryland; Community Commercial, Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, Subarea 3
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Commercial
North - Commercial
South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
East - Commercial/Office and Low Residential
West - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
D. Site Characteristics: The site is currently developed as a shopping
center. The site slopes to the southeast at an approximate slope of 3
percent- No significant vegetation or historic structures exist on-
site. There is a large billboard sign located on the west side of the
drive entrance. The Perry's Market Center was built prior to the
adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Development
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 92-14 - FOEST PERRY
April 22, 1992
Page 2
Code- As a result, the center does not comply with many current
development standards including streetscape setbacks, landscaping
coverage, parking lot design, and architectural guidelines- The parcels
comprising Perry's Market Shopping Center are all currently owned by one
entity- There are, however, long term leases on several of the parcels
on the site. Each of these entities have the option of utilizing the
land and constructing improvements on it up until the year 2058.
E- Parkin~ Calculations: See Exhibit "E"
ANALYSIS:
A. Background: The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a previous
proposal to add a 5,380 square foot addition to the then vacant parcel on
the site's eastern portion (Conditional Use Permit 88-28, see Exhibit
"C" ). The project received Planning Commission approval on January 10,
1990.
B. Master Plan: A condition was placed on Conditional Use Permit 88-28
requiring that a revised Master Plan be su/Mitted with a new Conditional
Use Permit application prior to occupancy release of Phase I, which is
nearing completion (see Exhibit "Gs )- This application serves to satisf~
this condition-
The intent of the Mas ter Plan is to gui de futu re de ve lopment th rough
establishing driveway access, overall circulation system and
architectural design concepts. A master plan may change as new phases
develop. The revised master plan (Exhibit "B") has been redesigned with
a more efficient circulation plan and parking lot arrangement · In
addition, a pedestrian walkway has been incorporated into the center to
gain pedestrian access to Foothill Boulevard- The proposed master plan
meets requirements for landscaping and setbacks-
C. Phasing: During the review of Conditional Use Permit 88-28 (i.e-, the
5,380 square foot addition to the east), it was recognized that the level
of improvements should be in proportion with any proposed expansion or
reconstruction of the existing shopping center. The applicant is
proposing the fo.llowing Phasing Plan for the project (see Exhibit "F" ):
1. Phase I (under construction) - 5,380 square feet addition and the
street and parking lot improvements on the east side of the project,
along Malachite Avenue.
2. Phase II (under construction) - Building facade upgrades between
Phase I and the market.
3. Phase III - Facade improvements, and street and parking lot
improvements of the parcel directly east of the nursery-
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 92-14 - FORREST PERRY
April 22, 1992
Page 3
4. Phase IV - This is the largest parcel on-site and contains the
upgrade of the market's facade, a majority of the streetscape
improvements along Foothill Boulevard (approximately 250 feet ) and
the parking and driveway improvements at the rear of the building.
5. Phase V - A retail store addition, and parking lot and streetscape
improvements along Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue, in the
northeast portion of the shopping center.
Staff believes the proposed phasing plan is reasonable and will provide
for the orderly development of the center and its related
infrastructure. Phases I and II, as stated earlier, are currently under
construction- Each of the remaining phases will be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Commission as separate development review applications
come in ·
D. Parking: The total amount of parking required for both current and
future users is 268 spaces (see Exhibit "E"). The revised master plan
indicates a total of 275 stalls, which exceeds the required parking by 7
stalls for the entire shopping center. Therefore, adequate parking is
provided for the proposed project site-
E. Design Review Committee:
The Design Review Committee reviewed the master plan on two separate
occasions, September 5, 1991, and October 17, 199 1, and recommended
approval ·
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property .has been posted, and
notices have been sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
master plan through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with
Conditions ·
BB:ALH: js
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - New Master Plan
Exhibit "C" - Old Master Plan
Exhibit "D" - Applicant Letter
Exhibit "E" - Parking Calculations
Exhibit "F" - Phasing Plan
Exhibit "G" - Resolution No. 90-01
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
NORTH
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: A SCALE: nooe
Forrest Perry
9180 Orange Street
Alta Loma, CA 91701
March 19, 1992
Dear Mr. Buller,
This letter is to inform you that Forrest Perry properties, is hereby
filing a Conditional Use Permit for the review of a revised Master
Plan for Perry's Shopping Center. In addition, this review of the
revised Master Plan serves to satisfy a condition placed on the
project, requiring that a new master Plan for the entire shopping
center be submitted prior to the occupancy of Phase I (a 5380 square
feet addition to the east side of the project).
Sincerely,
o est ~
Parkin~ Calculations
Conditional Use Permit 92-14
Number of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Business Foota~e Ratio Required Provided
Sanchez Foods Market 11,500 1/250 46
Cody ' s .99+ 6,660 1/250 27
Cut Rate West 4,500 1/250 18
Sugar Crest Donuts 978 1/250 4
Cucamonga Laudromat 1,440 1/3 mach. 13
Peppermint Cleaners 1,200 1/250 5
Fashions in Furniture 6,400 1/250 sq- ft · 26
Taco Hut 1,600 1/250 7
Nurseryland Retail 7,575 1/250 30
Storage 26,200 1/2000 13
Wienerschnitzel 1,463 1/75 20
Cucamonga Barber Shop 1,060 2/1 barber/ 8
s tati on
3/1 beauty 18
station
Mexican Restaurant 1,060 1/250 5
(take-out only )
Hi de -A-Whi le 3,260 1 / 100 15
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 268
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 275
PLANNING COHHISSIO ESOLUTION NO. 90-01
CUP 88-28 - PERRY
January 10, 1990
Page 3
Planntn~ Division:
1) Colored concrete sh811 be used outside the
storefronts 8rid sh811 complement or mstch the
colored concrete column bases. The ftn81
destgn 8rid color of the concrete shall be
revtewed and approved by the CIty Planner,
prior to tssuance of butldtng pennlts.
2) The parapet wall atop the rear elevation shall.,
if necessary, be raised to screen the roof-
mounted equipment.
Narket) shall be under construction. The plans
for the storefront design, which shall ma~ch
the new shops built in Phase I, sha 1 be
submitted for City Planner review and approval
prior to the release of occupancy of Phase I.
The plans shal 1 be reviewed with a new
Cqndi.tl~nal ' Use P~rmt t --appl icatio~7 ~or {Re
4) The proposed double bin trash enclosure shall
be relocated to the west in conjunction with
any development of Perry's Market and/or the
vacant corner parcel at the southwest corner of
Malachite Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.
5) The existing alley south of the proposed
project shall be removed and landscaped to City
standards· The final design of the removed
alley shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner with the final landscape
construction documents.
6) A uniform bardscape and street furniture
treatment, including trash receptacles, free-
standing potted plants, bike racks, light
bollards, benches, etc., shall be utilized for
the project and shall be designed to 'be
compatible with the architectural style.
Detailed designs shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval prior to issuance
of building permits.
0a P 9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 92-14 FOR THE REVISED MASTER PLAN OF THE
EXISTING PERRY ' S SHOPPING CENTER IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC
PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-
261-19, 20, 22, 37 THROUGH 40, AND 56.
A. Recitals.
(i) Forrest Perry has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-14 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 22nd day of April 1992, the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application and continued the item to the May 27, 1992 meeting for further
study.
(iv) On the 27th 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-
(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 public hearings on April 22 and May 27, 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 the
southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Malachite Avenue with a street
frontage of 160 feet and is presently developed with a shopping center and
parking lot; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 92-14 - FOEST PERRY
May 27, 1992
Page 2
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant
and existing low residential, the property to the south of that site consists
of single family residences and a commercial acreage site, the property to the
east is an existing office building, and the property to the west is the
existing Nurseryland; and
(c) The proposed design of the master plan would further
implement the goals of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The master plan
would set the tone for future redevelopment of the entire center.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this
Commission during the above-referenced public hearings 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 thereof, 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.
4- This. Commission 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 Commission issued a Negative
Declaration on January 10, 1990-
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application..subject
to each and every condition set forth below.
Master Plan:
1) All streetscape improvements (i.e.,
landscaping, irrigation, street furniture,
-bardscape) shall be completed along each street
frontage in conjunction with the related street
improvements as required herein-
2) The applicant shall submit Phases III, IV, and
V, through the Development Review process, for
review and approval by the Planning Commission
prior to issuance of building permits for each
phase-
3) The existing billboard shall be removed prior
to final occupancy of Phase III.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 92-14 - FORREST PERRY
May 27, 1992
Page 3
4) The entire site shall be kept free of trash and
debris at all times, and in no event shall
trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours-
5) All operations and businesses shall be
conducted to comply with the following
standards which shall be incorporated into the
lease agreements of all tenants:
a) Noise Levels. All commercial activities
shall not create any noise that would
exceed an exterior noise level of 60dBA
during the hours of 10:00 p.m- to 7:00
a-m. and 65dBA during the hours of 7:00
a.m- to 10:00 p-m.
b) Loading and Unloading- No person shall
cause the loading, unloading, opening,
closing, other handling of boxes, crates,
containers, building materials, garbage
cans, or similar objects between the hours
of 10:00 p.m- and 7:00 a.m-, unless
otherwise specified herein, in a manner
which would cause a noise disturbance to a
residential area.
6) The site shall be developed and maintained in
accordance with the approved site plan which
includes architectural elevations, exterior
materials and colors, landscaping and grading
on file with the Planning Division, the
conditions contained herein and the Development
Code regulations, and Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan.
7) There shall be provisions for the following
design features in the trash enclosure to the
satisfaction of the City Planner with each
phase:
a) Architecturally integrated into the design
of the shopping center.
b) Separate pedestrian access that does not
require the opening of the main doors and
to include self-closing pedestrian doors-
c) Large enough to accommodate two trash
bins.
d) Roll-up doors.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 92-14 - FOEST PERRY
May 27, 1992
Page 4
e) Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
f) Architecturally treated overhead shade
trellis.
g) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash
from blowing out of the enclosure and
designed to be hidden from view.
8) Garffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
9) The entire site shall be kept free from trash
and debris at all times, and in no event shall
trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours.
10) The master plan is approved in concept only.
Future development for each building pad or
parcel shall be subject to separate a
Development Review process for Planning
Commission approval- Modifications to the
shopping center or master plan shall be subject
to Planning Commission approval-
Textured pavement shall be provided across
circulation aisle in Phase III. They shall be
of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate,
integral color concrete or a combination of
them. Full samples shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval prior to issuance
of building permits-
12) All future projects within the master
plan/shopping center shall be designed to be
compatible and consistent with the
architectural program established in Phases I
and II.
13) Bicycle storage shall be provided for the
entire center within Phases III and IV to the
satisfaction of the City Planner prior to final
occupancy release. A total of 14 bicycle
storage spaces shall be provided with a minimum
length of 6 feet, a minimum width of 2 feet,
and a minimum overhead clearance of 6 feet- An
access aisle of at least 5 feet shall be
provided- Security racks shall be provided for
each storage space and shall be located in a
highly visible area-
14) The parking area in the rear of Phase IV shall
not be used after 10:00 p-m-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 92-14 - FORREST PERRY
May 27, 1992
Page 5
Engineering Division:
1) Perimeter street improvements shall be
completed with the applicable phase as follows:
~a) All Foothill Boulevard improvements on
APN: 208-261-37 and 39 shall be installed
with Phase IV, and any revisions to APN:
208-261-56 if Phase IV precedes Phase III.
b) All Hampshire Street improvements on APN:
208-261-22, 38 and 40 shall be installed
with Phase IV. Also, improvements on APN:
208-261-56 shall be installed if Phase IV
precedes Phase III.
2) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future
construction of the median island within
Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City
prior to the issuance of building permits for
each phase- The amount of the fee shall be
one-half the cost of the median times the
length of the phase frontage.
3) Future Hampshire Street driveway locations on
the master plan are not approved at this
time. Those locations shall be determined upon
development (redevelopment) of the affected
parking lots, with Phase II or III being
modified- Considerations shall include
alignment with across the street driveways,
provision of access to the "Not a Part" corner
parcel, and truck maneuverability-
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 92-14 - FORREST PERRY
May 27, 1992
Page 6
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 27th day of May 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
DEPARTMENT OF
~CQT~.. Ogl "' :: i,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
LOCATION: ~ ~ ~~ / c-~ ~d D ~ ~~ if; ~~,
~ose ~e~ c~ ~ ~~ of ~vl.
APPUCANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (714) 98~-1861, FOR, COMPUANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ..... ' a '
A. TIL/~ Limits
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Cornm~i~n, if building permits are
not issued or approved use has not Co~ within 24 mollhs~rom the dale of apt}royal.
2. Development/Design Review eMIl be aplxoved prior Io I /
3. Aplxoval of Tenlative Tract No. is granted subject lo the aplxoval of
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Conlmunity Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Proleclion Distdal IQ firmrice construction and/or maintenance of
a fife station to serve the development. The sillion shill be-lecated, designed, and built to
all specifications of lhe Rancho Cucamonga Fire Proleclion District, and shah become the
Districfs pfol)efty upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with ils needs. In any building of a stem, the developer shall comply with all
aplXicable laws and regulllons. The CFD shah be formed by the District and the developer
bythelime fe(x)fdalionollNfinalmapoccum.
5. Prior to recordalion of the final map or the issuance ol building pemdls, whichever comes
first, the applicant shall consell to, or participate in, the establishmeN-of a Melk)-Roos
Community Facilities District for the constNctlon and rnirilenance o( necessary school
facililies. However, if any school district has previously eslablished such a Community
Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the item alive, consent Io lhe armexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordatton of the final map
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, il 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 recordatlon of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition sham be deemed null and void.
sc- 2/9 z ~ of
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected
school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
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 affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to 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
1. The site shall be deveioped and maintained in accordance with the approvecl plans which / /
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior rnmedals and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein,
Deveiopmem Code regulations, and ....
/r~/.z. ~r,/_~-D Specific Plan and
Planned Community.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all / /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City .Planner.
[/3. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such lirne as aif Uniform Building Code and / ' /
State ~ Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy. ~: · -
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be / /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prier to issuance of building permits.
5. AIIsite, greding, lanclscape. irrigetjonfandstmet~plansshilbecoordinatedfor / /
consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commem~ed. whichever comes firel, ..............
6. Approval of this request shall not waive con1:lance with all sections of the Development / /
, ,Code, all omer applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plan~ or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-aRe lighting plan. shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and / /
Sheriff's Deparm~nt (989-6611 ) prior to the issuance~f building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illurnination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely
8. If no centralized trash receptacles am provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units / /
with all receptacles shielded from public view. '
V/"9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City etllrKlardll. The final design, locations, / /
and the number of trash receptacles shall be ~ to City Planner review and approval
prior to issuance of building permits. .
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall / /-
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
SC- 2/91 2 of |2
11.8treet names shaft be su~ for G~ ~an~r review a~ ~mval in a~au w~h t~ a~ ~r~t Na~ ~l~ ~r to ~mval of ~e final m~.
12. All ~i~i~ ~m a~ i~iv~ual un~s shall ~ ~entffi~ in a clear a~ ~ise manner,
i~di~ ~r illuminm~n.
13. A detail~ ~an ind~i~ trail w~hs, ~imm s~s, p~s~l ~~, fendS, a~
we~ ~mml, ~ a=ffia~ w~h C~ Mamer Trail dmin~, m~l ~ ~bml~ ~r C~y
Pinner m~ a~ a~mval p~rto ~mval a~ mmffim~n of m Fill Tra~ Map a~ p~r
to ~mval of mmet improvemere a~ grai~ runs. ~ve~r shall u~r~ a~ ~nmm~
all tmi~, imlding fe~i~ and dmina~ dev~s, in ~n~n w~h mint i~mvements.
14. The ~venams, ~~ a~ Remains (CC&Rs) s~M ~t mh~ t~ k~ of ~uine
animls w~re zoni~ r~uiremms for t~ kee~ of .~ animls ~ve been met. I~i~dual
~t ownera in ~NB~ns shall have t~ o~n of k~ ~ ani~ w~m t~ ~essRy
of ~ealing to ~a~s of dir~om or ~w~m' m~b~ for amn~m to the
CC&Rs. "'
15. ~e ~venams, ~ns, a~ Re~ (CC&Rs) a~ ~es of I~rmion of the
Ho~nem' ~im~n am ~b~ to t~ ~v~ ~ t~ Pi~ a~ E~ineed~
D~ a~ t~ C~ A~omy. T~y shall ~ r~ffi~ m~ffiy w~h t~ R~l M~ or
p~r to t~ B~a~ of ~i~i~ ~s, whoever ~m f~. A r~ ~y s~ll ~
pmv~d to t~ C~ ~i~r.
16. Nl~a~, ~nam.,a~Im~s~ll ~mm~ma~ ~t~o~
ow~r, ~~m' as=~n, or ot~r ma~ a~~ to t~ C~. Pmf of this
land~ mimena~ s~ll ~ m~ for C~ Plan~r a~ C~ E~imr mvlw a~
m~l ~r ~ ~sua~ of ~i~~M~ ............. "' ' *
17. ~lar m. easerams sMII ~ ~~ for t~ ~M ~ ammi~ t~ e~ ~t or
- ~elli~ unR shall h~e ~e ~ to r~Ne ~nl~M g~ ~ iB or unM for use of
a ~ir ene~ symem. ~e e~emms my ~ ~mi~ ~ a ~m~n ~ Re~ns for
t~ su~NB~n wh~h sll ~ mm~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ of tM ~al ~ or
~~ of ~Rs, whmer ~s tim. ~ erarams ~ mhM ~ ~ing of
s~s ~ v~m~n, m~ur., f~m or a~ o~r ~, ex~ 1~ mi~ wWes a~
simi~ ~s, ~mm I ~e~ ~ ~' 17.~.~1...
18. ~ ~ ~ a ~H Him~l U~m ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~~ a~
mimai~ in ~m~ Hh t~ Him~ La~ Memm h~ ~.
. ~~r~ff~~tM sRe i~i~, ~ m ~to, em~erm~ a~or
ime~r a~e~m ~ ~ t~ e~e~r ~ t~ ~iMiV or m~um, m~ ~ i~ma~
tin., ~~, m~. ~m~n of ~iMi~ or iramr., or c~es to t~ s~e,
s~ll ~im a ~~ i ~ H~o~ ~m~ ~emln Pe~ ~b~ l H~odc
Pmsew~ ~m~ r~ a~ ~.
C. Building Ign
1. ~ ~e~e e~ symem i r~i~ l ~i ~m~ ~t wmer ~r all ~elli~ un~s
a~ for ~aU~ a~ ~~ ~1 ~ ~, uniu ~ alem e~ symem are
dem~mH t ~ ~ ~i~Im ~ ~ eff~. NI ~~ ~ i~i~ m the
tim of in~il devemm s~ll ~ ~~m~ ~ ~ Mm~. ~tils s~ll ~
i~d~ in t~ ~i~i~ ~ a~ s~ll ~ ~m~ for C~ Ran~r r~ a~ ~mval
p~r to t~ ~a~ ~ ~iMi~ ~s.
2. All ~elli~s sMII ~ve t~ front, s~ a~ mar e~vm~ns u~r~ w~h amh~ural
tramram, ~taili~ aM imma~ ~li~m~n of ~d~ ternram ~ to C~ Planner
mv~ aM ~mval p~r to ~sua~ of ~i~i~ ~s.
~- 2/9~ 3 or ~2
3. St~ffi ~ rover pla~ for use ~ t~ Hokum' ~iat~n shall be subm~ for . / /
C~ Pm~r ~ ~iMi~ ~1 rev~ a~ ~pmval ~r to i.uame of ~i~i~ ~s.
4. NI ~ ~fie~s, in~i~ ~r ~ne~ a~ ot~r ~f mu~ ~m a~or / /
mje~bns, eMIl N shie~ from ve aM t~ ~nd ~er~ from ~nt pm~dies a~
mreem as rRuir~ by ~ Pmni~ D~i~n. S~ ~ening sMII ~ amhR~urally
im~mt~ w~h t~ ~iMi~ des~n aM ~~~ to t~ smi~a~n of the C~ Pin~r.
Detai~ shall N i~ in ~iMi~ ~.
D. Pamlng aM Veh~ir ~ (IMl~e ~ll ~ ~iMIng
/1. All mi~ ~t i~/la~s eMIl Mve a minim m ~sl dimns~n of 6 f~t a~ ~all / /
~mln a 12-i~ w~ M~mm to tM ~ sill (~i~ ~).
~Te~ur~ ~mMn m~ays aM te~r~ ~em ~ cim~n alls sMII ~ / /
m~ th~~ t~ ~vemm ~ ~ ~Mi~un~iMiV ~ ~n m~
ma~r~mat~MI uses; "
~3.AR H~i~ ~ shae M ~i i ~r C~ mare aN all ~w~ aisles,
eramines, aN exes eMIl N t~ ~r C~ ma~.
4. All un~s s~ll N mv~ w~h ~ ~r ~Mm ff d~ways are i. t~ 18 fee in / /
~h from ~ ~ smal~
5. ~e C~e~, ~~ a~ Re__bin s~ rffi~ ~e St~ ~ ~mbnal veh~is / ' /
on thi s~e uni~ tMy am tM ~ mmd tmn~~ for ~ ~r ~ ~hbH
~i~ on ime~r ~bn i~ ~r ~an idd~~ ~or ~ areas.
~: .....
6. Pim ~ a~ ~ ~es sM~ M ~mte f~ tM c~ P~er, C~ E~imr, a~ ./ /
Ram~ C~m~ Fire Pm~n D~ ~w aM ~i ~ri ima~ ~ miti~
~es.
E. ~nd~pl~ (~ ~I~N ~ill i~ el mlr to Im N.)
1. ANt~l~aMi~n~.i~~~~ml~m i~ / /
~meN~~~m19.~.110,~meontMgM~Pa~.
~ ~ d ~ ~ i M ~e in ~ ~ ne ~m f~ ~ame tres
~m~m ~ mewmin, nn;~aM td~ ~.
3. A ~m ~ t~ ~.g~ m, m~ ~ ~e fol~ s~e, s~ N pm~ / /
weh~ tN ~: % - ~- i~ ~x or I~r, % - 3~ ~ ~x or i~er,
__ % - 2~ i~ ~x or ~. - % - 1~; ~__ % - 5 ~.'
-4. A ~nimm ~ % of t~ ~e ~n me ~ ma~ M ~n s~e ~es - / /
2~ ~x ~ ~r.
5. W~hin ~i~ ~s, trees s~l M ~am~ m a me d one l~l~n Ire for e~W three / /_
~mi~ mall, ~im to ~ 5~ of tN ~mi~ area ~ Mir ~n on ~m 21.
SC - 2/9 ! 4 of |2
,6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
7. AIIprivateslopebanks5feetorlessinverticalheightandof5:l orgmaterslope, but lessthan
2:1 slope, shell be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shell include a permanent irrigation.
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
8. AII private slopes in excess of 5 feet, butlessthan8 feet invertical height and of 2:l orgreater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. 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 slope shell also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shell include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
9. For single family residential development, all 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 thai they are in satisfactory
10. For rnuitkfamily residential and non-residential .developmerit, property owners are respon-
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areae on-see, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. NI lar~ areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and ttffi condition,-. and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any darnaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant matehel shall be replaced within 30 days from the dale of damage.
11. Front yard landscaping shell he required per-the Development Code and/or
This requirement shell be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting. . .
12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be
included in the required landscape plans and shall he lubiect Io City Planner review and
approval and coordinated Ior consiste ncy with any parkway. landing plan which may he
required by the Engineering Division. , ...... ·
13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander-
ing sidewalks (with horizontal .change), and inlensltied laadscaping, is required along
14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on
the perimeter o1 this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
15. AII walisshellbeprovldedwlthclecorativetreatment. fflocated inpubllcrnalntenanceareas,
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shell be developed and 8ubnliad for City Planner review and
aplcxoval prior to issuance of building permits. These crlteda shell encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
SC - 2/9 1 5 of 12
PTOi~ NO.:q?'' ' i L~
F. Sign~
1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of thisapproval./ /
Any signs proposed for this development shall cornply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
signs.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and / /
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes / /
prior to occupancy and shall reduim separate applicatiOn and approval by the Planning
DivisiOn prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock / /__
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted t /
Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3: The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notloe of the Foothill Freeway / /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the/ /
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuse the level of interior noise
attenuatiOn to bee 45 CNEL the building materials and constnjction technique provided,
and if al2pmpdate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agenclel - -
1. Emergencyse(x)ndiryaGGess~allbepmvidedtna(;cordirtcewlt~CucamongaFire / /
Protection District Standards.
2. Emergencymshallbeprovlded, maintenance free and clear, a mintmumof261eetwide / /
at all times during constnjction in accordance with Ranclx) Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requjmmems.
3. Prior to tsmmnce of building permits for combustible constnjction, evidence shall be / /
submitted to the Rancho Cij(:~menga Rre Protection District that temporary water supply for
fire protection le available, pending completion of required fire protection system.
4. The applicam shall contact the U. S. Postal Service to determirte the al~xoprlate type and / /
location of rmlil boxes. Multi-family resldenlial developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure Ior mall boxes with adequate Mghting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure mall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all/ /-
supportive ir~o.rmatlon, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Ofiiolal prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits.
SC-2/91 6of12 ~__~,,~(Z)
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. SIte Development
1. The applicant shall cornply with the latest adopted Un~orm Building Code, Un~orm Mechani- / /.--
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the tim of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition / /
to existing u nit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees
may include, but am not limitedto: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Deveioprnent Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or / /
addition to an existing .development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
4. Street addresses sha~~ be pr~vided by the Building ~~icia~~ aftertract/parce~ map rec~rdati~n / /
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J, Existing Structure~
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances / i
considering use, area, and fire-res|mlvensss of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for / /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existing sewage disposal factliflas shall be removed, lied and/or capped to comply with the / /
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilie are to be located and shown on' building plans' iml3mitted for / /
building permit application.
K, Grading
1. Grading of the subtect properly shall be in moordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / /
Grading Standan:i, and accepted grading practices, The final grading plan shall be in
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the Stme of California to / /
perform such wok.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion conlrol boundaries; a Soil Disturbance / /
Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardino County Depi~ment of Agriculture at (714)
387-2111 for permit apllcalton. Documentationof such permit shall be submitted totbe City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
__ 4. A geological report shall be Fired by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at / /
the time of application for grading plan check.
5. Thefinalgradingp~anssha~~becorn~letedandappr~vedpri~rt~issuanceofbuildingpermits. / /
sc- 2/9t Of ~2
c~ieu~
6. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteearia completion of all on-site / /
drainage facilities necessary for dewaredna all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division priorto final map approval and priorto the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto ----/ /
or over adjacent parcels, am to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessar~;ior dewaredna and protecting the sulxlivided / /
properties, are to be installed pdor to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submittad to the Building and Safety / /
Division for approval prior to issuance of building and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses . J /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completionof grading or some other
alternative mathod of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigmion system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements of Section 17.08.040 1 of the Development Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DNISION, (714) 98i-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE'
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, / /
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tenlafive map.
V"/2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets / /
(measured from street canrecline):
G:~)totll feet on ~ ¢:L
total teat on
total feet on
total leer on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shml be made ---J /~
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 ens4jdng 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 - 2/9~ e or t2
6. pdvate drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be Provided andshallbe delineated i ,/ /-
or noted on the final map.
7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 10-foot minimum building restridion area on tl~e / / ..
neighboring lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language:
'/A/lie hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the
construction of (residential) tx~ildings (or other structures) within those areas designated
on the rna~ as 13uilding restriction areas.'
A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the
CC&R's.
V// 8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on · /
the final map.
9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way J
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property.
10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minirnurn / / .
of 7 feet measured from the face of curos. If curt} adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests · /
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and it he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests required forthe improvements.
Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the sulxlivision. Secudty
for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
a,opraisal report obtained by the developer, at developers cost. The appraiser shall have
been ,loproved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
M. $trtet Improvementl
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, /
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to
City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, ~ are not limited to, curo and
gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A minimum ol 26- foot wide pavement, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way Shall be / /
constructed for all hall-section streets.
~ 3. Construct the following pertnetar street improvements including, 13ut not limited to: / /
s~- 2/91 9or t2 ~--~ ~
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irngation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, side-
walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall
be provided for this item.:
V//f 4. Improvement 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 al:~roved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attomey guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improve-
ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building parmRs, whichever occurs
first.
b. Prior to any work being parlormeal in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a / /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers 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 installed on any new constructiOn or reconstruction / /
of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets Ior future traffic signeis. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR or any other locatiOns approved by the City Engineer.
Notes: / /-
(1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrope.
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all four corners of intersections per City / /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction Shall remain open to traffic at all times with / /
adequate detours during constructiOn. A street cfoeur~ permit may be required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon compleliOn of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewake. Under sidewalk drains shall be / /
installed to City Sindares, excefX for single tamily lots.
h. Handicap access ramp design shall be Is specified by the City Engineer. / /
i. StreetnamesshallbeapfxovedbytheCityPlannerPmrtosubmittalforfirstPlancheck. / /
5. Street irrqyovement plans par City Standards for all proate streets shall be provided for / /
review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being parformed on the pri-
vate streets, fees Shall be paid and construction parmils shall be obtained from the City
Engineers Office in addition to any other parmils required.
~//6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallOn size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / '
accordance with the City's street tree program.
SC - 2/9t !Oof 12
7. Intersection line of site designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance wrth
adopted policy.
a. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections,
including driveways. Walls, signs, and slopes shall be located outside the lines of sight.
Landscaping and other obstnjctions 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 +I- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street
tree easement.
V/" 8. A permit shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any worn within the following right-of-way: .~¢>1"H I~ L_ _12.L.VT)
9. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areel
1. A separate set of landscape and in'h3ation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards / /
shall be submitled to the City Er~ineer for review and al~roval pdor to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways,
medians, peseos, easements, trails, or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the al:q}roprlate Landscape and Lighting / /
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer priorto final map alXN'oval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shell be berne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the / /
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the lollowing street(s) shall conlorm to the remits of the respective / /
Beautification Master Plan: ~,)t,q~l~L- ~p~C, IFIC, Pt..~/~l
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, fioed / /
protection maretea shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone / /
designation removed from the project area. The beveioper's engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraullc calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be ol3tained from FEMA pmr to final map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final ---/ /-
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage ,
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
SC - 2/91 ; I of 12
4. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within its rK:jht-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
V/' 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, / /
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
V/ 2. The developor shall be responsible for the relocatlon of existing utilities as necessary. / /
V~' 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the / /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD). Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bemardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1. The separate parcels contained within the project bounclahes shall be legally combined into / /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint usa driveway shall be provided prior to final map apDroval or / /
issuance of buildinO permits, whichever occurs first, for: _
/ /
3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covedng the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created parcels.
4. Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional. and Master Plan / /
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map al:qyoval or prior to building permit issuance ff
no map is involved.
5. Permits shall be ol3tained from the following agencies for woffi within their right-of-way: / /
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Entorcement Community / /
Facilities Diltriol shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to finn map approval or the
issuance ol INkling permitS, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient irnlxovement plane shall be corn- / /
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 or 12
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 92-01 - HERNANDEZ - A request to reduce the minimum
lot size from 7,200 square feet to 7,100 and 6,400 square
feet, the minimum average lot size from 8,000 to 6,750 square
feet, and the minimum corner width from 70 feet to 64 feet
for two lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre), located at the northwest corner of 24th
Street and Center Avenue - APN: 209-104-15, 16, and 17.
Related file: Lot Line Adjustment No. 357.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a variance to reduce the
required lot width and lot area-
B. Project Density: 6 dwelling units per acre-
C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Existing single family residential; Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
South - Existing single family residential; Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
East - Existing single family residential; Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
West - Existing single family residential; Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre)
D- General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
West - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
E. Site Characteristics: The site consists of an existing single
family residence with a carport and yard and is surrounded by a
, chain link fence. Curb, gutters, and sidewalks are in place-
Several trees and shrubs exist on the site.
ITEM D j
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 92 - 01 - HERNANDEZ
May 27, 1992
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A- General: The purpose and intent of the variance is to provide
flexibility from the strict application of development standards
when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size,
shape, topography, or location deprive such property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same district
inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code- In
reviewing individual cases for variances, the following criteria
must be considered:
1. Special Circumstances:
a. Is the property unique with respect to size, shape,
topography, or location?
b. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to the property or proposed use that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone?
2. Preservation of Property Right (Hardship):
a. Can reasonable use be made of the property without this
variance?
b- Without this variance, is the applicant denied privileges
enjoyed by owners of other properties in the area?
c. Is the hardship self-imposed or created by the physical
constraints of the site?
3. Damage to Others:
a. Will the variance be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare?
b. Will the granting of the variance be a special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in
the same zone?
B. Specific:
1. Lot Size: The applicant is processing Lot Line Adjustment No.
357 to create two lots from three smaller parcels. Parcel "B"
is6,400 square feet and Parcel "A" is 7,100 square feet- The
Development Code requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square
feet within the Low Residential District and the minimum
.average lot size required is 8,000 square feet-
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 92-01 - HERNANDEZ
May 27, 1992
Page 3
A majority of the lots in the area, which were created in 1887
to establish the North Cucamonga subdivision of the Cucamonga
Fruitlands, do not conform to current standards. The lots
which front on Center Avenue are typically 50 X 125 feet, with
a lot size of 6,250 square feet (950 square feet less than the
minimum)- Most of the other lots in the North Cucamonga area
are 50 feet wide and 150 feet deep resulting in a typical area
of 7,500 square feet, which is still 500 square feet less than
the average lot size required by today's development standards.
The minimum average lot size standard, which is 800 square feet
larger than the minimum lot size, was established in 1983 to
foster greater variety within new single family subdivisions.
Because a majority of the lots in the area do not conform to
the current lot size requirements, and because the proposed lot
line adjustment will serve to reduce the number of non-
conforming lots and create two lots which are more consistent
with those in the area, staff supports the approval of a
variance to reduce the minimum lot area and the minimum average
lot area requirements-
2. Lot Width: The lot width of Parcel "B" is 64 feet and the
width of Parcel "A" is 71 feet- In the Low Residential
district, the required width for interior lots is 65 feet and
70 feet for corner lots- Both lots could be created with the
required lot widths, but doing so would cause the existing
structure to be located on the property line and would require
a variance from the side yard setback requirement, as well as
requiring modifications to the building-
Allowing a reduction in the required corner lot width is
preferable to a reduction in the side yard setback because
modifications to the home would not be required- In addition,
the 22-foot wide parkway will serve as an extra wide buffer
between a future home and the street.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Before granting a variance, the Planning Comission
must make all of the following required findings:
A- That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of
the Development Code-
B- That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended
use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties
in the same zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 92-01 - HERNANDEZ
May 27, 1992
Page 4
C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone-
D- That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the other
properties classified in the same zone-
E. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in
the Inland Valle~ Dail~ Bulletin newspaper, the property has been
posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners within 300
feet of the project.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Variance 92-01 through adoption of the .attached Resolution of Approval
with findings.
Respectfully submitted,
BB:SR/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant ' s Description of Variance
Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "C" - Parcel Map
Resolution of Approval
Lot Line Ad~ustfnent FILE NO.: V/~ [f~-Ol
10294 24th st. (NW Cor. 24th & Center)
l.~sai a,,:~,=o. ~ ~ ~,~. p~ so.> ~LATED ~:
A.P,N, 0209-104-15t 16 & 17
~h~t's N~c ~ N~r
David Hernandez 714-987-2725
A~
8877 Hamilton, Alta Lomat CA 91701
..
Type Of Review Requested (Ple. Lm~ Chack All Applkable Be=,~)
23 Community Plan Amendment '~1 General Plan Amendment I3 Tentative Pattel Map
~l Conditional Use Pua,Ut ~3 Hillsick Development :s$ DU t3 Tenalive Tract Map
~3 Condilional Use Permit '3 Hillsjolt Development ~4 DU ~3 Vacation of Public Right-of-wa~,
(Non-Consu~cUon) 3 i~ndmaet Almaon Permit or Easement
~3 DeWDesign Review- Comm/Lqdus l~ Lot Line Adjuslment .~Variance
~l Dev/Design Review- Residential ~3 Minor Development Review 13 Use Demmmmtion
~l Development Agreement {3 Minor F. xceptiott 13 ~
3 Development Dismet Amendment ~3 Preliminary Review
3 Enteauinment Pm'mit :~ Specific Plan Amendment
~mleDe,ttnpti~of~Pmj~:t(Anat:hAddi~cmalSImu~NacassmT)
Converting three substandard lots into two lots both of which are
compatible with the area in s~ze. Parcel "B" can then be constructed
on. Also, the lot line adjustment eliminates existing lot lines
which currently cross through an existing residential structure.
I certify that I am pttsendy the legal owner of the above-described property. Further, I acknowledge the filing
this application and cemfy that all of !he above information is flue and cor~ct af trt undersigned is differen,~
from the legal property owntr. a itntr of authorization must accompany this form.)
D ' r andez Owner
avx e n ,
CITY OF-;!~~O..=.!:C~CAMONGA ITEM: CAR q2-Oi -:- .a,_
PLa N¢"D S ON
.- ....... : TITLE: ~t~t. tc~Fr'~ I~'-~r~t~
-. EXHiBiT: A SCALE: --
CZTI' OF RAN~O.. CUCAMONGA ITEM: VA R clZ-.-Cg l
PLANNING DIVISION
EXHIB~: B SCALE: "'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO.
92-01 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM LOT AREA FROM
7,200 SQUARE FEET TO 7,100 AND 6,400 SQUARE FEET, THE
MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT AREA FROM 8,000 TO 6,750 SQUARE FEET,
AND THE MINIMUM CORNER WIDTH FROM 70 TO 64 FEET, FOR TWO
LOTS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 24TH STREET AND
CENTER AVENUE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ( 2-4
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 204-104-15, 16, AND 17. RELATED FILE:
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 357.
A. Recitals.
(i) David Hernandez has filed an application for the issuance of
Variance No- 92-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter
in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the
application."
(ii) On May 27, 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 27, 1992, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to three legal parcels located at
10278 24th Street with a street frontage of 235 feet and lot depth of 100 feet
and are presently improved with an existing single family home; and
(b) The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the
subject site each contain a single family home; and
(c) The lots with frontage on Center Avenue in the North
Cucamonga area typically have an area of 6,250 square feet and the rest of the
lots in the surrounding subdivision are typically 7,500 square feet in size;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 92-01 - HERNANDEZ
May 27, 1992
Page 2
(d) Allowing a variance from the required corner lot width
eliminates the need for a variance for the side yard setback and will not
require modification to the existing residence; and
(e) Granting the variance reduces the number of substandard
lots and will create two lots which are significantly more compatible with the
surrounding lots-
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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.
(b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district.
(c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district.
(d) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
(e) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution-
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry T. McNiel, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 92-01 - HERNANDEZ
May 27, 1992
Page 3
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 27th day of May 1992, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 27, 1992
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-15 - MONARCH FOODS - Selection of the roof
element for Shakey ' s Restaurant, located in the Terra Vista Town
Center - APN: 1077-421-76.
BACKGROUND: Shakey's Restaurant was approved by the Planning Commission on April
8, 1992. One of the conditions of approval requires that the final design of-. the
dome and the element on top of it shall be subject to Design Review Committee
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. On May 21, 1992,
the Committee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) reviewed the dome design as conceptually
approved by the Commission and a new scheme consisting of a hip roof tower
design. The, Committee felt that the dome design would add an interest to the
building more than the hip roof tower design. However, the Committee could not
reach a concensus on whether the dome should remain plastered or should have
ceramic tiles added and referred the matter to the full Co~nission for selection
of an alternative-
ANALYSIS: There are three alternatives for the Commission to consider, they are
as follows:
1. Dome to remain plastered with a ball element on top as origially approved on
April 8, 1992.
2. Add ceramic tiles to the dome. The color of the tiles shall be subject to
City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits-
(It should be noted that the developer is opposed to this alternative-)
3- Approve the hip roof tower design as submitted-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission choose one of the
alternatives as outlined above.
Res lly su ' d,
Bra
BB:NF/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - Elevations - Dome Design
Exhibit "C" - Elevations - Hip Roof Tower Design
ITEM E
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: May 27, 1992
To: Planning Commissione
From: ' ',
By: eer
Subject: Fiscal Year 1992/93 Engineering's Capital Improvement Projects
Attached is the Executive Summary of Engineering Depariment's FY 1992/93 Capital
Improvement Projects Budget. The summary outlines the capital projects, the funded
activity, the budgeted amount for each project, and the funding source(s). The projects
are categorized by the type of project. Those types being:
Beautification
Drainage
Master Plan
Railroad
Streets
Traffic
Also included is a breakdown of the funding sources and the percent allocation to the
capital budget with a similar breakdown by project type. Lastly is an exhibit
identifying capital project location and each project's relative cost. This depicts where,
within the City, funds will be spent along with the magnitude of those expenditures.
One consequence of the reduction of development within the City is a corresponding
decline in the amount of development fees which the City takes in. Beautification,
Transportation, General City Drainage and Etiwanda Drainage Fees have in the past
been used to fund Engineering's capital projects. These fees have declined to a fraction
of what was being received during the mid '80's. However, to help offset this reduction is
an increase in gas tax revenues resulting from the passage of State Proposition 111 and
the County's Measure I. Measure I is a major source of funds for the improvement of
Haven Avenue. The City's Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 8 allocation,
which has primarily been used to fund new signal installation, has been cut
significantly due to the Omnitrans/Cities funding agreement. This agreement permits
Omnitrans to appropriate TDA Article 8 money as needed with the remainder being
allocated to the Cities. Omnitrans will be replacing older buses in addition to
purchasing new buses to accommodate its expansion policies. While we do not
anticipate any revenue from this source in this, or subsequent years, the City is
carrying over from prior years a retained fund balance of TDA Article 8 monies which
will go towards the installation of traffic signals in various locations throughout the
City.
WjO/ws
attachments
ITEM F
: ::::CITY
ENGINEERING/PUBLIC' WO~S/MAINTENANCE~' ': :~::: :~' :i: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Capital Projects By Type
Traffic(3.1%)
Salaries(7~5%)
Streets(84.1%) Beautification(0.2%)
Drainage(4.4%)
Railroad(0.5%)
Master Plan(0.3%)
Capital Projects By Funding Source
CDBG(0.2%)
RDA(29.7%) Rule 20A(2.6%)
Assessment Districts(4.3%)
SB 140(1.1%) ~
Gas Tax(3.4%)
~ Prop. 111(2.6%)
i::..":...::,...Z:::.:Z::~::d;:~.:~,.......~...~~
Arterial &Local MeasureI(31.6%) ..~. portation(12.7%) Be tif ti (03~)
General City Drainage(0.7%)
FAU(5.9%)
FY 92193 - Proposed Capital Improvement Projects Summary
Projects by Type:
Beautification $27,000 0.2%
Drainage $676,110 4.4%
Master Plan $51,000 03%
Railroad $70,000 0.5%
Streets $13,076,240 84.1%
Traffic $475,000 3.1%
Salaries $1,165,250 7.5%
Total $15,540,600 100.0%
Projects by Funding Source:
Gas Tax $532,900 3.4%
Prop. 111 $411,196 2.6%
TDA Article 8 $643,555 4.1%
TDA Article 3 $20,000 0.1%
E~wanda Drainage $84,500 0.5%
Beauti~cation $40,884 0.3%
Transportation $1,974,429 12.7%
General City Drainage $112,491 0.7%
FAU $913,907 5.9%
Arterial & Local Measure I $4,912,171 31.6%
SB 140 $170,000 1.1%
RDA $4,618,779 29.7%°
CDBG $35,740 0.2%
Rule 20A $4{)0,000 2.6%
Assessment Districts $670,048 4.3%
Total $15t540;600 100.0%