The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992/08/12 - Agenda Packet - (2)1977 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANK21W~ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY AUGUST 12, 1992 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA III. IV. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette Announcements Approval of Minutes Adjourned Meeting of October 17, 1991 Adjourned Meeting of July 1, 1992 July 8, 1992 July 22, 1992 V. Consent Calendar The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-11 - GATX REALTY (FORMERLY J.A. STEWART) - A request for a time extension for the development of ten industrial buildings totaling 158,420 square feet on 8.38 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 12464 - GATX REALTY fFORMERLY J. A. STEWART] - A request for a time extension for the subdivision of 8.38 acres of land into 14 parcels for industrial use in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE fFORMERLY HOMESTEAD) - A request for an extension of a previously approved vesting tentative tract map consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential district (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, and 42 and Lot "0." TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE (FORMERLY HOMESTEAD) - A request for an extension of a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 91 lots (Phases 1 and 2) of a vesting tentative tract map consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential district (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, and 42. 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. VARIANCE 92-03 - HENNING - A request to construct a block wall of over 3 feet in height for a distance of approximately 6 feet 8 inches within the front setback area for a house in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 8921 Reeves Court - APN: 208-751-04. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-37 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC. - A request to construct a 3,275 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-151-21 Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. (Continued from July 22, 1992.) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ~3j8 - JAMES E. CARTER - A subdivision of 3.45 acres of land into three parcels in the Neighborhood Commercial Development District located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208-202-13 and 14. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-21 - CALVARY CHAPEL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The request to establish a church within an existing 12,764 square foot building within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8678 Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-021-16. VARIANCE 92-04 - THOMAS A. BOARD - The request to reduce the streetscape setback from 35 feet to 26 feet 6 inches and the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet 6 inches to allow the construction of a room addition to an existing single family residence in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 8236 Matterhorn Court - APN: 208-851-44. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION - The proposed development of a fast food drive-thru restaurant totaling 1,989 square feet on 0.58 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-801-09. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 89-08 (Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center). Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. VII · VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Staff recommends certification of the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. (Continued from July 8, 1992.) (STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED.) VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. (Continued from July 8, 1992.) (STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED.) Director's Reports Me APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT 92-141 - TEXACO - An appeal of the City Planner's decision denying the installation of a canopy sign at an existing service station within the Special Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8166 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-112-20. 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. Commission Business N. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS O. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS X. Adjournment The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. VICINITY MAP Freeway A,T.& S.F. RR CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-11 - GATX REALTY (FORMERLY J.A- STEWART) - A request for a time extension for the development of ten industrial buildings totaling 158,420 square feet on 8-38 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. Associated with this project is Parcel Map 12464 BACKGROUND: The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 27, 1990, for a two-year period. Since that time the applicant has not actively pursued building permit issuance. They are currently requesting a three-year time extension in order to allow them additional time necessary to pursue financing alternatives. The Planning Commission typically approves time extensions in one-year increments for a maximum of five years. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the time extension request and the development review file for compliance with the Industrial Specific Plan, the Development Code, and the General Plan. The project is consistent with technical requirements such as setbacks, landscaping, and design requirements as defined by the Industrial Specific Plan for Subarea 5. At the time of approval in 1990, all applicable development standards, consistent with the Industrial Specific Plan, were applied to the project. However, since the time of approval, the Industrial Specific Plan has been amended to eliminate compact parking stalls- At the time of approval, 35 percent of all required parking was permitted to be compact. The following parking tabulation was applied to th~ project at the time of approval: ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 89-11 - GATX REALTY August 12, 1992 Page 2 Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Office 13,669 1/250 60 Manufacturing 54,669 1/500 107 Warehouse 68,344 1/1000 69 Multi-tenant 21,738 1/400 54 Total 290 295 Of the required 290 spaces, 85 spaces (29 percent) were proposed as compact spaces. The compact spaces have been highlighted in Exhibit "B." Staff would suggest that the compact stalls be eliminated to the extent possible while still providing the required 290 parking spaces. A condition has been added to the Resolution of Approval requiring the parking layout be revised prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the project is consistent with the Industrial Buildings Architectural Guidelines (Resolution 89-158) which has been in effect since December 13, 1989. The project consists of five single-tenant, freestanding buildings and four duplex buildings with space for thirteen single-tenant uses. The multi-tenant building provides space for five tenant users- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one-year time extension for Development Review 89-11 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval- Res y skA~-~ te BB:BN:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter From Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Elevations Exhibit "D" - Site Utilization Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "G" - Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit "H" - Resolution No. 90-82 Resolution of Approval with Conditions COM'MERCI,~, L R~-:A L KSTATF 5f-R', ICES June 8, 1992 Beverly Nisser Planner PLANNING DIVISION Community Development Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 91729 ~ Rancho Cucamonga, California ~ RE: Industrial Specific Plan 9- .'~./~,~KTc~,~Sq,/~l "i 8 o ,,; Parcel Map 12464 ' / Dear Beverly: ,.~ As a result of our conversation, I am writing to request a renewal of the entitlement that has been given to the above referenced. I understand under normal circumstances the city will grant entitlement for a total period of five (5) years. On June 291h, 1992 we will have reached our second anniversary; as such, I am seeking a renewal for three (3) years. We are seeking this request to avail ourselves the time necessary to seek financing alternatives. I have included, as requested, the necessary application fee of $549.00. I appreciate your attention to this matter and anticipate your affirmative response. If you have any questions, please call me at (310) 699-7500. Sincerely, EaWard Indvik On behalf of GATX Realty Corporation cc: Peter Dewes, Director h:\indvike~:l\pland~v lit CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ~) wEs~ F ! NORTH l) SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG A OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ITEM: 'V~-- TITLE: EXHIBIT: ~' ~ SCALE; :F,-X'H'l'bt'f "C." () () ( ) WEST I NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG B ....... .*,,,. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ITEM: ~ ~- TITLE: ~, ,~ '~ ,',,~X~'A~," EXHIBIT:- ~n,, SCALE: () () () SOUTH WEST(... () EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG C NORTH. EAST OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ~/~, ,,~ ExHmrr: V' :h SCALE: A .L ,# ( EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG D ( ) SOUTH ( ) EAST NORTH WEST CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT: t~ .~,~n SCALE: NORTH ~ .,~ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EAST SOUTH .;'1 WEST 8LDG E .... , ....',. ? OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT: t, SCALE: HORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG F EAST~. SOUTH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION TITLE: ~'-t~_~, .x~C',~.-c ? EXHIBIT: ' SCALE: Ci (-,) WEST SOUTH (-~) (.) EAST ,. .,,I ..,i NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG G OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION i) ( ) () () WEST SOUTH :- .... EAS'[ i · .'~ .,_LL: '~ EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG H CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT: t bTM SCALE: /~ -/ L ~ ) WEST. SOUTH , ) EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG ,J EAST . !,, L,,'~NORTH ' . OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION EX2HIBIT: "~" SCALE: c) I ~ ) ( ) WEST ( NORTH ,. EAST · "LJ:. ~ i'/' L SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS BLDG K IU~DIII]~ &.M enI N ~II. AR OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION EXHIBIT: F]6' SCALE: L) I .z_ _. NORTH ~) WEST, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MULTI-TENANT OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION ITEM: , X"' ~'ct ,1 t TITLE: ~ '6j ,,' %(~ '; ,~ C, I SCALE: L) ._"F SOUTH () ..j EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS MULTI-TENANT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION TITLE: ~'iC,' ;:'~ C~,c' EX~IB1T: ~:1','9- SCALE: f~ -f(~ EXH I~,tf "C-It" 9F RANCHO CUCAMONGA .-PLANNING.' DMSION ~'/,,t4 x ~T EXHFBFF: .-- SCALE: 1I ~ Is CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION A OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION TITLE: b-'~' -~' 'C ¢~-7~ , ',~ l EXHIBIT: U'~I SCALE:' /x,, Ikl, (~:)pARKI,,sn LQT I=q A7A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT: U')~, SCALE:" A -2. o I, TABLE DETAL QPARKIn LOT PLAZA PLAT .A ADJACENT TO BLI~ DI,.itq · EA,,ST'PItC~TY ELEVATION (- OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DMSION EXHIBIT: ~/~' SC E: """ AL i. RESOLUTION NO. 90-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAJIONGA, CALI FORN IA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 89-11, THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEN INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 158,420 SQUARE FEET ON 8.38 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND 7TH STREET, IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, SUBAREA 5 OF THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: '209-261-09 AND 30. A. Recitals. (i) J.A. Stewart Construction has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 89-11 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 27th of June, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. (ii i) 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 June 13, 1990, including written and oral staff reports this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies'to property located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of 7th Street, with a street frontage of 652 feet and a lot depth of 560 feet and is currently vacant; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is predominately vacant, however, it includes a Cucamonga County Water District pump station, the property to the east and south contains existing industrial buildings, and the property to the west is vacant. (c) The application proposes the development of an industrial complex containing both single-tenant and multi-tenant buildings. The single tenant buildings total 136,682 square feet and are provided in five freestanding buildings and four duplex buildings with space for thirteen single tenant uses. The multi-tenant building totals 21,738 square feet and provides space for five tenant uses. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9C~-82 DR 89-11 - J.A. STEWART CONSTRUCTION JUNE 27, 1990 Page 2 (d) The application proposes a texturized pedestrian connection leading from the project site to the project's east boundary for a future connection with the Regional Multi-System trail to be located along the Deer Creek Channel. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code the Industrial Specific Plan 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 the Industrial Specific Plan; 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. 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 hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions attached here to and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division (1) The approval of this project is contingent on approval of Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 89-03. (2) A consistent texturized paving treatment shall be provided at the driveways, the building entryways, along the pedestrian connections, and at the employee plaza areas, and shal.1 be of interlocking brick pavers, exposed aggregate, or a combination of these, subject to City Planner review and approval. Full material samples shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 89-11 - J.A. STEWART CONSTRUCTION jUNE 27, 1990 Page 3 90-82 (3) Final design of the employee plazas and the pedestrian connection leading to the Deer Creek Channel shall be shown on the Landscape and Irrigation Plans subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. (4): The final design of the flood wall along Hermosa Avenue shall be subject to City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. (5) All screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design, and where possible a roof parapet wall shall be used to screen roof mounted equipment. If roof screening is needed, it shall be of an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design. Full material samples of such roof screening shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. (6) Any revisions to the Site Plan for the removal of landscaping adjacent to either Building A or J for the installation of roll-up doors will require a Modification to the Development Review approval. (7) Any revision to the building elevations to allow for the installation of dock-high doors, in place of existing roll-up doors, will require a Minor Development Review application with City Planner review and approval. (8) Reciprocal easement for the use of the employee plaza areas and the pedestrian connection to the Deer Creek Channel shall be delineated on the Parcel Map and the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded concurrently with the Parcel Map. Engineerinq Division (1) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities {telecommunication and electrical} on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of 7th Street to the south project boundary. (2) A storm drain pipe shall be constructed along Hermosa Avenue and the existing channel eliminated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 89-11 - J.A. STEWART CONSTRUCTION JUNE 27, 1990 Page 4 90 -82 (3) The project shall be protected from flood flows entering the project from the north and the west to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (4) The vacation of 7th Street shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. (5} The drive approaches shall be 35 feet in width at the right-of-way to conform to City Standard No. 306. (6) Vehicular lines of sight shall be plotted for the project driveways on the landscape and grading plans. The landscaping within the "Limited Use Areas" shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. (7) The flood wall shall be designed to wrap around the driveways to join a seal against flood waters as determined by the final Flood Study. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 1990. PLANNING COMM SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: I, Brad Bullet, 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 June, 1990, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER 'xl I\l ",.1 I'1 II I /q -2 q /~-/o . . ~ ~ ~ . . i, ~ ~ ,i; '""'s ~'~i~ ig' i;i:~ I I I l'xl xl xlxl x,I I ! I ~q-33 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 89-11, THE DEVELOPMENT OF TEN INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 158,420 SQUARE FEET ON 8.38 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 5) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND 7TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-261-09 AND 30. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above-described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.090. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above-described Development Review for an industrial complex totaling 158,420 square feet. SECTION 1: The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has made the following findings: Ae That current economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for development of the project. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to develop the project at this time. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expiration would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: California, hereby following condition: The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, grants a time extension for DR 89-11 subject to the Ae All conditions of approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-82 shall apply. Be Approval shall expire on June 27, 1993, unless extended by the Planning Commission. Ce Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall revise the parking layout to eliminate as many compact spaces as possible, while still maintaining the required 290 spaces. The revised plan shall be subject to approval by the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR DR 89-11 - GATX REALTY August 12, 1992 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: NOES COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT August 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planntng Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Vickl Day, Engineering Technician TIME EXTENSION FOR PARCEL MAP 12464 - GAll( REALTY (FORMERLY J.A. SIEWARI CONSIRU~IION) - Ihe ~ubdlvls)on oF 8.38 acres of Tand into 14 parcels for ~ndustrial use in the General Industrial District Subarea 5 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 7th Street - APN: 209-261-09 and 30. BACKGROUND: Tentative Parc~ Map 12464 as shown on Exhibit "C" was initially approved by the ~anning Conmnlssion on June 27, 1990 for an tnitl~ two year period until June 27, 1992. The applicant is now requesting the first of a possible three one-year time extensions. The letter of request(Exhibit "A") is attached for your reference. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: There have been no significant changes in the Land Use ~ ement of the General Plan, Development Code, or character of the area within which the project is located that would cause the approved project to become inconsistent or non- conforming. The granting of an extension should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. RECOMNENDATION: It is recon~ended that the ~anntng Conmnission adopt the attached res~ution approving a one-year time extension for Parc~ Map 12464. The new expiration date would be June 27, 1993. Respectfully submitted, Dan~jame~s/'~~ Senior Civil Engineer DJ:VD:Jh Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter of Request Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" - Tentative Map Res~ ution No. 90-81 Time Extension Resolution of Approval ITEM B Y Lee m CO~IMf, RCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES June 8, 1992 Beverly Nisser Planner PLANNING DIVISION Cogunity Development Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Industrial Specific Plan 89-03 f) ~ ~-q-[ / Parcel Map 12464 Dear Beverly: As a result of our conversation, I am writing to request a renewal of the entitlement that has been given to the above referenced. I understand under normal circumstances the city will grant entitlement for a total period of five (5) years. On June 291h, 1992 we will have reached our second anniversary; as such, I am seeking a renewal for three (3) years. We are seeking this request to avail ourselves the time necessary to seek financing alternatives. I have included, as requested, the necessary application fee of $549.00. I appreciate your attention to this matter and anticipate your affirmative response. If you have any questions, please call me at (3 10) 699-7500. Sincerely, Cl~iWard Indvik On behalf of GATX Realty Corporation cc: Peter Dewes, Director CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGIN .R ING DIVISION ,- <: z RESOLUTION NO. 90-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COItIISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNI A, COIO ITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 12464, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND 7TH STREET, - (APN 209-261-09 AND 30) WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 12464, submitted by J. A. Stewart Construction, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 14 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 209-261-09 and 30 located at the southeast corner of Hermosa Aveme and 7th Street; and WHEREAS, on june 27, 1990, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMIISSION RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: That the map and the vacation of Seventh Street are consistent with the General Plan, subject to approval of Industrial Specific Plan Amendment No. 89-03, which eliminates the portion of Seventh Street along the north project boundary. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan· That the site is physical ly suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting property and a Negative Declaration is issued· SECTION 2: This Conmission finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Conmission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. PLANNING CO~4ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-81 TENT PM 12464 - J. A. STEWART CONSTRUCTION JUNE 27, 1990 PAGE 2 SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 12464 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: A. Engineering Division An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (teleconmnunicatton and electrical) on the opposite side of Hermosa Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to building permit issuance. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length from the center of 7th Street to the south project boundary. A storm drain pipe shall be constructed along Hermosa Avenue and the existing channel eliminated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The project shall be protected from flood flows entering the project from the north and the west as Justified by a Final Flood Report to the catisfaction of the City Engineer. An amendment to the circulation element of the Industrial Specific Plan for the deletion of the portion of 7th Street along the north project boundary and the vacation of same shall be completed as approved by the City Council prior to final parcel map approval. The approval of this Tentative Parcel Map shall be null and void if either of these items i s not approved. Vehicular lines of sight shall be plotted for the project driveways on the 1 andscape and grading plans. The landscaping within the "Limited Use Areas" shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The flood wal 1 shal 1 be designed to wrap around the driveways to form a seal against flood waters as determined by the final flood study. B. Planning Division 1. The covenants, conditions and restrictions shall specify the fol 1 owing: a. Reciprocal pedestrian access shall be provided to all employee plaza areas and to the conm~unity trail between lots 4 and 7; and b. Reciprocal parking shall be provided among all parcels. PLANNING CO~4ISSION RESOLUTION NO. 90-81 TENT PM 12464 - J. A. STEWART CONSTRUCTION JUNE 27, 1990 PAGE 3 C. Building and Safety Division All roposed structures must comply with the 1988 UBC and loca~ amendments, specifically provisions relating to wall and opening protection requirements with respect to property lines. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA BY: _ ning Con~ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Conmnission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of June, 1990, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES; COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER NOES COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12464 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND 7TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-261-09 and 30 . A. Recitals (i) GATX Realty (formerly J.A. Stewart) has filed an application for the extension of Tentative Parcel Map 12464 as described in the title of this Resolution. Nereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Time Extension requeat is referred to as "the application." (ii) On June 27, 1990, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 90-81, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Parcel Map 12464 and issued a Negative Declaration. (iii) On June 22, 1992, the applicant filed a request for a 12-month Time Extension. (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, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The previously approved Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and (b) The extension of the Tentative Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and (c) The extension of the Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and (d) The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR PM 12464 - GATX August 12, 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: Parcel MaD ADDliCant Expiration 12464 GATX Realty Corp. June 27, 1993 (Formerly J.A. Stewart) 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12th DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 12, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE (FORMERLY HOMESTEAD) - A request for an extension of a previously approved vesting tentative tract map consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, and 42 and Lot "0." BACKGROUND: Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 was originally approved on June 8, 1988, and would have expired on June 8, 1990. A one-year time extension was approved by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1990, and July 10, 1991. According to the Development Code, extensions for a Tentative Tract Map may be granted in twelve-month increments, not to exceed five years from the original date of approval. Therefore, this is the last time extension request thaz may be processed. If approved, this time extension would extend the Tentative Tract Map until June 8, 1993. Phases 1 and 2 of the Tract Map have been recorded and four model homes have been constructed by the previous owner (Homestead)- Greystone Homes is currently processing a new Design Review application for Phases 1 and 2. Phases 3 and 4 have not yet obtained recordation because of difficulty in obtaining the necessary easements to complete the design for Banyan Avenue. ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with the development criteria outlines in the Development Code. Based on this review, the project meets most of the development standards of the Low-Medium Residential District. At the time of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 13890, side yard setbacks for the Low-Medium Residential District were 5 feet on each side. Since the date of original approval, the Development Code has been amended to increase side yard setbacks in this district to 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. The applicant, however, has vesting rights with this application and the old setbacks of 5 feet on each side still apply. The subdivision conforms to all lot width and area requirements. ITEM C PLANNING COMMISSION ' STAFF REPORT TE 13890 - GREYSTONE August 12, 1992 Page 2 It should also be noted that because of the difficulty in obtaining the necessary easements to complete Banyan Avenue, that the alignment has been slightly altered southward. The re-alignment of Banyan Avenue resulted in a reduction in the number of lots. An amended Tentative Tract Map was approved administratively in December 1991, with no loss of vesting rights since the revised map was determined to be in substantial compliance with the originally approved Tentative Tract Map (see Exhibit "B"). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a one-year Time Extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 through adoption of the attached Resolution- Respe ly submi , ler City Planner BB:BN:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter From Applicant Exhibit "B" - Letter From Engineering Division Exhibit "C" - Tract Map Exhibit "D" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "E" - Resolution No. 88-110 Exhibit "F" - Resolution No. 90-93 Resolution of Approval ASSOCiateS Riverside/San Bernardino, Inc. Planning · Engineering · Surveying · GPS April 9, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 W.O. 1108-1 Re: Request for Time Extension, Tentative Tract Map No. 13890 On behalf of Greystone Homes, Inc. we are making a formal request for a third Time Extension on Tentative Tract Map No. 13890, approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1988. At the same time, we are making a request for a time extension on the Design Review Approval associated with TrM 13890 which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1988. Per your requirements, we have enclosed a $549.00 filing fee. If there are any questions, please call me at (714) 889-2222. Very truly yours, HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES Riverside/San Bernardino, Inc. Vice President SGM:jh cc: Louie Trajillo Vic Soto 732 E Carnegie Drt't,e · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · (714) 889-2222 · FAX: (714) 381-3590 Offices: Rit'erside/San Bernarch'no · lrtqne · San Diego Doug Crouse · Lee Anderson · Bruce Hunsaker · Steve McCutchan T H E C ANCPIO December 26, 1991 T F A Homestead Land Development Carp 355 North Sheridan, Suite 117 Corona, CA 91720 Attn: Steve Van Lue RE: Amended Tentative Tract 13890 Dear Mr. Van Lue: Per your request, this letter confirms that no new conditions were imposed upon the project in conjunction with the approval of the Amended Vested Tentative Tract Map which was approved by the City Engineer on November 18, 1991 and the City Planner on December 3, 1991. The changes to the Tentative Map were caused by circumstances beyond the Dev~ oper's control, did not result in a significant modification of the original approval, and resulted in the number of lots being reduced; therefore, the final map reR eating the changes will be considered to be in substantial compliance with the original approved tentative map. The purpose of the amended tentative map was to merely document the approved changes. If you-should need further assistance, do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (714) 989-1862, extension 2316. Cordially, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION Sht ntu Bose Deputy City Engineer SB:BH:dlw cc: Brad Bull er, City Planner Beverly Ntssa~ Associate Planner Mayor Dennis L. Stout blayor Pro-Tern William J. Alexander Jack Lam. AICP. CiW Manager Councilmember Diane Williotas Councilmember Pamela J. Wright Councilmember Charles J. Buquet (7~4~ Q~,Z}_l-ir- i · , _-**. *~ ....~*.~*:*:~,**~ :: RA,NEHO CLF__A~ PLANNI~ DIVISION I vfl' l~c~n TrrLE: fra,,-,'t' f','l,~ EXHIBIT.' ,~, SCALE, /,: I ~ACT NO. 138g0 '\.,.\ / SITE UTILIZATION MAP / /\ / / ...... ~!~'.'.,. "" ........' ' ': · .........../-' :1'~ t,. ;- I ': :..' '~; .': ~':: · -' ' ' ": '~:",' "'mr '*' 'i':' ....: K__i ~: ~ !::_ '.-: _:-!,., :-; ~ :,;:: ~'.., :.~%:-:::_'-: :-'::: ,4F,' ./,; ~""i 7__:~,~1!~ i.... : !- ~~~:~~ -~:-.'Z." ' :~" /'; ...:,::::i:,'~', .:: ~:::.:..:"'"',':.:::.:. ~;': ~ : -~~:::-. . ;:~_-- : t "' ~'~.-~ "'--" I -'...'. ':'':'~z, ... :jLi ~'~.~ ~.: .~.- ~:i". ~::...1.-~:.___ --- I ~.~:.. :.~'..:.. --- ..... ~/-.,-,_. -o;..o.,_ ':__ ~ Islefill / I i 'el*lllllf , ~~4,// / \ i T," - ...... CITY OF RANCTtO CLFAMONGA PLAN'NING DIVISI3N rTEM: I;;::f- iSbqO TIT[,B:-'~IlIE I. LT1z-~74~l'IFJI, J F-xHmrr: A SCAt. E, IID II RESOLUTION NO. 88-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13890 LOCATED SOUTH OF BANYAN, NORTH OF HIGHLAND AND WEST OF DEER CREEK CHANNEL IN THE MEDIUM AND LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. - APN: 201-271, 13, 14, 33, 34, 41, 42 AND LOT "0" A. Recital s. (i ) Acacia Construction has filed an application for the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13890 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On the 8th of June 1988 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) have occurred. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution 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 June 8 1988 including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on the south side of Banyan, north of Highland with a street frontage of 1060 feet along Banyan,; and is presently vacant; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is Chaffey College the property to the south of that site is vacant and is designated for the Route 30 Freeway, the property to the east is Deer Creek Channel and the property tO the west is designated for single family residential in the northern portion and multi-family residential along the southern portion. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings ~ facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds an: concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSIO. ESOLUT[ON NO. VESTING TENTATIVE T^ACT 13890 June 8, 1988 Page 2 (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Oevelopment Code, and specific plans; and (b) The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (c) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial envi tonmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habi tat; and (e) The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and (f) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acqui red by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property wi thin the proposed subdi vi si on. 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 hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 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. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13890 An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future under?rounding of the existing overhead utilities (electrical and telecommunication} located on the northside of Highland Avenue shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the final map. The fee shall be one-half the city adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage. Improvements to Lemon Avenue shal 1 be provided to satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows: the a. Obtain necessary right-of-way and construct full width improvements along the east project boundary extending t3 Highland Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSIO. :SOLUTION NO. VESTING TENTATIVE TkACT 13890 June 8, 1988 Page 3 b. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire slope easements from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and Caltrans and if he should fail to do so, the developer shall construct retaining walls at the right-of- way line. Banyan Street shall be constructed and dedicated full width, including community equestrian trail. The nece.~sary dedications and improvements for Highland Avenue shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as fol 1 ows: a. Full street improvements shall be constructed from Tract 12952 to the west to Tract 13057 to the east including the widening of the bridge over Deer Creek Channel. b. The Developer shall be eligible for reimbursements as follows: System development fees for al 1 work wi thin the Deer Creek Channel right-of-way if approved by the City Council. If not approved by the Council, the requirement for the work within the Deer Creek Channel right-of-way shall be waived. (2) He may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of improvements fronting the vacant parcel {APN 202-211-39) o located on the south side of Highland Avenue, upon said parcel's development. The improvements shall include pavement to 4~, feet north of the south curb line. (3) He may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of improvements fronting the SBCFCD property to the east for both Lemon and Highland Avenues. The final location of the storm drain easement within Lot 14 shal 1 be determi ned pri or to final map approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer based on the relocation of the manhole in connection with Tentative Tract 13823 located to the west. Slopes located within City landscape easements along Lemon Avenue shall be a maximum of 3:1 and shall be landscaped to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The portion of Master Plan Storm Drain Line No. 3-K shall be constructed from Deer Creek Channel to the east tract boundary. A debris basin shall be provided at the westerly inlet or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of the cost construction per City Ordinance No. 75. PLANNING COMMISSIO~ ZSOLUTION ~0. VESTING TENTATIVE T~CT 13890 June 8, 1988 Page 4 The development shall be protected from flows entering the project from the north as generally shown in the preliminary drainage report to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to final map approval, a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District 86-2 among the newly created lots. 10. A storm drain system shall be provided to convey flows from the Lemon and Highland Avenues intersection to Deer Creek Channel. The system shall be sized to accommodate the future development of the San Bernardino County Flood Control District property to the east. Design Review The perimeter wall shall be compatible and consistent with Tract 12873 to the west. When the wall is constructed, it shall be designed to minimize any potential double wall, wall relocation, or grade differential conflicts that may result with the project to the west when it is constructed. This shall be indicated on the final landscape plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. The rear wall of Lot I shall be inset approximately 15 feet from the property line and shall intersect the corner side yard wall at an approximate 30 degree angle. The same treatment shall apply to Lot 52. The resultant triangular of land adjacent to the curb shall be annexed into a landscape Maintenance District. This shall be indicated on the final landscape plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. The Banyan Avenue parkway shall be expanded to 35 feet at the eastern tract boundary. Architectural material utilized on front elevations shall be brick veneer, "flintstone" and granite splitface" as specifically approved by the Design Review Committee. This shall be noted on the final plans which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Should river rock be used, it shall be of a natural stone material. Architectural detailing shall be provided on all elevations and shall consist of the following: two by four stucco trim around second story windows on all elevations and a two by four stucco "belly band" on side and rear elevatons of two story models. One story models shall be provided with stucco detailing arounJ sliding glass doors and windows on the rear and elevations. This shall be noted on the final plans and rev~e-e: and approved by the City Planner. PLANNING COMMISSIO,, ,ESOLUTION NO. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 June 8, 1988 Page 5 The builder shall construct those plans approved with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map or a building type in substantial compliance to those plans as approved by the Design Review Committee. All return fences/walls in public view shall be decorative in nature and subject to approval by the Design Review Committee. Said fences/walls shall be indicated on the final landscape plans. Lots adjacent to the Medium-High Residential project to the west are to be screened from it with a dense planting of evergreen trees along the eastern side of the perimeter wall. This, as well as a permanent irrigation system, shall be noted on the final landscape plans which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of t, his Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATTEST: 'i'~,'ruCy I, Brad Buller, Deputy 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 8th day of June 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY C 6-fz ! I RESOLUTION NO. 90-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION AND ADDING A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13890 CONSISTING OF 166 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 40 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, SOUTH OF BANYAN AND WEST OF THE DEER CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, 42 AND LOT "0". A. Recital s (i) Homestead Development has filed an application for the extension of Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, in the Resolution, the subject Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On June 8, 1988, this Con~nission adopted its Resolution No. 88- 110 thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Vesting Tentative Tract 13890, and issued a Negative Declaration. (iii) On May 4, 1990, the applicant filed a request for a 12 month time extension. (iv) On july 11, 1990, the Planning Conm~ission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have- occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Con~nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Conm~tsston 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 Conmnission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 11, 1990, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Con~ission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Vesting Tentative Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan and Development Code. PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~OLUTiON NO. 90-93 TIME EXTENSION/COND ~ONS FOR VTT 13890 - HOMESTEAD july 11, 1990 Page 2 significant Code. b. The extension of the Vesting Tentative Map will not cause inconsistencies with the current General Plan and Development c. The extension of the Vesting Tentative Map is not likely to cause public health or safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. 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: All Conditions of Approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-110, shall apply. 2. Approval shal 1 expi re on june 8, 1991, unless extended by the Planning Con~ission. Prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establ i shment of a Mel 1 o-Roos Conmnuni ty Facilities District pertaining to the project site to provide, in conjunction with the applicable School District, for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any School District has previously established such a Coanunity Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected School District has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within 12 months of the date of approval of the time extension 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. 4. The Secretary to this Conmnisston shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ._SOLUTION NO. 90-93 TIME EXTENSION/CONr IONS FOR VTT 13890 - HOMESTEAD July 11, 1990 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 1990. PLANNING CO ISSION OF THE CITy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: S/~~, cNiel, Cha' n ATTEST: Bul~ ~ I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Con~nission 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 Con~nission held on the 11th day of july, 1990, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COM~4ISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~4ISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13890 CONSISTING OF 166 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 40 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE}, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, SOUTH OF BANYAN AND WEST OF THE DEER CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, 42, AND LOT "O." A. Recitals (i) Greystone Homes, Inc. has filed an application for the extension of Tentative Tract No. 13890 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 June 8, 1988, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88-110 thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 13890, and issued a Negative Declaration. (iii) On July 11, 1990, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 90-93 thereby approving a one-year time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 13890.. (iv) On July 10, 1991, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 91-92 thereby approving a one-year time extension for Vesting Tentative Tract 13890. (v) On June 2, 1992, the applicant filed a request for a twelve- month time extension. (vi) On August 12, 1992, the Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the application. (vii) 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 meeting on August 12, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 13890 - GREYSTONE August 12, 1992 Page 2 a. The previously approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan and Development Code; and b. The extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan and Development Code; and c. The extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits prescribed by state law and local ordinance. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: 1) All Conditions of Approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-110 shall apply. 2) All Conditions of Approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-93 shall apply. 3) All Conditions of Approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-92 shall apply. 4) Approval shall expire on June 8, 1993. 5) This is the final time extension permitted. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 13890 - GREYSTONE August 12, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning CommissiDn Brad Buller, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890 - GREYSTONE (FORMERLY HOMESTEAD) - A request for an extension of a previously approved design review of building elevations and detailed site plan for 91 lots (Phases 1 and 2) of a vesting tentative tract map consisting of 166 single family lots on 40 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Highland Avenue, south of Banyan and west of Deer Creek Channel - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41 and 42. BACKGROUND: The Design Review for Phases 1 and 2 of Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 was originally approved by the Planning Co~nission on August 9, 1989, to expire on August 9, 1991. A one-year time extension was approved by the Planning Con~nission on July 10, 1991. The applicant is currently requesting a one-year time extension to expire on August 9, 1993. Provisions of the Development Code allow for time extensions in twelve-month increments, not to exceed five years from the original date of approval- ANALYSIS: Staff analyzed the proposed time extension and compared it with the current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based on this review, the project meets most of the development standards of the Low-Medium Residential District. At the time of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 13890, side yard setbacks for the Low-Medium Residential District were 5 feet on each side. Since the date of original approval, the Development Code has been amended to increase side yard setbacks in the Low-Medium Residential District to 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. The applicant, however, has vesting rights with this application and the original setbacks of 5 feet on each side still apply. The applicant has, in most instances, proposed side yard setbacks well in excess of the minimum requirement. ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TE FOR ~T 13890 DR - GREYSTONE August 12, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year Time Extension for the Design Review for Phases 1 and 2 (91 lots) of Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 through adoption of the attached Resolution. City Planner BB:BN:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter From Applicant Exhibit "B" - Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "D" - Elevations Exhibit "E" - Resolution No. 89-106 Resolution of Approval ASSOCiateS Riverside/San Bernardino, Inc. Planning · Engineering · Surveying · GPS April 9, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 W.O. 1108-1 Re: Request for Time Extension, Tentative Tract Map No. 13890 On behalf of Greystone Homes, Inc. we are making a formal request for a third Time Extension on Tentative Tract Map No. 13890, approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1988. At the same time, we are making a request for a time extension on the Design Review Approval associated with T'FM 13890 which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1988. Per your requirements, we have enclosed a $549.00 filing fee. If there are any questions, please call me at (714) 889-2222. Very truly yours, HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES Riverside/San Bernardino, Inc. ~AI"~P Vice President SGM:jh cc: Louie Trajillo Vic Soto 732 E Carnegie Dm't'e · San Bernardino, CA 92408 · (714) 889-2222 · FAX: (714) 381-3590 Offices: Ra't,erside/San Bernarch'no · lnqne · San Diego Doug Grouse · Lee Anderson · Bruce Hunsaker · Steve McCutchan ~.CldOml · ~ TNIJ 'J IT~l:t11 cllmm~. CITY OF RANCHO CLEAN~ PLANNING DIVIS[:XN / I EXHIBIT: /:X SCALE: SITE UTILIZATION CITY OF RANCt-D CI_UA~'vl)NU, A PL~.NNING DIVISION II rT'EM:F~ TITLE: EXHIBIT: A SCALE: C_2ml ~X~t t t~ tT I._ RESOLUTION NO. 89-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COh)4ISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR PHASES I AND 2 OF VESTING - .TENTA_~I VE_.._.T~_AC-j:~-- ._NO_ 13890-CON~-S-T~ NG~33E.._LC1TS 1-65 'AND 141-166 ON 40 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, SOUTH OF BANYAN, WEST OF DEER CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41 AND 42. A. Recitals. (i) Homestead Development has filed an application for the Design Review of Tract No. 13890 (Phases 1 and 2) as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application" (ii) On August 9, 1989, the Planning Con~nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning 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 August 9, 1989, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: A. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and B. That the proposed design is in accord with the 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 theretD, will not be detrimental to the public heal.th, safety; or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. II ~l C) PLANNING COMMISSiOn' VI'F 13890 - HOMESTE, August 9, 1989 Page 2 'SOLUTION NO. 89-106 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs .... L- and-2 abash ~Commj,~m-~e~.,~aapnoves-..the~ ,l-~J;~tiE[~_~~e4c-b~ -- ............ a'~"~'~'=cond'~ti'O'n set'forth below and in t){e"~~'~a~8'a~T~' ~onditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Division: 1) The '~ront yard setback on Lots 52 shall be increased 5 to 6 feet. 2) Driveway widths at the public right-of-way shall be reduced where possible. 3) Planter areas shall be provided in driveways, between the 1-car and 2-car portions of the g arag e. 4) The freeway sound wall shall be consistent with that which has been provided for Tract 13823 to the west. Pilasters with a decorative cap shall be located between Lots 17 and 18 and between Lots 20 and 21, and at property boundaries. 5) Return wall shall be of a stucco material and may be offset at the property line. Some type of pilaster may be located at the property line. 6) The perimeter wall shall be compatible and consistent with Tract 12873 to the west. When the wall is constructed, it shall be designed to minimize any potential double wall, wal 1 relocation, or grade differential conflicts that may result with the project to the west when it is constructed. This shall be indicated on the final landscape plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. 7 ) The rear wal 1 of Lot 1 shal 1 be inset approximately 15 feet from the property line and shall intersect the corner side yard wall at an approximate 30 degree angle. The same treatment shall apply to Lot 52. The resultant triangular of land adjacent to the curb shall be annexed into a Landscape Maintenance District. This shall be indicated on the final landscape plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer. Vl'r 13890- HOMES' August 9, 1989 Page 3 8) All return fences/walls in public view shall be decorative in nature and subject to approval by the Design Review ConT~ittee. Said fences/walls shall be indicated on the final landscape plans. 9) Lots adjacent to the Medium-High Residential project to the west are to be screened from it with a dense planting of evergreen trees along the eastern side of the perimeter wall. This, as well as a permanent irrigation system, shall be noted on the final landscape plans which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Engineering Division: 1) The developer shall provide a secondary means of access for Phase III from the northerly termination of "G" Street to meet existing pavement on Banyan Avenue to the north or Chandon Place to the west. 4. The Secretary to this Comission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1989. PLANNING CO SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ATT E S . 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 Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of August, 1989, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: CO~I~ISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: TOLSTOY RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR PHASES 1 AND 2 (91 LOTS) OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13890, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, SOUTH OF BANYAN AND WEST OF DEER CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-271-13, 14, 33, 34, 41, AND 42. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above-described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.100. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally above-described Design Review on August 9, 1989. approved the WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approved a one-year time extension for the aforementioned Design Review on July 10, 1991. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following findings: Ae That prevailing economic conditions have caused a distressed market climate for development of the project. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable to develop the project at this time. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Proiect ADDliCant ExPiration Design Review Phases I and 2 of Vesting Tentative Tract 13890 Greystone August 9, 1993 -2° PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TE FOR TT 13890 DR - GREYSTONE August 12, 1992 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner VARIANCE 92-03 - HENNING - A request to construct a block wall of over 3 feet in height for a distance of approximately 6 feet 8 inches within the front setback area for a house in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 8921 Reeves Court - APN: 208-751-04. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a variance to allow a block wall to exceed the height requirements of 3 feet in the front setback area- Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Existing single family homes; South - East - West - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Existing single family homes; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Existing single family homes; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Existing single family homes; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) East - Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West -. Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site consists of an existing single family residence. The yard is enclosed with a block wall. A portion of the wall in the front and side yard is under construction- Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are in place and the front yard is fully landscaped. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 92-03 - HENNING August 12, 1992 Page 2 The lot is irregularly shaped and located at the end of a cul-de- sac. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with single family homes on lots of similar size. ANALYSIS: 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: Is the property unique with respect to size, shape, topography, or location? 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): Can reasonable use be made of the property without this variance? Without this variance, is the applicant denied privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the area? Is the hardship self-imposed or created by the physical constraints of the site? 3. Damage to Others: Will the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare? Will the granting of the variance be a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zone? Specific: The applicant originally requested that he be allowed to construct a 6-foot wall along the northeastern side property line which would encroach approximately 20 feet into the front setback area (32 feet from the face of the curb). The originally proposed wall would have terminated at the back of the sidewalk. Staff indicated to the applicant that a variance of this extent could not PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 92-03 - HENNING August 12, 1992 Page 3 be supported, since the required legal findings would be difficult to make. Staff next suggested to the applicant that the wall plans be modified to indicate a 3-foot masonry wall with 3 feet of wrought iron on top. A design of this configuration would eliminate the need for a variance. The applicant then submitted a revised design which reduced the extent of the variance but did not eliminate the need for it completely. The current proposal reduces the extent of the encroachment into the front setback area from 20 feet to 6 feet 8 inches. The applicant felt a solid wall was necessary in this portion of the front yard to screen objectionable views into the neighbor's yard. The wall as proposed would not create a view obstruction or sight line problem for the adjacent neighbor or for the applicant, since this portion of the wall is located toward the rear of the driveway. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Before granting a variance, the Planning Commission must make all of the following reqrired findings: 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- 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. 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. 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. 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 Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices have been sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 92-03 - HENNING August 12, 1992 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance 92-03 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. ~ ReMsp~ecplalRespect y submitted, BB:BN:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" - Tract Map Exhibit "D" - Site Plan Exhibit "E" - Sketch of Proposed Wall Resolution of Approval MAY 10, 1992 TO: The Members of the Planning Commission Re: Property at 8921 Reeves Court. (#0208-751-04) My variance request is based on the need to maintain my extended wall located on the east side of my property. I've lived here for about 12 years and was told by an in- spector, during a 1982 improvement project, that an exten- ded wall at the described location would be allowed by the city without a permit. This assumption was further enforced when my neighbors, located at 8844 Hemlock Street #0208-751- 05, was allowed in 1987 by the city to erect a five and a half (5½) foot wall off my front yard and extending about sixty (60) feet along the sidewalk and street. Mine, however, would be perpendicular to the street and the front of my wall would only be three (3) feet high with pillars and wrought iron, making it even more cosmeticly palatable than my neighboring wall. The primary need to maintain my wall, as illustrated, is to provide security for my family from my other neighbors Pit Bull dogs, located at 8920 Reeves Court (#0208-751-03), because they are allowed to run free at times and have in the past, attacked my wife and three year old daughter on different occasions, because of the direct view they had of our property from their yard in spite of the previous three foot wall. Being as their driveway angles upward towards the garage which provides higher ground, it granted them direct view of activity in my yard. Since the wall was constructed, blocking their view, we have had no further in- cidents indicating it has provided a.further degree of sec- urity. An investigation, by the Animal Control Department, is in progress to address this issue, but the dog owners simply get rid of the dogs in question when pressured and aquire more Pit Bulls which brings us back to square one on the issue. The six foot eight inch (6'8") long portion of the wall which extends from the pre-existing five and a half foot (5½') wall, as illustrated, is important to maintain in order to block the view from my front yard when the male adults at the above mentioned property, choose to expose themselves while urinating along side of their garage. Some of them have even made lewd remarks during this activity when children were present. ID, II" hA" I would like to close by adding, I believe this wall as illustrated, would not only provide the needed security fdr us, but be an architectural enhancement as well. Clarence A. Henning CAH:pl IilII IIIII ~TEM: TITLE: VIC, INII'Y EXHIBIT: J5 SCALE: A f~OI2,Tlokl OF P'oea'~ oF CIT~ ITEM: TITLE: ~'v~rr,~ E~~: ~ SCALE: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 92-03 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A BLOCK WALL OF OVER 3 FEET IN HEIGHT FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET 8 INCHES WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK AREA FOR A HOUSE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8921 REEVES COURT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-751-04. A. Recitals. (i) Clarence Henning has filed an applicanion for the issuance of a Variance No. 92-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 12th of August 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 August 12, 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 8921 Reeves Court with a street frontage of 70 feet and lot depth of 85 feet and is · 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 proposed wall will not be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood character; and (d) Granting of the variance will not create sight distance problems for the adjacent neighbor or the applicant; and (e) The proposed wall will provide needed privacy for the applicant and screen objectionable views; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 92-03 - HENNING August 12, 1992 Page 2 (f) The proposed wall will have a positive impact on the existing streetscape and will enhance it. 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 not 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 subject to each and every condition set forth below. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 92-03 - HENNING August 12, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 12, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-37 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC, - A request to construct a 3,275 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Con~nercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned Con~nunity, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-151-21. BACKGROUND: On July 22, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to receive testimony on the proposed project. After receiving all public input, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for the project. Before you this evening for your consideration is the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 91-37. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 91-37 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Res~a~~~ull~ City Planner BB:SM/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Staff Report dated July 22, 1992 Resolution of Approval ITEM F DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: July 22, 1992 --CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-37 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC- - A request to construct a 3,275 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru) within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned Comunity, located at the southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue - APN: 227-151-21. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Ao Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of Conceptual Site Plan, Landscape Plan, building elevations, and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant; Victoria Planned South - East - West Community, Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) Vacant; Terra Vista Planned Community, Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Vacant; Terra Vista Planned Community, Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) Medium-High Low-Medium Medium-High - Vacant, Townhouse project; Terra Vista Planned Community, Office/Professional and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Designations: Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial North - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) East - Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) West ~ Neighborhood Commercial Site Characteristics: The site was previously graded as part of the rough grading operation for the entire shopping center. The satellite pad has been temporarily landscaped until such time as the building is approved and building permits are issued. //J/r " PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-37 - CARL KARCHER July 22, 1992 Page 2 E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage' Ratio Required Provided Fast Food Restaurant 3,275 1/75 44 44* * Provided through reciprocal parking agreement for shopping center. ANALYSIS: Ae Background: On June 27, 1990, the Planning Commission approved the Conceptual Master Plan and Phase 1 Site Plan and elevations for Central Park Plaza. As part of the Master Plan, a fast food restaurant with drive-thru was shown at the location of the proposed Carl's Jr. Subsequently, a portion of Phase 1 (Ralph's and retail stores) has been completed. As a condition of approval of the original Conditional Use Permit, satellite pads depicted on the Master Plan require separate review and approval by the Design Review Committee and the Planning Commission. General: The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,275 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-thru facility fronting onto Milliken Avenue, just north of the main entry drive. The plans for the restaurant include a drive-thru lane with stacking available for 6 vehicles and outdoor seating with children's play equipment (i.e., ball crawl). Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (McNiel, Melcher, Kroutil) has reviewed the plans for the proposed drive- thru facility on two separate occasions. The initial plans reviewed by the Committee oriented entries toward the north parking area and toward Milliken Avenue. The drive-thru lane was proposed between the building and Milliken Avenue and between the building and the shopping center entry driveway to the south. The Committee recommended that revisions be incorporated into the plans to address the following comments: The landscaping and wall along the drive-thru lane, plus the slight grade differential, was not adequate to screen the stacking area. Alternatives should be explored by the applicant. The loading area proposed was not acceptable because delivery trucks would park in the main drive aisle (along the east side of the building), thereby obscuring vehicle traffic. The loading area and service entry relationship should be re-evaluated. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-37 - CARL KARCHER July 22, 1992 Page 3 The use of the quarter-round awning appeared "added-on" and should be removed. The east elevation (service area) should be enhanced to create a more acceptable design facing the activity of the center. The drive-thru canopy needs to be more integrated into the design of the building and the center. The pre-cast columns, consistent with the center, was a step in the right direction. 6- The awning color should be evaluated with the redesign. Subsequently, the applicant submitted the revised plans for review by the Design Review Con~nittee (see attached Exhibits)- While not reviewing the plans in detail, the Committee (McNiel, Melcher, Kroutil) felt that the changes made provided for a better design but they expressed serious reservations abut allowing a drive-thru facility at this location. The Con~nittee questioned whether or not a drive-thru facility along Milliken Avenue was the appropriate land use. Additionally, the Con~nittee felt that the loading for the facility was not adequately addressed. As a result, the Committee could not recommend approval- Rather than continuing to make revisions to the plan, the applicant has requested that the project be scheduled for the Planning Commission to discuss these issues. Drive-thru Policy: In May, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted interim design goals and policies for businesses with drive-thru facilities (see Exhibit "F"). During the discussion and formation of policies, the Burger King facility at Base Line Road and Haven Avenue was being processed through the various Committees. As a result, many of the goals and policies contained in the Resolution were implemented at the Burger King site. While the U-shaped design minimized visibility of the drive-thru lane from Haven Avenue, other concerns surfaced about the pedestrian and vehicular circulation. As a result, the drive-thru policies continue to be a source of discussion. With the recent submittal of five drive-thru facilities, the discussion has increased dramatically in the past two months- As a result, staff is requesting the Commission provide direction for this drive-thru facility and future submittals as they relate to the interim policies. In considering the current submittal, the Planning Commission should consider the following: The interim policies state that the drive-thru lane shall be screened through building orientation and the use of a combination of low screen walls, heavy landscaping, and trellis work. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-37 - CARL KARCHER July 22, 1992 Page 4 The applicant is proposing to orient the drive-thru lanes parallel to Milliken Avenue and the entry drive. The drive-thru lane will be slightly above the grade of the entry drive, at roughly the same grade as Milliken Avenue at the southern portion of the site, and below the grade of Milliken Avenue at the northern end of the site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 4-foot high solid wall with 4 feet of lattice work on top of the wall to screen the drive-thru lane. Landscaping will be installed adjacent to the wall to supplement the existing landscaping installed with Phase 1. No clearly designated loading area is shown with the. submittal. The applicant has indicated that they will receive deliveries from smaller trucks that will not block the drive aisles. Recent Planning Commission approvals for drive-thru facilities have been for locations generally below the street grade and where the stacking area is located to the side and rear of the building (away from the street). The Design Review Committee recently reviewed a drive-thru facility with the stacking area along a major arterial. This stacking area was slightly below the street grade and retaining/screen walls were incorporated along the drive-thru lane to screen the cars- This solution was found to be acceptable by the Design Review Con~nittee. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: After having completed the Environmental Checklist, staff has determined that the proposed fast food facility will not have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, if the Planning Commission approves the Conditional Use Permit, a Negative Declaration should also be issued- FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Co~nission to approve the Conditional Use Permit application, the following findings must be made: That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and Terra Vista Planned Community, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 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- PLANNING COMMISSION ~TAFF REPORT CUP 91-37 - CARL KARCHER July 22, 1992 Page 5 That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Terra Vista Planned Community. 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 site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive all written and oral testimony cn the proposed project. After receiving all information, there are two options available to the Planning Commission: If the Commission feels there are sufficient facts to support the findings, staff should be directed to prepare a Resolution of Approval subject to conditions requiring the final design to be consistent with recent Commission action for a similar facility. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner; or If the Commission can not support the findings, staff should be directed to prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan for the Shopping Center Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Building Elevations Exhibit "E" - Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Drive-thru Interim Design Goals and Policies I,, .,~ VZV'Id ),lHVd '1VHIN33 ., - ,,, -, , 'T , ~.;" ~ ~% ,_ ~ V'."- -'= :,.'L':,.- '- · F- '7 ~x',/-//,e'/,r ':~, C TRANSFORMER TRASH I ENCLOSURE I C C ~. C C r < ~' .~,X= ~, '~' ~' Z ~' '~ CARLI JR. RESTAURANT .,~ I BUlLDINE LIUIT LINE EXIST. CINNAMOMUM CA'MPHORA EXIST. XYLOSMA CON. EXIST. PINUS CAN. EXIST. PHOTINIA FRA. GROUNDCOVER/SHRUBS TYP ANNUAL COLOR TYp EXIST. TURF HIGH SCREEI' WALL EXIST. CUPANIOPSIS ANA. ! EXIST. NANOINA DOM. HARBOR DWARF I ., EXIST.ARECASTRUM ROM. EXIST. BRACHYCHITON POP. / TRASH ENCL. .. PARKING -- T'RANSFORMER CAWL'I J~ ~EITAU~ANT NORTH SCALE: 1' - 20' O' 10 20 40 SITE & LANDSCAPE SNOI.I.¥A::ig:I I.- I.I, 0 ~ j ,~x,N/~'/y "~-/' F-l/ :7 t A-A GE::r_,TIOI,,J A-A /- -/2-- RESOLUTION NO. 88-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES WHEREAS, the P1 anning Commi ssi on has expressed numerous concerns with businesses that have drive-thru facilities including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants. The concerns are compatibility of use, circulation, and visual and aesthetic appearance. Previous projects have not adequately addressed these concerns, especially in the screening of the drive-thru lane; and WHEREAS, there i s a need to establ i sh a design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities to guide future development; and WHEREAS, development standards and design gui deli nes are necessary to implement the design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities; and WHEREAS, such development standards and design guidelines are needed to provide clear direction and guidance to developers and staff alike. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby establish interim policies for businesses with drive- thru faci 1 i ties as fol 1 ows: Section 1: Goal Statement The intent of the guidelines is to assist the designer in understanding and complying with the City standards for bui 1 di ng and site desi gn. The goal i s to provi de hi gh quality design, compatibility of use, and mitigate environmental and aesthetic concerns that are created by this type of land use. The following design standards and guidelines shall apply to uses with drive-thru facilities typically including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants, banks, mini-markets, dairy, photo kiosks, or auto service. Secti on 2: Development Standards A. Location - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall be 300 feet away from any intersection and from another drive-thru facility on the same side of the street, except wi thin a shopping center or Master P1 an. Restaurants with drive-thru facilities shall be a minimum of 200 feet away from any residential use or district boundary. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM ' 'IGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 2 Site Area - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall have a minimum I acre net land area. This minimum land area may be modified when the drive-thru facility is within a Master Plan or an integrated shopping center through the Design Review process. The minimum floor area for drive-thru facilities shall be 2,500 square feet. The minimum floor area for a drive-thru facility other than a fast food restaurant may be modified through the Design Review process. The maximum site coverage shall be 40 percent of the net lot area. The minimum on-site landscaping, which includes articulated plazas, courtyards, and patios, shall be 15 percent of the net lot area exclusive of public right-of-way. Parking and the drive-thru lane shall be setback 45 feet from the ultimate curb face. Greater setbacks may be required as mentioned in the Specific Plan and as deemed necessary during the Design Review process. Section 3: Design Guidelines' Site Planning/Building Orientation - Future drive-thru facilities in a Master Plan or shopping center shall be identified early in the review process to avoid retrofitting the uses at a later date. The site design shall minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid 1 ocati ng driveways and service areas wh i ch interfere with the flow of the on-site circulation. Building placement shall be done in a manner to create new pedestrian spaces and plaza area. Buildings shall orient the public entrances toward the street. Building layout should be oriented to screen the drive-thru lane. Drive-thru lanes shall be screened through building orientation, the use of a combination of 1 ow screen wal 1 s, heavy 1 andscapi ng, and trel 1 i s work. Separate pay windows and pick-up windows should be provided. Stacking Distance/Parking - The drive-thru lane shall be a sufficient length to accommodate the necessary stdcking of cars. The stacking distance shall be determined through a parking study as stated in Section 17.12.040C, Special Requirements of the Parking Ordinance. Each drive-thru lane shall be separate from the circulation route necessary for ingress and egress from the property or access to any · parking spaces within the site. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIM iIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 3 Parking - The parking requirements for drive-thru facilities shall be according to Section 17.12 of the Parking Ordinance. The gross floor area for outdoor seating shall be subject to the same parking requirement. Pedestrian Orientation - The Site Plan shall create opportunities for courtyards and plazas and other landscape open space to promote safe and convenient pedestrian movement with continuous landscape pathway between buildings. The design should discourage a need for pedestrians to have to cross a drive-thru wherever possible. Architecture - Standardized "corporate" architectural styles associated wit a chain is prohibited. Drive- thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must have architectural style consistent with the theme established in the center. Architecture must provide compatibility to surrounding uses in form, materials, colors, scale, etc. Building planes shall have variation in depth and angle to create variety and interest in its basic form and silhouette of the building. Articulation of building surface shall be encouraged through the use of openings and recesses which create texture and shadow patterns. Building entrances shall be well articulated and project a formal entrance through variation of architectural plane, pavement surface, treatment, and landscape plaza. Signing - All signs shall conform with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Drive-thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must comply with the Uniform Sign Program as established in the center. Section 4: Performance Standards Special performance standards for restaurants with drive-thru facilities: The use shall be operated in a manner which does not interfere with the normal use of 'adjoining properties. If, in the opinion of the City Planner, the provisions of this paragraph are being violated, the violations shall be grounds for reopening Conditional Use Permit hearings and adding conditions to control the violation. Performance standards include, but are not limited to the following considerations, which, where appropriate, shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in all use permits as determined by the Planning Conm~ission or City Council: (1) Noise levels measured at the property line shall not exceed the level of background noise normally found in the area. (2) The premises shall be kept clean, and the operator shall make all reasonable efforts to see that no trash or litter originating from the use is deposited on adjacent properties. For drive- thru restaurants or other uses which typically generate trash or litter, adequate trash containers, as determined by the City Planner, shall be required and employees shall be required daily to pick up trash or litter originating from the site upon the site and within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property. (3) All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. (4) No undesirable odors shall be generated on the site. (5) The on-site manager of the use shall take whatever steps are deemed necessary to assure the orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and visitors on the premises. (6) A copy of these performance standards and all Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval shall be posted along side the necessary business 1 i censes and be vi sibl e at al 1 times to employees. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Of RANCHO CUCAMONGA Larry i' M~N(el~ · airman ATTEST: ~ r Br ull. eta y I, Brad eputy 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 May, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE COMMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-37, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3,275 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT (WITH DRIVE-THRU) WITHIN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION OF THE TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-151-21 A. Recitals. (i) Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-37 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 July 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. After receiving all public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to August 12, 1992, and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval. (iii). On the 12th day of August 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga concluded the public hearing. (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 July 22 and August 12, 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 southeast corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue and contains a supermarket and retail shops; and (b) The properties to the north, south, and east of the subject site are designated for residential uses and are vacant and the property to the west is designated for office and residential uses and is vacant and developed with townhomes, respectively; and F-/7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-37 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES August 12, 1992 Page 2 (c) The development of a 3,275 square foot fast food restaurant is consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the Terra Vista Planned Community and the Commercial designation of the General Plan; and (d) The application will comply with all minimum standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Terra Vista Community Plan and the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Tetra Vista Community Plan and 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 hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 1) All pertinent conditions of Conditional Use Permit 89-18 shall apply. 2) The final awning design and colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. The red and yellow awning color proposed is not acceptable. 3) A shade structure and/or specimen canopy trees shall be explored for the outdoor eating area. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-37 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES August 12, 1992 Page 3 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) n) 12) Deliveries to the site shall be during off- hours of the proposed use and of those future adjoining uses so as not to conflict with the normal operation of the businesses. Violation of this condition may result in revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. A designated loading area shall be provided along the north side of the building. The area shall be striped and posted for loading and unloading only. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. Noise levels measured at the property line shall not exceed the level of background noise normally found in the area. The premises shall be kept clean and the operator shall make all reasonable efforts to see that no trash or litter originating from the use is deposited on adjacent properties. Adequate trash containers, as determined by the City Planner, shall be required and employees shall be required daily to pick-up trash or litter originating from the site, upon the site, and within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. No undesirable odors shall be generated on the site. The on-site manager shall take whatever steps necessary to assure the orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and visitors on the premises. A copy of these performance standards and all conditions of approval shall be posted along with the necessary business licenses and be visible at all times to employees. Specimen size trees shall be provided flanking the drive-thru lane exit. The trees shall be shown on the final landscape plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-37 - CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES August 12, 1992 Page 4 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS SU~ECT: J~ ~ LOCATmON: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~/~H Those items che~ are ~ions of ~pmval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. TIme Limits v/ 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, ff building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Development/Design Review shall be al:H:N~oved prior to / / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of / / / ! / / o The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District pdor to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. Cornp|etlo~ Dat~: 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. ~rior 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 J The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the appmved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations. extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and Specific Plan and /~'t~.4 y'/~'/".~ 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 ot the City Planner. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshairs regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancbd Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance pdor to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Sheritf's Department (989-6611 ) pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. / / / / ,/ 10. If no centralized trash receptacles am provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. Trash receptacle(s) am required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 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. : .F - 2 2_ ,/ 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails. including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concun'ently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. · Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. C. Building Design An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of sudace treatment subject to C~ Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. Compleuc~ Dam: / /__ / /__ / / / /__ / /__ / / / / / /.__ / /__ / / 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. All roof appudenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or 'projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building plans) v/ 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). v/' 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwe Ilings/units/buildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double stdped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be stdped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 leet in depth from back of sidewalk. 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 prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintaineel landscalms arms, refer to Section N.) v'/ 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- ing in the case of residential deveioprnent, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barder in accordance with the Mu nicipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and tdmming methods. A minimum of trees per g ross acre, comprised of the following sizes, 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 gallon. ,/ A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 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. Comp|eUo~ Date: / /__ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /__ / / / / / / / /__ ,/ 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate ot one tree per 30 linear feet of building. Proiec~ .",'o :~-'{_~ ! / 7. AIIprivate slopebanks5feetorlessinverticalheightandof5:l orgreaterslope, butless than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum. irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for -erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. AIIprivate slopes in excess of 5 feet, but lessthan8 feet invertical heignt andof2: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 shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- ously maintained in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to re leasing occupancy for those u nits, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satislactory 10. 11. 12. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. ,~11 landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition. and shall receive regular pruning. fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged. deed, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or · This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and siobe planting. V The final design of the pealmater parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall 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. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock. specimen size trees, meander- ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along .,'P//,U-,,'Xr..F_.//-~Y~ 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. ,/ V/ 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall'be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 16. Tree maintenance criteda shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These cdteda shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xedscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. / / / / / ! / / I /-- F. Signs ,/ The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval, Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall . require separate application and approval by the Planning Division priorto installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program forthis development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division pdor to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 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. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any properly. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, pdor to accepting a cash deposit on any property. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. H. Other Agencies ,/ ,/ 1. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Standards. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a mini mum of 26 feet wide at all times dudng construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamenga Fire Protection District requirements. Prior to issuance ot building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamenga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply tor fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Postal Sentice to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead strumre shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. J / / / / / / / / / / / /__ / / / / / / /.__ For projects using septic tank facilities, wdtten certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall 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 BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. SIte Develo. pment v// 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. ~,/ 3. 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 am not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 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. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structure Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. 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 radiities shall be removed, filled ancl/or capped to comply with the Uniform PlurnDing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. K. Grading Grading ol the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial contormance with the appmved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of Calffomia to perform such work. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardino County Department of Agriculture at (714) 387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance ol rough grading permit. 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 5. Thefina~gradingp~anssha~~becomp~etedandappr~vedpri~rt~issuance~fbuildingpermits. Cempled, c~ Dat~: / /~ / / / / / / / / / / / /~ / / / / / / / / / /__- / /~ ' F' z 7 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: August 12, 1992 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the P1 anntng Commission Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer Barbara Krall, Assistant Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP 14318 - JAMES E. CAR)ER - A subdivision of 3.45 acres of land into three parcels in tl~'lt~ighborhood Commercial Development District located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue - APN: 208- 202-13 and 14. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Ae Action Requested: Approval of the proposed Tentative ParcA Map as shown on Exhibit "B" B. Parcel Size: ParcA 1 = .50 acres Parcel 2 = .51 acres Parcel 3 = 2.44 acres C. Existing Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial D. Surrounding Land Use: North - Existing Church and Single Family Homes South - Existing Apartment Complex East - Existing Gas Station and Office Buildings West - Existing Library and Park E. Surrounding General Plan and Development Code Designations: North - Low Residential (2-4 du's/ac) South - Medium Residential (8-18 du's/ac) East - Office/Professional West - Civic/Community (Library and Park) Site Characteristics: The site contains an existing neighborhood shopping center consisting of three buildings. ANALYSIS: The purpose of this parcel map is to create separate parcA s for the three buildings within this existing neighborhood shopping center. ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TEN~ PM 14318 - JAMES E. CARTER August 12, 1992 Page 2 ~l improvements were completed at the time of construction of the center. The developer is being required to provide reciprocal access and parking for all parc~ s as a condition of this map. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part I of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to surrounding property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Posting at the site has al so been completed. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the Tentative Parcel Map 14318. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Res~ ution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Respectful 1 y submitted, Shintu Bose Deputy City Engineer SB:BK:dlw Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 14318, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND HELLMAN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-202-13 AND 14 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 14318, submitted by James E. Carter, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 3 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN(s) 208-202-13 and 14, located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Hellman Avenue; and W}{EREAS, on August 12, 1992, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUC~4ONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse affects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: This Commission finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 14318 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following special condition: Provide an easement for waterlines to the satisfaction of the Cucamonga County Water District. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 14318 - CARTER August 12, 1992 Page 2 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner 8teven Ross, Assistant Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-21 - CALVARY CHAPEL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The request to establish a church within an existing 12,764 square foot building within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8678 Archibald Avenue - APN: 209-021-16. STAFF REPORT PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a church to occupy an existing office building. B- Applicable Regulations: The Industrial Area Specific Plan allows Religious Assembly within Subarea 3 subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. C- Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Office Building; General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 3) South - Vacant land; General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 3) East - Elementary School; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Manufacturing Building; General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan (Subarea 3) D. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - Elementary School West - General Industrial E. Site Characteristics: The building is located within an 18-42 acre master planned industrial park. In addition to the 12,174 square foot building the applicant proposes to utilize, the business park contains one 20,469 square foot office building, a 68,152 square foot office/warehouse, and a 147,938 square foot manufacturing building (see Exhibit "B-l"). ITEM H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-21 - CALVARY CHAPEL August 12, 1992 Page 2 Background: On January 23, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a modification to the original Conditional Use Permit for the Ranch. Technology Center. The modification proposes the construction of a 57-space parking lot at the northeast corner of the site where a building had previously been proposed- The additional parking is necessary to provide sufficient parking on the parcel of land on which Building "F" is located- ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to lease a 12,174 square foot single story office building which will contain classrooms, offices, and a 3,200 square foot sanctuary with approximately 339 chairs (see Exhibit "D"). The primary church services will be Sundays, 7 a.m. to noon, and will draw about 200 people to each of the two services- The Wednesday service will run from 7 p.m. to 9 p-m., and should draw approximately 100 worshipers- Office hours will be 8 a-m. to 5 p-m., Monday through Friday. Issues: The primary concerns with locating this type of use within an industrial setting are compatibility with surrounding businesses and parking availability. CoMpatibility With Surrounding Uses: in addition to the building that the church proposes to lease, the easterly portion of the industrial park contains a large manufacturing facility and a 20,000 square foot office building. The manufacturing building is presently vacant and the businesses in Building "F" (Exhibit "B-l") generally operate during traditional business hours, 8 a.m. to 5 p-m., Monday through Friday- The proposed church activities will take place during off-peak hours in the evenings and Sundays. The City has many churches operating within industrial complexes with no reports of any problems- Therefore, no compatibility problems are anticipated with this proposal· Parking: Parking requirements for this type of use are based upon the potential seating capacity within the sanctuary. Based on the ratio of one space for every 35 square feet of non-fixed seating, the 2,077 square foot seating area requires 59 parking spaces- Currently, 115 parking spaces exist within 200 feet of the building and more than 250 spaces are located on the east side of the industrial park (see Exhibit "B-2"). Because the church's primary activities will be limited to evenings and weekends, parking conflicts are not anticipated. However, even if the manufacturing site had operating hours which coincided with the church services, parking conflicts are not anticipated because over 600 parking spaces exist within the industrial park. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-21 - CALVARY CHAPEL August 12, 1992 Page 3 The Police Department and the Fire District have reviewed the proposed use and floor plan and do not anticipate any problems- The Fire District will conduct a more detailed review when tenant improvement plans are submitted through the Building and Safety Division. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve this application: A. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the Industrial Area Specific Plan subarea in which the site is located. B. That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-21 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval- City Planner BB:SR/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B-I" - Site Plan Exhibit "B-2" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "D" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval I I L_J L__j ./ < 0 O :.": ,:.,,,:.-:... ,~':i;~:.:'~ "=~.ITEM: f- U P q '2., 'Z. I OF ........" ' ::~:" TITLE: DET~,c~,~ <jvre. P,-A~ PLANNING.. DMSION '_- .... ..~ EXHIBIT: P'j-Z SCALE: -- ,,... · June 23,1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division RE: C.U.P. Application The application for this C.U.P. is for the purpose of acquiring a Bldg. located at 8678 Archibald Ave. This Bldg. will be used for church services and as the church grows, it will be used for other church related functions. These function,for example would be small group bible study;youth group study,etc. Primarily the church services and the times of these meetings would be on Sunday mornings beginning at 7:00a.m.-12:00p.m. Also on Wednesday evenings at 7:00p.m.-9:00p.m. The church office hours will be 8:00a.m.-5:00p.m. Monday- Friday. At the time of this application there are only two full time pastors employed by the church. This location has been chosen because it gives the church the necessary space that it presently needs to be able to meet and accomodate the congregation needs. The church will have two services on Sunday morning and the attendance will be approx. 200 at each service. The church hopes that the planning dept. will grant the C.U.P. Si cere/~.: im Orate Senior Pastor 9757 7th St. · Suite #814 · Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91730 c i U'%. i ~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-21 FOR A CHURCH TO BE LOCATED IN A 12,174 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITHIN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK ON 18.42 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AT 8678 ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-021-16 A. Recitals. (i) The Calvary Chapel of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 92-21 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 12th day of August 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 August 12, 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 8678 Archibald Avenue with a street frontage of 304 feet on 9th Street and 203 feet along Archibald Avenue and is presently improved with an existing building; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site contains an office building~ the property to the south is vacant, the property to the east is a school, and the property to the west contains a manufacturing building; and (c) The applicant proposes to use the site for church services and other church related functions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-21 - CALVARY CHAPEL August 12, 1992 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 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: Plannin~ Division 1) This approval is limited to church services and other directly related functions. Any substantial increase in the intensity of the use, such as the addition of day care or private school services, or a change in the hours of operation shall require a modification to the Conditional Use Permit. 2) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and all other ordinances. s) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible termination of the use. 4) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-21 - CALVARY CHAPEL August 12, 1992 Page 3 5) Any sign proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance with the comprehensive Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the complex and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation. 6) Church services, public assembly, or other special gatherings shall be limited to weekdays after 5 p.m. and on weekends (excluding national holidays). 7) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the Industrial Performance Standards of Subarea 3. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Brad Buller, City Planner Steven Ross, Assistant Planner VARIANCE 92-04 - THOMAS A. BOARD - The request to reduce the streetscape setback from 35 feet to 26 feet 6 inches and the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 15 feet 6 inches to allow the construction of a room addition to an existing single family residence in the Low Residential district (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 8236 Matterhorn Court - APN: 208-851-44. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a variance to reduce the required streetscape and rear yard setbacks. 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 - Hermosa Avenue and vacant land; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea 3 C$ 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 - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The site contains an existing single story home with an attached garage. The property is landscaped with trees, shrubs, and groundcover and a block wall is located along the rear property line. ANALYSIS: 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, ITEM I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 92-04 - THOMAS A. BOARD August 12, 1992 Page 2 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 Is the property unique with respect to size, shape, topography, or location? Are there exceptiunal or extraordinary circmnstances 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): Can reasonable use be made of the property without this variance? Without this variance, is the applicant denied privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the area? Is the hardship self-imposed or created by the physical constraints of the site? 3- Damage .to Others: Will the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare? Will the granting of the variance be a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same zone? Specific: The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the required rear yard and streetscape setbacks. Both setbacks apply to the westerly portion of the property where an addition is proposed. The existing residence is located as close as 26 feet 6 inches from the curb, or 15 feet 6 inches from the property line. The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to build an addition on the northwest side of the house which will maintain the same or greater setback as the existing residence (see Exhibit "B")- Streetscape Setback: The Development Code requires a special setback for buildings, walls, and parking lots where they are adjacent to roads shown on the General Plan's Circulation Plan. The purpose of the requirement is to "help identify the function of streets and to improve the scenic quality of the community-" Because Hermosa Avenue is defined as a Secondary Arterial by the Circulation Plan, the required setback is 35 feet from the building to the face of the curb- Jj- 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 92-04 - THOMAS A. BOARD August 12, 1992 Page 3 Rear Yard Setback: The Development Code allows single story accessory structures or additions to be built as close as 5 feet to the rear property line on most lots- However, on double frontage lots adjacent to Major or Secondary Arterials, these structures must meet the required rear yard setback of the district, which is 20 feet in the Low Residential zone- The purpose of this restriction is similar to the streetscape setback - to improve the scenic quality of the community as seen from its major streets- Grounds for Variance: It appears that when this subdivision recorded in 1977, the required rear yard setback was 15 feet from the property line- Most of the homes adjacent to Hermosa Avenue in this area are located approximately 15 feet from the property line or 27 feet from the curb. In addition, walls are located adjacent to the sidewalk (only 10.5 feet from the curb) rather than the 20 feet the streetscape setbacks required today- The shape of the lot and the plotting of the home contribute to the difficulty in designing an addition. The location of the house on the lot has created a triangular side yard where the addition is proposed, and a rear yard of similar size and shape- As the applicant states in his description (see Exhibit "A"), other designs for the addition would not meet his needs- Due to the unusual shape of the lot and because the existing conditions in this neighborhood do not reflect the required streetscape setbacks, staff is not opposed to allowing an addition with the same setback as the existing structure- For these reasons, staff supports the variance request- Facts for Findings: In order to grant this variance, the Planning Commission must make all of the findings as listed below: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code- 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- 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 zone- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VAR 92-04 - THOMAS A. BOARD August 12, 1992 Page 4 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 zone- 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 Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the site has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 92-04 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with findings- Respec ly submitted, BB:SR/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Description of Variance Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Resolution of Approval JUNE30,1992 NAME: THOMAS A. BOARD ADDRESS: 8236 MATTERHORN COURT HOME PHONE: 714-989-4522 DAY TIME PHONE: 714-593-3581 EXT. 5587 I AM REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1.) IN THE TABLE IN SECTION 17.08. 040 OF THE CITY DEVELOPMENT CODE IT STATES THAT THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM MY HOUSE TO THE CURB OF THE SECONDARY STREET BEHIND MY HOUSE SHOULD BE 35 FEET. THE CORNER OF MY EXISTING HOUSE, AS BUILT BY THE ORIGINAL BUILDER, IS PRESENTLY 26 FEET 6 INCHES FROM THE CURB. (SEE ATTACHED PLOT PLAN. ) 2.) IN SECTION 17.08.060 OF THE CITY DEVELOPMENT CODE IT STATES THAT THE REAR YARD SETBACK ON "DOUBLE FRONTAGE I~OTS ADJACENT TO MAJOR AND SECONDARY ARTERIALS MAY NOT BE PLACED 5 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY" LINE, "BUT MUST MEET THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK OF THE BASE DISTRICT", WHICH IS 20 FEET. AGAIN, THE CORNER OF MY EXISTING HOUSE, AS BUILT BY THE ORIGINAL BUILDER, IS PRESENTLY 15 FEET 6 INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. (SEE ATTACHED PLOT PLAN. ) 3.) 4.) THE REASON FOR MY REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IS SO THAT I CAN PUT AN ADDITION OF 8 FEET ON TO THE SIDE OF MY HOUSE. I HAVE DESIGNED THIS ADDITION SO THAT THE PRESENT SETBACK OF MY HOUSE WOULD BE MAINTAINED, EVEN THOUGH THIS MEANS HAVING TO PUT AN ANGLED WALL ON THE HOUSE. (SEE ATTACHED PLOT PLAN.) I HAVE TRIED TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATE DESIGN THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE, BUT HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL. ANY OTHER DESIGN WOULD NEGATE MY REASONS FOR THE ADDITION. IF MY REQUEST FOR THIS VARIANCE IS APPROVED, THEN MY ADDITION WOULD MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 26 FEET 6 INCHES FROM THE REAR STREET CURB, AND 15 FEET 6 INCHES FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED PLOT PLAN. EXHIBIT: "~" SCALE: ---- CITY' SCALE AND iKrr..A NEW GAitAGE ?.Ox2.0 :'c .... I-~ 5# / ~OUSE \ t. \ ~V~: VAR q2-o4 TITLE: EXH_TBIT: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 92-04 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE STREETSCAPE SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 26 FEET 6 INCHES AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 15 FEET 6 INCHES FOR AN ADDITION, LOCATED AT 8236 MATTERHORN COURT IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-851-44 A. Recitals. (i) Thomas A. Board has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 92-04 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 12th day of August 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 August 12, 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 8236 Matterhorn Court with a street frontage of 53 feet on Matterhorn Court and 164 feet on Hermosa Avenue and is presently improved with an existing single family residence; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is residential, the properties to the south and east consist of single family residences, and the property to the west is Hermosa Avenue and a vacant lot; and (c) A majority of the homes along this portion of Hermosa Avenue are legally nonconforming with respect to the required rear yard and streetscape setbacks; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 92-04 - THOMAS A. BOARD AuguSt 12, 1992 Page 2 (d) The configuration of the lot makes it impossible to construct the desired addition without requiring a variance; and (e) The addition will meet or exceed the setback of the existing residence. 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 subject to the following condition: 1) The design of the building elevations shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 92-04 - THOMAS A..BOARD August 12, 1992 Page 3 ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT AugUSt 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION - The proposed development of a fast food drive-thru restaurant totaling 1,989 square feet on 0.58 acres of land in the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue south of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-801-09. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 89-08 (Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center). ABSTRACT: The purpose of this hearing is to formally consider this application now that the project has been recommended for approval by all advisory Committees. BACKGROUND: This project was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 10, 1992. The purpose of that meeting was to receive input from the Commissioners relative to the building orientation and its relationship to the pedestrian plaza immediately south of the site- At that meeting, a majority of the Planning Commissioners recommended that the building/pedestrian plaza orientation was acceptable subject to further review of the project by the Design Review Committee- The Planning Commission suggested the following to mitigate the separation of the building from the pedestrian plaza: Textured, enriched paving in the parking area that will effectively slow down traffic leaving the drive-thru lane; Substantial tables with shading (i.e., umbrellas in the plaza extension); and Strong pedestrian linkages from the building to the plaza and the bank building. All other background information, project data, and review Committee's recommendations and comments can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report and minutes dated June 10, 1992. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: On July 1, 1992, the Committee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) reviewed the modified site plan and building elevations and recommended approval of the project subject to the following conditions: ITEM J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-40 - TAC0 BELL CORPORATION August 12, ~992 Page 2 The pedestrian circulation system should be specifically defined through the use of an enriched paving material (i.e., interlocking pavers). In addition, the entire parking area south of the building should be constructed with a decorative concrete finish to give the parking lot a unique identity and raised banding to slow down vehicular traffic exiting the drive-thru lane. The same raised decorative paving pattern should be utilized across the drive aisle exit to inform drivers of on-coming traffic from the Milliken Avenue driveway entrance. The Milliken Avenue retaining wall and design (similar to the Mobil Station to the North) should be continued northward to beyond the drive-thru window to allow for a gentler slope transition between the drive-thru lane and the top of the berm and to ensure the berm will sufficiently screen the drive-thru lane. The turf block area should be enlarged to the south to further decrease the possibility of drive-thru "short-cutting" through the one-way exit area. Additional bench seating should be provided in the plaza expansion area, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. A trellis, similar in design to that used on the trash enclosure, should be provided behind the drive-thru menu board to screen the electrical vault from view. The roof cornices should return at 90 degree angles at points where the cornices meet tower elements. The attached exhibits attempt to address items 1 through 3 and 5. However, to ensure compliance with the Committee's recommendations, all of the items have been included as conditions in the attached Resolution of Approval- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Upon review of the Environmental Checklist for the Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center, the Checklist did include potential environmental impacts associated with this and all freestanding pads within the project- No significant adverse environmental impacts were found related to this freestanding pad at the time the original study was completed. However, this pad was analyzed as a sit down restaurant- Given the potential change of use, staff required a revised Environmental Assessment for this site, which yielded no additional significant environmental impacts. Therefore, if the Commission concurs, then adoption of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION August 12, 1992 Page 3 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 subject site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive any further public testimony relative to the project. If, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, the recommended conditions of approval can serve as mitigations to address the unaddressed policy issues associated with the project, then the Planning Commission should approve Conditional Use Permit 91-40 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. However, concurrent with or soon following the recommended action, the Planning Commission should direct staff to prepare a new interim drive-thru policy Resolution and bring it back at the next available meeting. Re spe y~bm i~d, BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan for Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 10, 1992 Exhibit "H" - Planning Commission Minutes dated June 10, 1992 Resolution No- 88-96 - Drive-thru Policies Resolution of Approval with Conditions P~'D~SION SiTE *'REA ( 2 79 ACRES) 557,232 SF SERviCE STATION P,RCEL 29.601 S~r SHOPPING CENTER D,RCEL 527.631 h;5,,LANII ~v'ENU[ PLANNING- DIVISION 4~f"~' E--'~,-~. ' C.~.___""~,~,,,~W.~--,,~K~; PLANTER DETAIL KENYON WAY PLANN~ING,- DM,SION EXHmrr: ~-' sc~E: |L P~'~mN6-D~xoN EXI-L131T: SCALE: PLANT pALETTE FOR pARKWAT PLANNING.. DMSION ITEM: C ,J ~ ?/- ~o EXHIBrl":"/~"' SCALE: '1 .f WAY CITY OF :: ,.. ,. ..........UCAMONGA PLANL~71NG- DIVISION EXHIBIT: c SCALE: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA June 10, 1992 Chairman and L4embers of the Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-40 - FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - The development of a 1,989 square foot drive-thru fast food restaurant on .58 acres of land in the Vineyards Marketplace shopping center, which is within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, south of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-801-09· Related file: Conditional Use Permit 89-08 ABSTRACT: The purpose of this h{aring is to receive input from the entire Planning Commission relative to major unresolved design issues discussed at the May 7, 1992 Design Review Committee meeting. The Commissioners should determine if these major design issues are significant because a substantial redesign of the project would be required- The direction of the Commission this evening will aid staff and the developer in preparing for issues to be discussed at future Design Review Committee meetings- PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Existing service station; Neighborhood Commercial (Victoria Planned Community) South - Existing pedestrian plaza; Neighborhood Commercial (Victoria Planned Community) East - Existing parking lot and freestanding retail buildings; Neighborhood Commercial (Victoria Planned Community) West - Vacant; Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Victoria Planned Community General Plan Designations: Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial North - Neighborhood Commercial South - Neighborhood Commercial East - Neighborhood Commercial West - Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-40 - FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 10, 1992 Page 2 Site Characteristics: This site has been reserved for a freestanding pad within the Vineyards Marketplace shopping center. The pad has been graded and landscaped with drought tolerant groundcover mix- All off-site improvements were completed with development of the balance of the shopping center- Parking Calculations: Type of Use Fast food restaurant 1,989 Outdoor eating area 375 Total 2,364 Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Footage Ratio Required Provided 1/75 27 27 32 32* The approved master plan included 65 "extra" common parking spaces to accommodate tenants requiring a parking ratio greater than the base ratio of one parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area- This use, combined with more parking intensive tenants, currently in the center, account for approximately 12 of these 65 "extra" stalls. BACKGROUND: On November 29, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the conceptual master plan for the Vineyards Marketplace shopping center, which identified this pad as a sit down restaurant- According to the developer, a fast food pad was not shown due to the varying requirements for building size, unloading facilities, etc- of different fast food restaurant chains. Therefore, a condition of approval was included in the Resolution of Approval requiring a separate Conditional Use permit/Development Review application be processed for this freestanding pad. The primary purpose of this condition was to ensure that the building's tenant would enhance "usability" of the contiguous pedestrian plaza; the Commission felt that restaurant uses providing seating in the pedestrian plaza was ideal. 'Since that time, the Commission granted a modification to the shopping center master plan that allowed the pad immediately east of the pedestrian plaza to be developed as a bank. During these proceedings, the Commission reiterated their concerns that the adjacent buildings use and orientation should relate strongly to the plaza, as indicated on the approved Master Plan. Given that the bank use does not relate strongly and the bank building is not oriented toward the plaza, the importance of strengthening this relationship is, in staff's opinion, especially important in considering this application. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-40 - FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 10, 1992 Page 3 Prior to submittal of a formal application, staff informed the applicant that the proposed design was inconsistent with the approved master Plan for the shopping center because the building was pulled away from the pedestrian plaza- Further, staff indicated that the design was inconsistent with the Planning Commission's adopted policies for drive-thru businesses per Resolution No. 88-96- In staff's opinion, the proposed site plan orientation, which places parking and drive-thru access between the plaza and the entrance to the building, is contrary to the General Plan policy that "Neighborhood Commercial Centers should be designed as human-scale, pedestrian-oriented commercial areas." ANALYSIS: General: The applicant is proposing to develop a 1,989 square foot fast food drive-thru restaurant on one of the vacant building pads within the Vineyards Marketplace shopping center. In addition to the restaurant, the applicant is proposing to expand the corner pedestrian plaza to the north and provide tables in an attempt to be consistent with the intent of encouraging patrons of the facility to utilize the plaza. Seven parking spaces are proposed immediately south of the building for restaurant patrons- Access to the site is available via Milliken Avenue, Kenyon Way and Woodruff Place. The drive aisle immediately east of the building is proposed to become one-way only to allow a safe and efficient flow of vehicles and adequate stacking for drive-thru traffic, per the recommendations of the on-site traffic study proposed for the site. Additional berming and landscaping is proposed in the Milliken Avenue streetscape setback area to screen the drive-thru lane from view of Milliken Avenue. Design Review Committee: On May 7, 1992, the Committee (McNiel, Kroutil) reviewed the project and recommended that it be forwarded to the full Planning Commission with the following recommendations: The building should be relocated contiguous to the pedestrian plaza to encourage use of the plaza- The parking area proposed between the plaza and the building should be removed or relocated so it will not conflict with the pedestrian circulation, per the conceptually approved master plan for the Vineyards Marketplace shopping center. The overall circulation pattern for the pad should be significantly revised to allow for proper access to, and screening of, the drive-thru lane. In addition, a designated area for unloading large trucks and additional enriched raised paving connections from the building to the pedestrian plaza should be provided. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-40 - FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 10, 1992 Page 4 The proposed "corporate" architectural scheme should be significantly revised to better integrate with other buildings within the center (examples: modify mansard roof and parapet, entry elements). Other secondary and policy design issues were not discussed due to the significance of the major unresolved design issues. See the attached copy of the Design Review Committee Staff Report and Action Comments (Exhibit "G"). Since the Design Review Committee meeting, the architectural~ elevations and site plan have been revised to address committee concerns as follows: The building elevations have been significantly revised to blend in with other buildings within the Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center through the use of similar tower elements, roof pitches, materials, and detailing. Additional enriched paving is proposed in the parking area between the building and the pedestrian plaza. However, it should be noted that the revised plans do not indicate a relocation of the building contiguous to the pedestrian plaza nor the parking area removed, which was considered to be the primary design concern with the project. Technical Review Committee: On May 6, 1992, the Committee reviewed the project and determined that with the recon~nended standard conditions of ~Dproval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee conceptually approved the project at its meeting on May 5, 1992. Environmental Assessment: Upon review of the Environmental Checklist for the Vineyards Marketplace shopping center, the checklist did include potential environmental impacts associated with this and all freestanding pads within the project. No significant adverse environmental impacts were found related to this freestanding pad at the time the original study was completed. However, this pad was analyzed as a sit down restaurant. Given the potential change of use, staff required a revised Environmental Assessment for this site, which yielded no additional significant environmental impacts- Therefore, if the Commission concurs, than adoption of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate- 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 subject site. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 91-40 - FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES June 10, 1992 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive all public testimony relative to the project. If, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, the project can be redesigned to address any unresolved design issues, the Planning Commission should refer this item back to the Design Review Committee. If the Commission feels the project cannot be designed to address the major design issues, then staff should be directed to prepare a Resolution denying Conditional Use Permit 91-40 for adoption at the next meeting- BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan for Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center Exhibit "C" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "F" - Building Elevations Exhibit "G" - Design Review Committee Staff Report and Action Comments Dated May 7, 1992 Resolution No. 88-96 - Drive-thru Policies CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting June 10, 1992 C ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: .......... ~^~ *h~ R~nular Meetina of the City of Rancho cuT=~ ing Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in th-.-~-~Uncil at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Dr,~, =, Rancho California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge ~,--allegiance. STAFF PRESENT: ANNOUNCEMENTS ,RESENT: Shintu Planner; Ral Associate Plane Kroutil, Depu~ Planner; Gai! ~anche Suzanne Chitiea - Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter' ~lstoy, Wendy Vallette None - C';y Engineer; Dan Coleman, Principal lane a, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Otto Planner; Steve Ross, Assistant Planning Commission Secretary Deputy City Planner O' ~o Kroutil suggested that the before Item B. APPROVAL O~ ..4INUTES Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, unanimously carried the m' ~utes of April 22, 1992. % PUBLIC HEARINGS .on consider Item C ~dopt ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-40 - FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - The development of a 1,989 square foot drive-thru fast food restaurant on .58 acres of land in the Vineyards Marketplace shopping center, which is within the Neighborhood Commercial District of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the east side of Milliken Avenue, south of Highland Avenue - APN: 227-801-09. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 89-08. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and distributed a copy of the conceptually approved master plan as well as the applicant's proposed site plan with parking and a drive-thru located between the restaurant and the plaza. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, Suite 220, Newport Beach, stated they are the project owners. He remarked that at the time of originally designing the project, it had been their intention to locate a fast food restaurant in the location now shown.. He stated they had not shown a fast food restaurant with drive-thru on the original master plan because they would have had to provide a traffic study. He said it was their understanding they could request a revision of the master plan after securing a tenant so that they would know the tenant's parameters. He commented that it is typical in CC&Rs with supermarkets Uo include location restrictions and building envelopes for the other building pads on the site. He stated that Albertson's wants a fast food restaurant, as opposed to a sit-down restaurant, so there will not be competition over long-term parking. He stated the CC&Rs with Albertson'e will not permit placing a building adjacent to the plaza. He noted that the City had received a copy of the CC&Rs. He understood the City's desire to orient toward the plaza and proposed extending the plaza material 50 linear feet adjacent to the parking lot and drive-thru area to bring it up to the edge of the Taco Bell pad. He suggested that tables, chairs, and umbrellas be added to enhance the pedestrian orientation. He proposed enhanced pavere across the parking lot area. He felt the drive-thru could adequately be screened from the street with mounding and low walls. He thought the Taco Bell building should be pulled away from the plaza because it is smaller than the bank building to the east of the plaza. He said they had tried diligently to devise a plan that would create a pedestrian connection to the plaza. He remarked that there are few food uses in Victoria. Commissioner Vallette asked the proposed height. Mr. Potter thought the height of the Taco Bell would be about 29-1/2 feet. Scott Duffher, Fanchef Development Services, Inc., 1322 Bell Avenue, Suite l-H, Tustin, though= the usability of the area would be enhanced by their plan. He remarked that Taco Bell feels the pedestrian plaza is an asset to the shopping center and felt the proposed plan will utilize it. He noted that there is not currently a lot of pedestrian traffic in the area except from the adjacent housing. He fe~t that at the May 7, 1992, Design Review Committee meeting they had convinced the committee that they are physically restrained from relocating the building contiguous to the plaza, as shown in the approved master plan. He thought there would be an adequate truck loading area by utilizing a 12 foot x 40 foot area off the curb face. He indicated they were not proposing striping the area. He stated that they felt a one-way traffic pattern would be preferable for the site and they had met with the fire department and received an approval of their proposal to extend the landscaping to the north of the drive-thru entrance. Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 10, 1992 Hearing no fur=her testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He remarked that at the latest Design Review meeting it had been explained =o the applicant that the City has little to do with CC&Rs between property owners and-their tenants. Me indicated the applicant had stated it was doubtful they could get Albertson's to agree to moving any building closer to the plaza because they want to preserve their eight line. He said that restriction was really not a problem the City had created; however, as a result, it was doubtful that any building could be built contiguous to the plaza. Chairman McNiel stated he could not think of any other use that would better utilize the plaza and he asked if the Commissioners could suggest a more appropriate use. Me thought the applicant had addressed the concern regarding the need for limiting the access to the drive-thru to be one-way only. Me questioned if the applicant had sufficiently addressed the connection from the building to the plaza. Commissioner Vallette requested clarification on Planning Commission Resolution 88-96, regarding design goals and policies for businesses with drive-thru facilities. She noted that the policies indicate the site shall be a minimum of 1 acre and the proposed site only has .58 acres. She also observed that the goals call for a minimum floor area of 2,500 square feet while the application is for 1,989 square feet. She did not feel the application met the standards. Chairman McNiel noted that the policy stated the mimimum land area could be modified through the Design Review process when the location is within a Master Plan area or an integrated shopping center. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, stated the design policy had been adopted to develop criteria for free-standing buildings on small individual lots. He felt it was never intended to be applied to integrated shopping centers where lot lines are only drawn for the purposes of leasing property rather than developing property. He said the Commission should determine if the floor area met the intent of the guidelines. Me said normally the site planning, architectural, and landscaping problems are worked out at Design Review before the application is forwarded to the Commission with a recommendation. He stated staff felt the Commission should determine if the use of a drive-thru restaurant is appropriate in this location and whether the use would function well without being contiguous to the plaza area. Me suggested that if the Commission agreed with the use, it was staff's intention to return the item through the Design Review process to work out the details on loading, trash enclosures, stripping versus turf block, etc. He stated staff believes that regardless of the use, no building will be built immediately adjacent to the plaza. Me said staff was looking for feedback on the use and whether the applicant had done enough in concept to connect the building with the newly proposed herdscape to the pre-existing plaza area. Commissioner Chitlea supported fast food use in the center. She felt there is a need for fast food restaurants in the area and Millikan is an appropriate boulevard. She recognized that no matter what the use, the building would not be closer to the plaza. She preferred that the drive-thru location be moved so that it would not intervene between the restaurant and the plaza. She felt Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 10, 1992 the plaza was constructed to be actively used and noted that the bank to the east of the plaza, also does not use the plaza. She felt a fast food restaurant would be of benefit to the community and would promote active use of the plaza. Commissioner Melcher felt the issue to be a site planning question rather than a use question. He thought it does not matter how much is spent on fancy paving, there is no connection to the plaza area when a parking lot and drive- thru lane intervene. Me said the Commission must determine if it was willing to back away from its long held position that at shopping center corners with pad buildings, the pad buildings should be clustered around usable plazas. He did not think the plan to extend the plaza area along the west side of the parking lot would improve matters and he felt the plaza would not be used by fast food patrons. Commissioner Tolstoy said there i.e a problem with the circulation as shown. He felt there would be a conflict with the service station traffic with drivers backing out to leave the area and cars attempting to enter the restaurant. He felt the plaza is an asset to the shopping center and the proposed site plan precludes use of it. Commissioner Vallette did not feel that parking is appropriate next to the plaza area. She was not opposed to a fast food restaurant at the location. She indicated that if the Commission approved the project, she would like to see the window treatment extend above the height of the arches. She noted that the bank has reduced tower elements, and she proposed that the tower elements be reduced to be consistent with the bank. Chairman McNiel indicated he was not opposed to the use. He disagreed with Commissioner Melcher in that he felt the extension of the plaza area would be used more than the plaza itself because of its visibility. He did not feel it will ever be a high level pedestrian area because the Commission had permitted the bank building to built on the east side. He was not sure that the pedestrian use of the plaza would be enhanced by any use other than a fast food restaurant. Me supported the use. Commissioner Tolstoy supported a fast food use, but he objected to the traffic pattern and the site plan. Commissioner ChArles agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding the site plan, but she felt the plaza would be utilized even less with another type of user. Commissioner Vallette suggested food users without drive-thrus. She did not feel a drive-thru is appropriate in the proposed location because of the limited space and parking adjacent to the pedestrian center. Chairman McNiel did not feel the pad is large enough to support a restaurant without a drive-thru. Commissioner Vallette suggested a sandwich shop or yogurt shop might utilize the pedestrian area on the corner. She said she was not strongly opposed to the proposed use. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 10, 1992 Mr. Hayes remarked that the intent was to return the item to resolve site planning and design review issues. commissioner Melcher questioned if the Commission action was advisory only rather than an action on the application. He felt it was a question of whether or not the site design, particularly the parking and drive-thru lane separating the use from the plaza, was supported by a majority of the Commission. Mr. Kroutil agreed that was correct. He said there would be another hearing, but staff was looking to see if the Commission would accept the drive-thru between the plaza and the building if all the other problems are resolved. Motion: Moved by Chitlea, seconded by McNiel, to accept the use and the positioning of the drive-thru in concept. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried )UP - The development of 32 condominium unite on 3.0 acres of Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), on north side of Base Line Road, west of Alta Cueeta D: 7, 8, 13, and 14. Related Files: Devel, Amendment 7 and Tree Removal Permit 91-40. Staff of a miti~. ve Declaration. ed APN: District issuance Steve Ross, Assistant presented the eta Commissioner Melcher questioned ve Tract was being heard before the Development District Amendment make the project consistent with the Development Districts Map. Mr. Ross stated that the resolution ,oval included a condition that any approval woul subject to approval :he Development District Amendment. Otto Kroutil ammended Developme so a de City Planner, noted that when the ral Plan was years ago, it was the intent of the City that the stricts Map not be amended until an actual project ~mitted could illustrate that a project would work in the zone. Co ioner Vallette stated she thought the upper story on the ends was rather than merely Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 10, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 88-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN GOALS AND POLICIES FOR BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed numerous concerns with businesses that have drive-thru facilities including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants. The concerns are compatibility of use, circulation, and visual and aesthetic appearance. Previous projects have not adequately addressed these concerns, especially in the screening of the drive-thru lane; and WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities to guide future development; and WHEREAS, development standards and design guidelines are necessary to implement the design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities; and WHEREAS, such development standards and design guidelines are n~eded to provide clear direction and guidance to developers and staff alike. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission does hereby establish interim policies for businesses with drive- thru facilities as follows: Section 1: Goal Statement The intent of the guidelines is to assist the designer in understanding and complying with the City standards for building and site design. The goal is to provide high quality design, compatibility of use, and mitigate environmental and aesthetic concerns that are created by this type of land use. The following design standards and guidelines shall apply to uses with drive-thru facilities typically including, but not limited to, fast food restaurants, banks, mini-markets, dairy, photo kiosks, or auto service. Secti on 2: Development Standards Location - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall be 300 feet away from any intersection and from another drive-thru facility on the same side of the street, except within a shopping center or Master Plan. Restaurants with drive-thru facilities shall be a minimum of 200 feet away from any residential use or district boundary. PLANNING COMMISSI RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIm. DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 2 Site Area - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall have a minimum 1 acre net land area. This minimum land area may be modified when the drive-thru facility is within a Master Plan or an integrated shopping center through the Design Review process. The minimum floor area for drive-thru facilities shall be 2,500 square feet. The minimum floor area for a drive-thru facility other than a fast food restaurant may be modified through the Design Review process. The maximum site coverage shall be 40 percent of the net lot area. The minimum on-site landscaping, which includes articulated plazas, courtyards, and patios, shall be 15 percent of the net lot area exclusive of public right-of-way. Parking and the drive-thru lane shall be setback 45 feet from the ultimate curb face. Greater setbacks may be required as mentioned in the Specific Plan and as deemed necessary during the Design Review process. Section 3: Design Guidelines Site Planning/Building Orientation - Future drive-thru facilities in a Master Plan or shopping center shall be identified early in the review process to avoid retrofitring the uses at a later date. The site design shal 1 minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with the flow of the on-site circulation. Building placement shall be done in a manner to create new pedestrian spaces and plaza area. Buildings shall or· ent the public entrances toward the street. Building layout should be oriented to screen the dr· ve-thru 1 ane. Dr· ve-thru 1 aries shall be screentd through building orientation, the use of a combination of low screen walls, heavy landscaping, and trellis work. Separate pay windows and pick-up windows should be provided. Stacking Distance/Parking - The drive-thru lane shall be a sufficient length to accommodate the necessary stacking of cars· The stacking distance shall be determined through a parking study as stated in Section 17.12.040C, Special Requirements of the Parking Ordinance. Each drive-thru lane shall be separate from the circulation route necessary for ingress and egress from the property or access to any parking spaces within the site. PLANNING COMMISS} RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTER1.. DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 3 Parking - The parking requirements for drive-thru facilities shall be according to Section 17.12 of the Parking Ordinance. The gross floor area for outdoor seating shall be subject to the same parking requirement. De Pedestrian Orientation - The Site Plan shall create opportunities for courtyards and plazas and other landscape open space to promote safe and convenient pedestrian movement with continuous landscape pathway between buildings. The design should discourage a need for pedestrians to have to cross a drive-thru wherever possible. Architecture - Standardized "corporate" architectural styles associated wit a chain is prohibited. Drive- thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or Master P1 an must have archi tectural style consistent with the theme established in the center. Architecture must provide compatibility to surrounding uses in form, materials, colors, scale, etc. Building planes shall have variation in depth and angle to create variety and interest in its basic form and silhouette of the building. Articulation of building surface shal 1 be encouraged through the use of openings and recesses which create texture and shadow patterns. Bui 1 di ng entrances shal 1 be wel 1 articulated and project a formal entrance through variation of architectural plane, pavement surface, treatment, and landscape plaza. Signing - All signs shall conform with the provisions of the Sign Ordinance.' Drive-thru facilities within an integrated shopping center or r4aster Plan must comply with the Uniform Sign Program as established in the center. Section 4: Performance Standards Special performance standards for restaurants with drive-thru facilities: l'ne use shall be operated in a manner which does not interfere with the normal use of 'adjoining properties. If, in the opinion of the City Planner, the provisions of this paragraph are being violated, the violations shall be grounds for reopening Conditional Use Permit hearings and adding conditions to control the violation. Performance standards include, but are not limited to the following considerations, which, where appropriate, shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in all use permits as determined by the Planning Con~nission or City Council: PLANNING COMMISSI RESOLUTION NO. DRIVE-THRU INTERIh, dESIGN GOALS/POLICIES May 11, 1988 Page 4 (1) Noise levels measured at the property line shall not exceed the level of background noise normally found in the area. (2) The premises shall be kept clean, and the operator shall make all reasonable efforts to see that no trash or litter originating from the use is deposited on adjacent properties. For drive- thru restaurants or other uses which typically generate trash or litter, adequate trash containers, as determined by the City Planner, shall be required and employees shall be required daily to pick up trash or litter originating from the site upon the site and within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property. (3) All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. (4) No undesirable odors shall be generated on the site. (5) The on-site manager of the use shall take whatever steps are deemed necessary to assure the orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and visitors on the premises. (6) A copy of these performance standards and all Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval shall be posted along-side the necessary business licenses and be visible at all times to employees. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS llTH DAY OF MAY, 1988. PLANNING COHNISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA BY: rry t ' La ATTEST: ~ I, Brad t2;Ythe Planning Conmntsston of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Conmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Conmnission held on the 11th day of May, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COHMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, HCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COeq4ISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COHMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC~/4ONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-40 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 1,989 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE-THRU FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ON 0.58 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VINEYARDS MAg~KETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER, WHICH IS WITHIN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-801-09- A. Recitals. (i) Taco Bell Corporation has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 91-40 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 lOth day of June 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. At that meeting, the Commission took no formal action, but a majority of the Commissioners agreed to accept the Site Plan orientation subject to further consideration of mitigations to the orientation by the Design Review Committee. (iii) On July 1, 1992, the Design Review Committee of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. At that meeting, the Committee recommended approval of the revised plan, including mitigations to the building plaza orientation to the Planning Commission. (iv) On the 12th of August 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. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 12, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION August 12, 1992 Page 2 (a) The application applies to property located at on the east side of Milliken Avenue, south of Highland Avenue with a street frontage of 170 feet and lot depth of 147.2 feet and is presently improved with curb, gutter, sidewalk, streetside landscaping, and a hydroseeded pad area; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is an existing service station, the property to the south consists of a pedestrian plaza, the property to the east is an existing parking lot and retail buildings, and the property to the west is vacant; and (c) The property is zoned Village Commercial within the Victoria Planned Community; and (d) The applicant proposes to operate the facility 24 hours a day; and (e) Fast food restaurants are conditionally permitted within the Village Commercial District of the Victoria Community Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Victoria Community Plan. 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 hereby issues a Negative Declaration- 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin~ Division 1) The pedestrian circulation system shall be specifically defined through the use of an enriched paving material (i.e., interlocking pavers). In addition, the entire parking area south of the building shall be constructed with a decorative concrete finish to give the if-X7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-40 - TACO BELL'CORPORATION August 12, 1992 Page 3 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) S) parking lot a unique identity and raised banding to slow down vehicular traffic exiting the drive-thru lane. The same raised decorative paving pattern shall be utilized across the drive aisle exit to inform drivers of on-coming traffic from the Milliken Avenue driveway entrance. The Mibliken Avenue retaining wall and pilasters design (similar to the Mobil Station to the north) shall be continued northward to beyond the drive-thru window to allow for a gentler slope transition between the drive-thru lane and the top of the berm and to ensure the berm will sufficiently screen the drive-thru lane. The turf block area shall be enlarged to the south to further decrease the possibility of drive-thru "short cutting" through the one-way exit area. Additional bench seating shall be provided in the plaza expansion area, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. The proposed location shall be shown on the Detailed Site and Landscape Plans and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits and installed prior to occupancy. A trellis, similar in design to that used on the trash enclosure, shall be provided behind the drive-thru menu board to screen the electrical vault from view. The roof cornices shall turn at 90 degree angles at points where the cornice meets tower elements. The truck unloading zone shall be painted and marked as such, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. The project shall be designed consistent with all applicable recommendations from the on-site traffic study including, but not limited to, directional signage, directional paint markings, raised median from the Milliken Avenue driveway entrance, etc. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION August 12, 1992 Page 4 9) Substantial berming, low walls, and dense landscaping shall be provided to screen drive-thru activity from view of Milliken Avenue to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Details of the berming and walls shall be provided on the detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plans, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any permits for the project. 10} Special landscaping shall be employed behind the sidewalk along Milliken Avenue to provide an intensified landscape screen between areas of public view and the drive-thru lane. 11) Only flags of the United States or other official flags may be flown on the proposed flagpole; corporate flags will not be allowed. 12) Any signs proposed shall be in conformance with the Uniform Sign Program for the Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center and the Sign Ordinance. 13) The roof mansards shall be designed as to completely screen any roof equipment from public view. Special consideration shall be given to ultimate screening of the roof equipment from the raised elevation of the future Route 30 Freeway. 14) There shall be provision for the following design features in the trash enclosure to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a) Architecturally integrated design of this project. into the b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors and includes a self-closing pedestrian door. c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d) Roll-up doors. e) Trash bins with counterweighted lids. f) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-¢0 - TACO BELL CORPORATION August 12, 1992 Page 5 is) 16) 17) 18) 19) g) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure. The screen shall be designed to be hidden from view. Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. only. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 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. The business shall be conducted to comply with the following standards: 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, or 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. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b), this application shall not be operative, vested or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. The applicant shall provide the Planning Department with a stamped and confirmed copy of the Notice of Determination together with a receipt showing that all fees have been paid. J-3o PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 91-40 - TACO BELL CORPORATION August 12, 1992 Page 6 In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, except for payment of an~ required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this condition shall be deemed null and void. Enuineerin~ Division 1) Modifications to the existing landscaping along the Milliken Avenue frontage shall be compatible with the Milliken Avenue Beautification Master Plan. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUaJSCT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Limits V/ 1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. T', 2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to / / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of I / / / 5. The developer shall commence. participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in, or consummated, a Melio-Roos Community Fadlities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located. designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. and shall become the District's proparty upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation ol the final map occurs. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building parrnlts, whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Melk>-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. / / ~o~ xo.:Cu~ ~I-~/° Coml~lct~ 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. '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 V/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans. architectural elevations, extedor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein. Development Code regulations, and Specific Plan and Planned Community. / / V/ 7. 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. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshairs 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 pdor to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All site, grading. landscape. irrigation. and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency priorto issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code. all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Sherffi's Department (989-6611 ) pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers. etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. / /__ 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. V/ 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted tor City Planner review and approval priorto approval and reco rdation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements forthe 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. 16. 17. 18. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions tor the subdivision which shall be recorded concuffently with the recordation ol the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, stn~"tures, fixtures or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. . Any further modifications to the site including but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of t~-~ buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demelltion, reiocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. C. Building Design An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of sudace treatment subject to C~ Planner review and approval pdor 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. All roof appurtenances, including air conditionere and other roof mounted equipment and/or 'projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required'by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. D. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on bulkling plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). v/ 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. V/ 3. All parking spaces shall be double stdped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be stdped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 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 prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval pdor to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly maintained landscape arm, refer to Section N.) A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscap- ing in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval priorto the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barder in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape pins. The applicant shall follow all of the arborisrs recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting and tdmming methods. A minimum of trees per g ross acre, comprised of the following sizes, 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 gallon. A minimum of % of trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box of larger. 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. ComplcUon Date: / / / /.__ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / ,/ 6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 7. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 orgreater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for ' erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 8. All private slopas in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater 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 eq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 eq. 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 shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- ously maintained in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those u nits, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory 10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant matedal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage· 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or · This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 12. The final design of the pealmater perkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall 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 mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- 14. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteda shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xedacape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. / / / / / /__ / / / / / / I / / /__ / /__ / /__ / / / /~ F. SIgns v/ 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a pan of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall '"" "' o, 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division pdor to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental 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. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building metedais and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, ver~v the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for contormance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. H. Other Agencies v'/ 1. Emergency secondary access shall beprovided in accordance with RanchoCucamonga Fire Protection District Standards. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide at all times dudng construction in accordance with Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District requirements. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shell provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overtqead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. / /__ / / / / f / / /__ / / / / / / / / / /__ / / For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Develgpment The applicant shall domply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 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 are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commemial 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 shall be provided by the Building Official, aftertract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Structures v/ 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for the intended use or the building shall be demolished. 3. Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/orcapped to comply with the Uniform Plumping Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building permit application. K. Grading v'/1. V/ 2. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standan:Is, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the appmved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualilied engineer licensed by the State of California to parform such work. ~/3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance Permit is required. Please contact San Bernarcllno County Department of Agriculture at (714) 387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance o! rough grading permit. 4. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualitied engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. V/5. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. CompleUon Dat~: / /__ / / / / / / / /.__ / /__ / / / / / / / /.~ / /~ / /F / /_ _ SC - 2/9 1 7 --~ ' " DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT AugUSt 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57- VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated with the development is Tree Removal Permit 92-06- BACKGROUND: On July 12, 1992, the Planning Comission continued the public hearing on the above-referenced applications to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with the Planning Comission and staff to further define concerns about the project design and explore possible subdivision design alternatives. Staff has met with the applicant and discussed the previous direction of the Planning Commission and suggested possible revisions to the plan. To date, no revised plans have been received. Should revised plans become available, staff will make every attempt to distribute them to the Comission prior to the meeting- DISCUSSION: The purpose of this meeting is to further discuss the design of the subdivision and arrive at a concensus as to the direction to be pursued by the applicant to address the Commission's concerns- While the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was also continued to this meeting, the main reason was to keep the applications together and avoid re-advertising. It is not staff's intent to discuss the adequacy of the EIR but, rather, to focus on the subdivision design. ITEM K,L PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EIR FOR VTT 14475 & VTT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS August 12, 1992 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on the EIR for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475. Additionally, staff recommends that the Planning Commission comment on the revised plans, if any, submitted for the project and provide direction to the applicant on revisions to the plan(s). After providing the direction, the public hearing for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14475 should be continued for at least 30 days to allow the necessary revisions to the plan. Staff suggests the EIR and Vesting Tentative Tract Map be continued to September 9, 1992. BB:SM:mlg CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: AuguSt 12, 1992 / TO: Cha' man and Members of the Planning Commission FRO rad Buller, City Planner BY Scott Murphy, Associate Planner NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A public hearing on the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report prepared for Vesting Tentative Tract 14475, a residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14475 - SAHAMA INVESTMENTS - A residential subdivision and design review of 71 single family residences on 113 acres of land in the Hillside Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) and Open Space Districts, located north of Almond Avenue between Sapphire and Turquoise Streets - APN: 200-051-07, 55, 56, and 57. Associated Tree Removal Permit No. 92-06. Following preparation of the August 12 staff report, staff received the attached letters and alternative subdivision designs. The applicant submitted these options to address concerns raised by the Commission during the previous workshop and public hearing- Staff has not had the opportunity to review the designs. provide comments to the Commission at the meeting. Staff will BB:SM:sp Attachments: Letter from Applicant dated August 5, 1992 Alternative Subdivision Designs Letter from Applicant dated July 10, 1992 J. KENNETH BROWN THOMAS F. WINFIELD III ANTHONY CANZONERI VICKi E. LAND JAMES C. CAMP STEPHANIE ROSE SCHER STEVEN ABRAM DENNIS S. ROY THOMAS [. MCKNEW, JR. ROGER P. HEYMAN MARK W. STERES JOHN R. LIEBMAN JEFFREY B. HARRIS BROWN, WiNFiELD & CANZONERi INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS AT LAW CALIFORNIA PLAZA 300 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-3125 TELEPHONE: (;~13} 687-2H00 August 5, 1992 FILE NO; DIRECT DIAL NO: Chairman Larry McNiel and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Tentative Tract 14475 Revisions Dear Chairman McNiel and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: Submitted with this letter are two site plans which significantly revise the lot figuration proposed in connection with the above-referenced tract map in the northeast portion of the subject property. As you know, Sahama Investments, the developer of this tract, has worked closely over the past year with the City staff and with the Design Review Committee and Technical Review Committee to design and engineer a tract map which not only meets all City codes, but also fully carries out the purpose and intent of the City's Hillside Development Regulations "to minimize adverse effects of grading, and to provide for the safety, benefit and welfare of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga while allowing for reasonable development of land." (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.24,010.) In accordance with that purpose, the City staff and the Committees made numerous modifications to the tract map on a lot by lot basis, which the developer agreed to implement, to minimize the impacts of development and provide a sensitive layout. These revisions resulted in a tract map approved by the Committees as being in conformance with all City laws and policies. That map was presented to you at the April 1992 hearing. Chairman Larry McNiel and Members of the Planning Commission August 5, 1992 Page 2 As you may remember from our July 6, 1992, letter to the Planning Commission, subsequent to that April hearing, and the May "workshop" held on the project, we requested a continuance to allow us to meet with the City staff to see if the issues which were raised by the Planning Commission subsequent to the Committees' approvals could be clarified and then addressed. To help focus those discussions, we sent the attached letter to Brad Buller. Although no written response was provided, the City staff was kind enough to meet with us and to discuss the project in detail on July 22. Based upon the comments made by the staff at that meeting, as well as those made by individual Planning Commissioners in April and in May, it became apparent that the recent concerns about the map are focused in the northeast portion of the project site, particularly where it abuts the National Forest. This area had also been a focus of concern by the Committees, and had already been redesigned in accordance with their remarks. Although we believe the tract map as submitted in April meets each and every requirement both of State law and of the City's codes, in an attempt to readdress the focused concerns, we have prepared two alternatives for the Planning Commission's consideration. Alternative one results in a reduction of four lots from that previously proposed, and the creation of larger, wider lots along the northern property line. Alternative two also increases lot size, although not necessarily lot width, by moving the access street south, revising lot lines to accomplish a minimum lot of two acres, and designating an open space easement to be granted to the City on the back portion of such lots abutting the National Forest. This results in five fewer lots. Although the two alternatives have a different "look," in both, the larger lots address the expressed concern of the "feeling" of crowding against the hills in that area, and the expressed desire to provide larger areas where the land could remain "open" and "undeveloped" to "buffer" the National Forest. This is, of course, in addition to the grant of the property in the northeast corner which is being proposed under any version of the map. K: \DOCS\SEC\SCHER\O896AAAB. DC/O01 08/05/92 - 1 Chairman Larry McNiel and Members of the Planning Commission August 5, 1992 Page 3 Because of the fine-tuning of the lots which occurred at the Committee level prior to the first Planning Commission hearing, as well as the expressed focus of concern on the subject area, no other portions of the map have been altered. As previously stated, we believe that the map as approved by the Committees more than meets the City's code requirements, is extremely sensitive to the environmental constraints of the site, and adequately mitigates any environmental concerns. In accordance with the cooperative posture which the developer has taken all the way through this process, however, Sahama Investments would be willing to implement either of the alternatives presented hereby. Very truly yours, H SRS:dsd cc: Prakash Sakraney, Managing Director Ralph D. Hanson, Esq. Mr. Brad Buller K: \DOCS\SEC\SCHER\O896AMB. DC/O0 1 08/05/9Z - 1 Sahama Investments - 8/5/92:ALT 1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT #14475 Alternative One (67 Lots) "LOT 'M" 46 16 15 14 13 33 Z ~tc 36 65 66 59 58 57 56 55 54 ! "" 48 , 50 51 5Z 17 8 18 ~ 19 7 ~ ~ - 22 20 +i 64 23 ,- 1 \ 29 24 25 27 26 Sahama investments - 8/5/92:ALT 2 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT #14475 Alternative Two (66 Lots) OFeN Note: N/Eastern Access Street Lowered (South) 15 14 / ~ 36 34 33 31 8 18 52 21 22 23 ..... 7"'7~'7'* '; "- ~ ~aJ' 3 2 ~ 35 \ 29 24 / 27 25 2~c 65 68 69 26 59 58 k 46 47 ,r~49 56 51 1 t 54 55 VICKI E. LAND VZA IA~BXMIT.~ i U.8. ~IT- BROWN, WINFIELD & CANZONERI ATTORNEYS AT LAW (213) 687-2100 July 10, 1992 TELECOPIER: (213) 687-at49 FILE NO: DIRECT DIAL Mr. Brad Buller City Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Post Office Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Vesting Tentative Tract 14475 Dear Mr. Buller: Thank you and the Planning Commission for cooperating withus in continuing the hearing on this project so that we may work with you to focus the issues of concern. In connection with that focus, I am available to meet with you and Prakash Sakraney on Wednesday, July 15th, in the afternoon. I understand this time would work for you, and ask you to please confirmwith me if we will be meeting on that date. To make that meeting as productive as possible, I have reviewed the minutes of the May 27th Planning Commission "workshop," as well as your July 8 staff report to the Planning Commission, to try to help Sahama Investments address the City's concerns. I found, however, that the concerns are generally expressed in a ,'broad-brush" fashion, not tied to the facts that pertain to the project, and therefore are almost impossible to respond to. Furthermore, since Sahama Investments spent over a year responding to specific concerns of the staff and Design Review Committee which appeared to be intended to resolve these types of general concerns on a lot by lot basis, and had indeed satisfied all those specific concerns, Sahama also is unsure of what may now be required. It would greatly help this discussion process, therefore, if you could provide us with a written statement as to the following items: Mr. Brad Bullet July 10, 1992 Page 2 1. The documents reference concerns regarding lots in the "northeast corner." Since the proposed tract map has no developable lots in the northeast corner, the concerns raised are confusing. Please define precisely the meaning of the "northeast corner." 2. There are expressed concerns that there needs to be "more natural open space." As I am sure you know, designation of land as open space on a general plan ~annot automatically restrict development without compensation being paid therefor (see, e.u.. T.ucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) 92 Daily Journal Daily Appellate Report 9030). Therefore, the entire site must be taken into account when determining the amount of development as compared to the amount of open space being preserve~. Please provide a further understanding of the quantity of open space desired in expressing the need for "more" natural open space. 3. Concern was expressed regarding driveway grading by one commissioner and by the staff report. Since the driveway grading was adjusted on a lot by lot basis in accordance with directions of the Design Review Committee, please advise us as to which lots are now being referenced, so that further adjustments may be considered if appropriate. 4. Concern was also expressed regarding the "steephess of the terrain." Again, because the grading was fine tuned on a lot by lot basis in connection with the Design Review Committee~s suggestions, we believe discussions will progress more rapidly if we are provided with a list of which specific lots are the focus of this concern. 5. A suggestion was made regarding eliminating lots within the northern portion of the upper mesa. Since there is no fundamental difference between the steepness of the terrain in that portion of the mesa as compared to any other portion of the mesa, we are unclear what impact this measure is intended to address. If it is aimed at the concept of creating a larger "transition or buffer" between the residences and the national forest, please advise us as to precisely what such a buffer is intended to accomplish and how large you believe the buffer must be to accomplish those goals. K: \DOCS\SEC\SCHER\O89~aAAAA · OC/O01 Mr. Brad Bullet July 10, 1992 Page 3 6, Finally, there are several statements that there are a "number of environmental issues" related to the project, which are implied as being unresolved. Since the environmental consultants appear to be satisfied with the adequacy of the environmental impact report, and that document indicates that all environmental concerns have been mitigated to a level of insignificance, please explicate further which particular environmental issues are still of concern. We may, for example, be able to develop additional mitigation measures which do no= require any redssign of the project to address such concerns. Although we would appreciate receiving your response in writing to these issues, we also appreciate your meeting withus as promptly as possible and understand that the press of time may prevent a written response. We do believe, however, that answers to these questions will significantly help focus the discussions which we desire to have with you. Very truly yours, STEPHANIE R. SCHER SRS:dsd cc: Prakash Sakraney, Managing Director Ralph D. Hanson, Esq. K: ~d)OCS\SEC\SCHER\O896AAAA. DC/O01 P l ann i ng Comm i ':.'~ i on of Rancbo Cucamonga ]0~00 Civic Center Drjvp P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9]729 Subject: Sahama Project AngULar ] 2, :19q2 Dear Planning Commission: I am concerned abou! the effects the Sahama project will have on lbe San Bernardino Nations] Forest--particularly Cucamonga Canyon. As a frpquen~ user of this canyon, I find thai one can experience a true wildernest; setting in the canyon's mid to upper reaches. This setting is further enhanced by the canyon's depth and northeast-southwest trend, which hides the urban valley below. I fear that the sight of houses on the south cliff will degrade the aesthetic quality of Cucamonga Canyon, thereby diminishing visitors' enjoyment of the San Bernardino National Fores1 and Cucamonga Wilderness. ~incerely, Dan Konin9 6729 Hermosa Avenuf. Alta Loma, Ca 9170] 1 .2 3 4 5 6 Jesse Moorman, Esq. 808 North Spring Street, Suite 622 Los Angeles, California 90012 (213) 680-9909 Attorney for Pltf/Pet FPSSC David Allen James, Sr. Post Office Box 266 Glendale, California 91209 (818) 794-9268 ',. .. JUL 2 4 1992 - "-"-""--"--:':mr, ......7,..° :,:, 7 In propria persona 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .'~ ': ........~-' FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FOREST PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, an unincorporated association, DAVID ALLEN JAMES, Sr., an individual, Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 92 Case No. PETITION FOR ~eIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, ZNouNu'rIVE RELIEF. AND ~nM~GES vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEP~TMENT OF AGRICUL~RE, FOREST SERVICE; ~GELES NATIONAL FOREST; MICHEL J. ROGERS, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor, Angeles National Forest; SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST; GENE ZIMMERMAN, in his official capacity as Forest Supervisor, San Bernardino National Forest; and AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF UNNAMED FEDERAL DEFENDANTS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondents, and Defendants. 26 27 28 .-', -: . -. r~ .' ~ J..j ~:Petitioners and plaintiffs herein, FOREST PRESERVATION SOCIET~ p.F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and DAVID ALLEN JAMES, Sr. ("~iaiDt~fs2')-for their causes of action, allege as follows: ~/"' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. NATURE OF ACTION 1. By this petition and complaint, filed in the United States District Court, plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus directing respondents and defendants ("defendants") to fulfill their statutory and regulatory duty to protect the public's interest in national forest land under the administration of the defendants, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages according to proof. Specifically, plaintiffs seek to compel defendants to protect national forest lands from depredation resulting from their failure to properly assess the impacts of local agency planning on national forest system lands. II. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff FOREST PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ("FPS") is an unincorporated association. It is comprised of recreational, educational, and professional national forest users and user groups. Members include individuals, corporations and partnerships with private property holdings situate on national forest land. A substantial portion of the membership is resident on national forest land. 3. Plaintiff DAVID ALLEN JAMES, Sr. ("JAMES") is an individual residing within the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is the Chairman of FPS. -~ 4. Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ("USDA") is a lawfully constituted executive department of the United States government. 5. Defendant UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE ("USFS") is a lawfully constituted agency of USDA. 1 6. Defendant ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST is an 2 administrative subdivision of USDA, Forest Service, National 3 Forest System, Region Five, located in Standard Federal Region 4 IX, organized pursuant to a Presidential decree, acting by and 5 through an appointed Forest Supervisor, with its principal 6 administrative office in the County of Los Angeles, State of 7 California. 8 7. Defendant SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST is an 9 administrative subdivision of USDA, Forest Service, National 10 Forest System, Region Five, located in Standard Federal Region 11 IX, organized pursuant to a Presidential decree, acting by and 12 through an appointed Forest Supervisor, with its principal 13 administrative office in the County of San Bernardino, State of 14 California. 15 8. Defendant MICHAEL J. ROGERS ("ROGERS") is an 16 officer and agent of the United States, employed by USDA in the 17 official capacity of Forest Supervisor of the ANGELES NATIONAL 18 FOREST. 19 9. Defendant GENE ZIMMERMAN ("ZIMMERMAN") is an officer 20 and agent of the United States, employed by USDA in the official 21 capacity of Forest Supervisor of the SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL 22 FOREST. 23 24 25 26 27 28 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331a (federal question); 28 U.S.C. section 2201 (declaratory relief); 5 U.S.C. section 702 (right of review); 5 U.S.C. section 706(2)(c) (power of court to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 set aside agency action); and 28 U.S.C. section 1361 (administrative mandamus). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391. IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11. By the Organic Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 35, c. 2 § 1, codified at Title 16 United States Code ("16 U.S.C.") section 551, the Congress of the United States authorized the promulgation of rules and regulations to protect public forests and forest reservations. On August 17, 1974 the Congress of the 11 United States enacted the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended ("FRRRPA"), contained in Public Law 93-378 and codified at 16 U.S.C. sections 1600 et seq. FRRRPA provides that the Secretary of Agriculture "shall promulgate regulations" for the proper administration of the act. 12. On September 30, 1982 the Secretary of Agriculture published regulations at 47 Federal Register 43037 and codified at Title 36, Part 219, Subpart A, Code of Federal Regulations ("36 CFR"). These regulations mandate, in pertinent part: (f) A program of monitoring and evaluation shall be conducted that includes consideration of the effects of National Forest management on land, resources, and communities adjacent to or near the National Forest being planned and the effects upon National Forest management of activities on nearby lands managed by other Federal or 1 other government agencies or under the 2 jurisdiction of local governments. 3 36 CFR § 219.7(f) 4 (2) Forest Supervisor. The Forest 5 Supervisor has overall responsibility for the 6 preparation and implementation of the Forest 7 Plan and preparation of the environmental 8 impact statement for the Forest Plan. The 9 Forest Supervisor appoints and supervises the 10 interdisciplinary team. 11 36 CFR § 219.10(2) 12 (3) Interdisciplinary Team. The team, 13 under the direction of the Forest Supervisor, 14 implements the public participation and 15 coordination activities required by section 16 219.6 and section 219.7. The team shall 17 continue to function even though membership 18 may change and shall monitor and evaluate 19 planning results and recommend revisions and 20 amendments. The interdisciplinary team shall 21 develop a forest plan and environmental 22 impact statement-using the process 23 established in section 219.12 and paragraph 24 (b) below. 25 36 CFR § 219.10(3) 26 (a) A team representing several 27 disciplines shall be used for regional and 28 forest planning to ensure coordinated 5 1 planning of the various resources. Through 2 interactions among its members, the team 3 shall integrate knowledge of the physical, 4 biological, economic and social sciences, and 5 the environmental design arts in the planning 6 process. The team shall consider problems 7 collectively, rather than separating them 8 along disciplinary lines. 9 36 CFR § 219.5(a) 10 The minimum requirements for 11 integrating individual forest resource 12 planning into the Forest Plan are established 13 in sections 219.14 through 219.26 of this 14 Subpart A. For the purposes of meeting the 15 requirements of section 219.12(c), additional 16 planning criteria may be found in the 17 guidelines for managing the specific 18 resources set forth in the Forest Service 19 Manual and Forest Service Handbook. 20 36 CFR § 219.13. 21 13. Defendants ROGERS and ZIMMERMAN are specifically 22 charged with the administrative responsibility for developing a 23 program of monitoring and evaluation, which program shall assess 24 the effects of local agency activities on land adjacent to the 25 National Forest managed by local government. Defendants ROGERS 26 and ZIMMERMAN are mandated to appoint an interdisciplinary team 27 to monitor and evaluate local agency activities. 28 6 1 14. Defendants ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST and SAN · 2 BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST comprise lands subject to FRRRPA. 3 Defendants, and each of them, are mandated by the Organic Act of 4 1897, 30 Stat. 35, c. 2 § 1, Act of June 4, 1897, codified at 16 5 U.S.C. section 551, to "make provisions for the protection 6 against destruction by fire and depredations upon the public 7 forests and forest reservations .... " Pursuant to the Organic 8 Act, the Secretary of Agriculture "may make such rules and 9 regulations and establish such service as will insure the objects 10 of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use 11 and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction." 12 15. From approximately January 1986 through June 1992, 13 an undetermined number of local agency land use planning 14 activities have occurred, all of which impacted and continue to 15 impact national forest lands under the administrations of 16 defendants. These activities in the ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST 17 include, in part, the "Antelope Valley Areawide General Plan," 18 the "Altadena Community Plan," the "La Vina Specific Plan", the 19 "Wilson Canyon Project," the "Mt. Baldy Land Exchange," "Closure, 20 Forest Highway 62, State Highway 39" and the "Fish Canyon 21 Project." These activities in the SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST 22 include, in part, the "Sahama Project" (City of Rancho Cucamonga) 23~and the "Badger Canyon Project" (City of San Bernardino). 24 16. Defendants, and each of them, failed and refused 25 to carry out the regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture, as 26 mandated by 16 U.S.C. section 551, 16 U.S.C. sections 1600 et 27 seq., 36 CFR Part 219, Subpart A, and 7 CFR Part O, Subpart B, to 28 establish a program of monitoring and evaluation to assess the 7 1 impacts of the aforementioned local planning activities on 2 national forest lands within their respective jurisdictions. 3 17. Plaintiffs allege that as a direct and proximate 4 result of defendants' refusal or failure, plaintiffs and the 5 general public have suffered or will suffer economic loss, loss 6 of enjoyment of national forest lands, loss of use of national 7 forest lands, loss of watershed on national forest lands, loss of 8 habitat for endangered species adjacent to and on national forest 9 lands, and loss of access to national forest lands. These losses 10 inure to the detriment of the commercial and recreational users 11 resident on national forest lands, other recreational users, and 12 the general public. 13 18. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereupon 14 allege that defendants, in concert, and with full knowledge of 15 their obligation to do so, planned to ignore the regulations of 16 the Secretary of Agriculture and agreed among themselves, and an 17 unknown number of agency employees, to refuse to evaluate and 18 assess local agency planning and zoning activities in a manner 19 that complies with Title 36 CFR section 219.7(f). Such planned 20 misconduct is willful, and constitutes a clear violation of the 21 Secretary's regulations at Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations 22 ("7 CFR") Part 0, Subpart A. Title 7 CFR section 0.735-11(a)(3) 23 provides: 24 (a) An employee shall avoid any action, 25 whether or not specifically prohibited by 26 this subpart, which might result in or create 27 the appearance of: 28 · 8 1 (3) impeding government efficiency or economy. 27 CFR § 0.735-11(a)(3) 3 Moreover, subsection (b) of this regulation provides: 4 Employees are specifically prohibited from: 5 (1) Engaging in criminal, infamous, 6 dishonest or notoriously disgraceful conduct, 7 or other conduct prejudicial to the 8 government. 9 7 CFR § 0.735-11(b)(1) 10 Moreover, 7 CFR section 0.735-24(a) provides: 11 (a) Each employee has a positive duty to 12 acquaint himself or herself with each statute 13 that relates to his or her ethical and other 14 conduct as an employee of his or her Agency, 15 of the Department, and of the Government. 16 The attention of each employee is directed to 17 the following statutory provisions: 18 · · 19 (49) The prohibition against 20 depredation of government property (18 U.S.C. 21 1361). 22 19. By their failure to comply with the statutes and 23 regulations set forth above, defendants, and each of them, have 24 engaged in a course of conduct to deprive plaintiffs of their 25 property, their right of access to national forest lands, and 26 their right of use and enjoyment of national forest lands. 27 Members of FPS who reside on the forest will suffer loss of 28 access to national forest land. Recreational members of FPS will 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 suffer loss of forest trail access and riparian access, and loss of fishing, wildlife and botanical observation, and other recreational activities. Commercial members of FPS will suffer loss of forest environmental quality, which will result in economic loss. Defendants' conduct constitutes planned misconduct, and plaintiffs are therefore entitled to damages. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - WRIT OF MANDATE 20. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each matter set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19. 21. Title 28 U.S.C. section 1361 provides that "the district courts shall have any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 22. Defendants have refused or failed to perform the duties imposed upon them pursuant to FRRRPA, as set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 19. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - DECLARATORY RELIEF 23. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each matter set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19 and 21 through 22. 24. A controversy has arisen between plaintiffs and defendants, as to the duties of defendants with respect to plaintiffs, concerning FRRRPA, as set forth above. 25. Defendants have refused or failed to perform the duties imposed upon them pursuant to FRRRPA, as set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 19. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 26. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each matter set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19, 21 through 22, and 24 through 25. 27. Defendants should be enjoined from making any findings of consistency between local land use management plans, including but not limited to general plans, community plans, specific plans and federal land exchanges, and the respective Land Resources and Management Plans for the ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST and SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST, until they have complied with the writ of mandate, or declaration of rights and order thereon. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - DAMAGES 28. Plaintiffs incorporate herein each matter set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19, 21 through 22, 24 through 25, and 27. 29. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in a course of conduct to deprive plaintiffs of their property, their right of access to national forest lands, and their right of enjoyment to national forest lands. 30. Defendants' conduct constitutes planned misconduct, and plaintiffs are therefore entitled to damages. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 1. On the first cause of action, for a writ of mandate directing defendants to comply with Title 36, Part 219, Subpart 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A, Code of Federal Regulations, concerning a program of evaluation and monitoring, as set forth above. 2. On the second cause of action, for declaratory relief that defendants, and each of them, must comply with Title 36, Part 219, Subpart A, Code of Federal Regulations, concerning a program of evaluation and monitoring, as set forth above. 3. On the third cause of action, for injunctive relief, that defendants, and each of them, be enjoined from making any findings of consistency between local land use management plans, including but not limited to general plans, community plans, specific plans and federal land exchanges, and the respective Land Resources and Management Plans for the ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST and SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST, until they have complied with the writ of mandate, or declaration of rights and order thereon. 4. On the fourth cause of action, for damages according to proof. 5. On all causes of action, for attorney's fees and costs of suit. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 determine. 6. For such other and further relief as the court may Respectfully submitted, FOREST PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 10 JESSE MOORMAN, Esq. 11 Dated: July ~G , 1992 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DAVID ALLEN JAMES, Sr. DAVID ALLEN JAMES, Sr. Dated: July ~ '- ~ · , 1992 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VERIFICATION I, DAVID ALLEN JAMES, Sr., declare as follows: I am a party to this action. I have read the foregoing Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief and Damages. The allegations contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, except as to those matters alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. EXECUTED at Altadena, California on July~~'~? ~' 1992. I DECLARE under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DAVID ALLEN ~, Sr. 14 DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT AugUSt 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner 1977 BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT 92-141 - TEXACO - An appeal of the City Planner's decision denying the installation of a canopy sign at an existing service station within the Special Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8166 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-112-20. ABSTRACT: The appellant is seeking approval to install a sign and logo on the south side of the newly constructed canopy fascia at the above referenced automotive service station. The request stems from the new corporate image Texaco is creating across the country- Stations are being refurbished through the use of an enlarged canopy and building fascia and a corrugated metal building siding (see Exhibit "D"). As part of this image, identification signage is proposed on pump island canopies (see Exhibit "C"). BACKGROUND: On June 17, 1992, the appellant (Quiel Brothers Sign Company) contacted City staff regarding the above request. At that time, staff informed the applicant that a canopy sign with 30 inch letters would be denied, based on its inconsistency with the Sign Ordinance and City design policies (which will be discussed in further detail in the Analysis Section). Staff recommended that the sign be placed on the south building fascia with smaller (24 inch high maximum) letters. In staff's opinion, a wall sign on the building, in combination with the existing Foothill Boulevard monument sign (which is proposed to remain in place) would give the station sufficient visibility from Foothill Boulevard. The applicant, well aware that the City would recommend denial, immediately filed their appeal, which was received by the City on June 29, 1992 (see Exhibit "A"). However, staff did not begin processing the appeal until Sign Permit 92-141 was officially received and denied by staff on July 9, 1992 (see Exhibit "B")- ANALYSIS: In reviewing the proposed Sign Permit Application, the following items serve to support staff's recommendation for denial: Canopy Sign Policy: In the early 1980's, the Planning Commission established a policy prohibiting the installation of signage on service station pump island canopies- This policy stems from this City's broader perspective in the planning of new service stations- Typically,'newer stations at street intersections have been designed with "reverse bay" site planning, whereby the pump islands and canopy are hidden from streets by the building- By doing this, there is no need for canopy signage; signs are placed on the buildings or monument signs constructed which are closer to the street. Furthermore, the canopy can be integrated with the service station building through the use of identical canopy roof treatments, fascias, and column supports. ITEM M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT 92-141-TEXACO August 12, 1992 Page 2 Examples where these policies have been implemented include the Mobil service stations at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Vineyard Avenue ("reverse bay" planning) and Milliken and Highland Avenues (pump island canopy architectural compatibility). In staff's opinion, the policy prohibiting canopy signs should apply consistently to existing service stations as well as future service stations to avoid setting a City wide precedent allowing canopy signs- These policies for service station planning have been implemented successfully and the above referenced examples are the model by which other stations (existing and future) should be judged. Location of Sign: The proposed sign is located on the south face of the pump island canopy (see Exhibit "C-1"). A wall sign placed on the south elevation of the store building would have the same exposure to Foothill Boulevard; albeit somewhat lower. There is no significant difference in setback between these two sign locations- Square Footage of Sign: In reviewing the types of signs allowed by the City's Sign Ordinance, staff considers the proposed sign to be a wall sign, which is limited to a maximum size not to exceed 10 percent of a building face or 150 square feet, whichever is less (see Exhibit "E). Given the proposed sign area is approximately 44 square feet and the south building canopy face is approximately 79 square feet, this yields a wall face coverage of approximately 55 percent- The letter size would have to be reduced to approximately 8 or 10 inches to comply with the maximum square footage requirement on the canopy. This Ordinance violation further supports staff's recommendation for placing the sign on the building; a larger sign closer to the requested size could be installed on the south building face since it has a much greater area. Further, the Sign Ordinance reference to "building face" implies that wall signs are intended to be located on building walls and not on a roof canopy- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive any additional testimony from the appellant relative to this request- If after receiving any additional testimony, the Commission concurs with the findings made by staff, then adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial for Sign Permit 92-141 would be appropriate. Respe lly subm~ ed, Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Appellant Exhibit "B" - Sign Permit Application Exhibit "C" - Sign Permit Plans Exhibit "D" - Typical Building Elevations for Texaco Exhibit "E" - Sign Ordinance Section 14.20,100 Resolution of Denial SIGNS BY,~~ 272 SOUTH I STREET, SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF. 92410 PH. 714-885-4476 FAX 714-888-2239 June 24, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planner Steve Hayes P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Texaco 8166 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA Dear Mr. Hayes: We are appealing the Planning Departments decision on location of identification signage for Texaco. Presently there is one (1) freestanding sign with the Texaco logo and pricing requirements. All wall signage has been removed with the remodeling of the station. Our request is to install one (1) set of channel letters with logo on the south island canopy. This location is typical with Texaco's standards. No other signage is proposed at this time. Please review the enclosed plans and if there are any further questions, please call me. Sincerely, NK/jf enc.: 3 prints i color check $62.00 QUIEL BROS. ELECTRIC SIGN SERVICE CO., INC. -,, '\,,, ·~0~~-~ · ,,, , CiTY OI- ,, SALES · SERVICE · LEASING · MAINTENANCE · CRANE SERVICE · NEON C~at. Co.lm~o~ ~ce.~ No. 217~k5 Z Z O O O Z City of Rancho Cucamonga GENERAL INFORMATION -'-:~-' Name of establishment \ ~'~'~ Applicant's Name r"Ot~.~,.-'-, '~, Address 7-"?"'/ ~. T ~----~'~.. e¢ -~' OWNER'S CERTIFICATION, OR RECOGNIZED AGENT Owner's Name C"~ t J I Address '7 ~'}? ,<' SIGN DESCRIPTION Sign Permit Application -' I Date Number and type of sign(s): __ Subdivision __ Window __ Other Size: Length Width Sign 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ Sign 2. Sign 3. Temporary Wall __ __ Uniform Sign Program Monument y Canopy __ Directional __Pedestrian Sign 4. Sign 5. Depth Overall Height Scl. Ft. e Bldg. Face Sq. Ft. q'/ ~ ~'-} ,, Sign 6. If temporary or subdivision, date of installation If temporary or subdivision, date of exl3iration Cash deposit amount Indicate sign copy, size, color and materials on plans describe on the attache streets. ACTION ' Approved -J Denied By: - Date: Comments: {"a.-e/~/.~ FILE NO: DATE: 9 ;-/~/ PHOTO .-~--ol, 2-'_.. J /nn - 5' Star *~f T;~e American Road 4 ' Too edge of Fh, g s~gns ~hgnS w',th ~OrtOm e,:ge of Sareaaer Bar · · ~J /7 Pt-7 14.20.100 · ¢) ! I 2 e U (Rancho Cucamonga 12/88) 184-4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING SIGN PERMIT 92-141 REQUESTING THE INSTALLATION OF A CANOPY SIGN AT AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIN THE SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8166 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-112-20. A. Recitals- (i) Quiel Brothers Sign Company has filed an application for the Approval of Sign Permit 92-141 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Sign Permit is referred to as "the application." (ii) On June 17, 1992, City staff informed the applicant that the application would be denied, based on its inconsistency with the Sign Ordinance and City Design Policies. The application was officially denied by staff on July 9, 1992. (iii) The decision represented on said Sign Permit Application was timely appealed to this Commission, (iv) On August 12, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on thatdate. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution.' NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public meeting on August 12, 1992, including written staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 8166 Foothill Boulevard on property zoned Special Commercial, and is currently developed with an existing automotive service station; (b) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and Zoned office; the property to the south of that site consists of the Magic Lamp Restaurant and is zoned Special Commercial; the property to the east is an existing commercial business and zoned Special Commercial; and the property to the west is vacant and zoned Office; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT 92-141-TEXACO August 12, 1992 Page 2 (c) The application contemplates the installation of a 44 square foot wall sign on the south side of the newly installed pump island canopy facing Foothill Boulevard; (d) The Sign Ordinance restricts wall signs to a sign area based upon the building face which is intended to limit wall sign placement to walls, rather than a roof canopy, as proposed; (e) The application as proposed significantly exceeds the maximum allowable sign area of 10 percent of a building face, as per Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 14.20.100. The application proposes a sign area of approximately 55 percent. (f) The proposed sign could be alternatively located on the store building which is approximately the same distance from Foothill Boulevard as the pump island canopy. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced 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) The design of the sign is not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Sign Ordinance; (b) The proposed application is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Sign Ordinance; 4. The Planning Commission hereby of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby denies the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF August 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 1992, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. APPEAL OF SIGN PERMIT 92-141-TEXACO August 12, 1992 Page 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND The terms of Suzanne Chitiea and Gregory Pilcher (Member-At-Large) expired on July 27, 1992. Therefore, the Planning Commission needs to either reappoint or make new appointments. Staff contacted Mr. Pilcher who indicated that he is interested in serving another term. The Committee meets once a month, usually on the third Wednesday of the month. The new terms would expire on July 27, 1994. For your information, the Trails composed of the following members: Advisory Committee is currently Term Expires Suzanne Chitiea* Peter Tolstoy* Gregory Pilcher* Paul Senft* Mark Whitehead** Pamela Henry** July 27, 1992 July 27, 1993 July 27, 1992 July 27, 1993 June 16, 1992 July 21, 1993 Alternate: Wendy Vallette* July 27, 1993 * Appointed by the Planning Commission ** Appointed by the Park and Recreation Commission ~eraspec ler~ City Planner BB:DC/jfs ITEM N j DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: --CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission STAFF REPORT Brad Buller, City Planner Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BACKGROUND At the July 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting, the following appointments were made: PRIMARY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: Wendy Vallette Peter Tolstoy SECONDARY DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE: Larry McNiel (lst Alternate) Suzanne Chitiea (2nd Alternate) ALTERNATE John Melcher Commissioner Tolstoy has since indicated he would prefer not to be a member of the primary committee. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should determine appropriate membership of the Design Review Committee. BBiGS/gs ITEM O