Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/07/08 - Minutes - PC-HPC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA J THE MINUTES OF RANCHO CtUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 8, 2015 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California ' I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 PM Roll Call Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Howdyshell X Fletcher X II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which ' might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. None �^ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO JULY 8, 2015 C`.CMMO`GA Page 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration to approve Regular Minutes dated June 10, 2015 B. Consideration to approve Workshop Minutes dated May 27, 2015 Moved by Howdyshell. seconded by Fletcher. to adopt the Consent Calendar- carried 5-0 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The ' Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19614-CHINOCENTRAL DEVELOPMENT, INC-A request to subdivide an existing industrial building for condominium purposes for a site located on the east side of Rochester Boulevard approximately 500 feet south of Jersey Court in the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District - APN: 0229-121-52. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 15 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15315) exemption which covers minor land divisions of four or fewer parcels) Dominick Perez. Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and a brief PowerPoint presentation. He noted a request to change Engineering condition #3 found on Page C23 of the agenda packet regarding a reciprocal parking agreement. In response to Commissioner Munoz, he explained that the original report stated 162 spaces were required. He said the request is to avoid a potential parking problem in the future. He said that if one or more owners is unable to work with the others, then the City would see that a good faith effort was made and it would be acceptable to finalize as is. He said there is an over-parked condition on some of the parcels and under-parked on others. He said assigned parking has not been discussed. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director, noted there is an existing condition that relates to a prior approval and we are trying to remedy this as part of this application. She said staffs ' recommendation is that if the applicant works in good faith and still cannot get an agreement then we would allow them to move forward. In response to Commissioner Howdyshell, she indicated the timeframe is that it must be done prior to final recordation of the map. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO-A'RANCHO JULY 8, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 3 Vice Chairman Oaxaca asked about the maintenance agreements and if they too are covered under the parking agreement. Commissioner Fletcher expressed concern that not all parcels would be part of this association. He said one association is responsible for maintenance of common areas but the other 2 are non-association members utilizing the space. He thought the CCR's should show how that would work. Ms. Burnett said the building in question has access and easements but the other two buildings are not part of the CC3Rs or the Maintenance and that is why the agreement is needed, so that all the parcels are treated and included the same. Chairman Wimberly asked the applicant to respond. Serge Bonaldo, of Bonaldo Engineering said there are 3 properties and 3 owners. He said the association will still own their own parcel. He said the tenants of the other 2 buildings will not lose any parking. He said reciprocal parking was not established with the original approval but there was an understanding that all 162 stalls were for use by all. He said the owner agreed to due diligence to get the agreement. He noted their Attorney asked for additional language to the proposed condition. He said the association is made up of 4 owners but there is no real maintenance agreernent: each maintains their own and share expenses on the two drive aisle expenses. He said he was surprised to discover this agreement was not in place. He said the parking exists if they need it. Henry Hong stated he is one of the owners. He confirmed the arrangement of shared expenses. He said the new subdivision would take care of his own parcel. He said the buildings in the rear are industrial and therefore they(lid not see parking as a major issue as there are not many visitors:parking is used mainly by the tenants and their employees. He said he does not want to stop the project because of the parking agreement: they are not losing any parking. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the biggest problem with condominiums is parking. Commissioner Munoz said he is in support of the project. Steven Flower. Assistant City Attorney commented on the proposed added language to the condition: "...Provided that the owner shall not be obligated to incur liability or expense beyond the cost of draft or negotiate the reciprocal parking easement." He said he did not believe this addition is really needed because staff is only requiring a good faith effort. which ' does not require extortion from an uncooperative neighbor. Mr. Bonaldo agreed to striking the proposed added language. Mr. Flower said the amended condition now reads: 'A good faith effort shall be made by the HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES HAINC;,0 JULY 8, 2015 CCG.NO}'GA Page 4 applicant to provide a reciprocal parking agreement for all parcels within Parcel Map 12121 prior to, or concurrent with the recordation of the final map." Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing and hearing no further comment. closed the public hearing. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, to adopt the Resolution with amended condition »3 approving Tentative Parcel Map SUB TPM 19614 — carried 5-0 Commissioner Munoz then recused himself and left the Chambers at 7:35 PM stating the reason for his abstention is because he is an employee of AT&T. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216 — SPECTRUM SERVICES, INC. FOR VERIZON WIRELESS—A request to construct a two-carrier(AT&T and Verizon)co-located 85-foot tall wireless communication facility in the form of a pine tree at Price Self Storage located on the east side of Haven Avenue and south of the 210 Freeway within the Low(L) ' Zoning District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 6599 Haven Avenue — APN: 1076-331-34. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303)exemption which covers the installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and a brief PowerPoint presentation. He stated correspondence was received from Eileen Crowl and Gordon Crowl in opposition to the cell site. He gave background regarding how this specific cell site location was determined. He noted the height is needed for the co-location and a sound study will be required prior to use of the generator. Mike Hayes of Spectrum Services representing Verizon said it is difficult to accommodate everyone. He said if the prior identified location had been chosen, even more height world have been needed and there was no screening at that location. He said this location affords some trees in back of the homes and along the freeway. Alexis Hadley representing AT&T thanked staff. She said they looked at several alternative locations and this one seems to be the least visibly obtrusive and provides the needed service. She said even if it was located in the shopping center, it would still be within 300 feet of residences. Commissioner Fletcher noted that in DRC they spoke of alternative locations. He said one ' of the letters received from residents mentioned a site along a service road. Mr Hayes responded that it was too far out of the ring and (lid not provide coverage. He said it is also on a Cal Trans easement. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO JULY 8, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 5 Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing. Eileen Crowl, 6550 Valinda Avenue. said her backyard is the self-storage facility. She said she is representing some residents on Valinda Avenue. She said they had to accept the self- storage units and now they are changing the permit for storage to a cell tower and that it is not right to change it. She mentioned the obstruction of her view and said the proposed tree is ugly and she does not want it. Gordon Crowl.6550 Valinda Avenue. said there is a permit for storage and now they are going to sublease their property for profit under a different permit. He said he believes this to be illegal. He said no one visited his backyard to see what it is doing to his view and his property value. He said he recommended the Cal-Trans site. June Selos, 6542 Valinda Avenue. concurred with her neighbors. She said she is concerned that if they change the use now, then it may get changed again. She said it ' looks ugly, the area went from single-family development, to storage, and now a cell tower. Steve Seals, 6542 Valinda Avenue, said the eucalyptus looks dwarfed. He asked why this could not be next to the cell tower at Jack in the Box. He said this would lower his property value. Chairman Wimberly closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher asked legal counsel to explain regarding the City's limitation of denying such applications, and any restrictions imposed by the current CUP that is in place. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, said most are contained in Federal law. He said we cannot refuse them for perceived health impacts, and the City cannot discriminate among service providers. He noted the T-Mobile site by Jack in the Box. He explained that If a provider has a significant gap in coverage then the City cannot prevent a provider from filling the gap as long as they are providing it in the least obtrusive manner possible. He said they they have to demonstrate it is the least obtrusive aesthetically. He said to his knowledge there is nothing in the previously approved conditions that would limit them from the second entitlement. He said it is not uncommon to have multiple entitlements on one property- in this case although a different compatible use, it does not violate the first permit and therefore this is not a legal impediment to this second application request. Commissioner Fletcher asked what would occur if the current CUP was revoked. ' Mr. Flower responded that it may not affect it at all as what is specific to the storage units may not apply to the cell tower. He said that if there are problems with this use, then the Planning Commission could bring it back for review and modify it and one or both could have that happen at the same time, it depends on the nature of the problems that are HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES I2aNCHO JULY 8, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 6 occurring. Commissioner Wimberly asked about 'view rights': Air. Flower said there is no expressed right to a view without a view easement: the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not have a view ordinance. Commissioner Fletcher asked why a colocation at the northwest corner of the site was not a viable option. Mr. Hayes responded that there was not enough ground space available for their equipment as each carrier has their own equipment. He said the generator only runs for 2 hours per month and using diesel is not an issue and is less volatile than other fuels. He said when they tried to move the facility to the center of the units. AT&T withdrew their application. He said a co-location on the T-Mobile pole did not work for lack of space and it would not have filled the coverage gap: It had to be south of that to fill the public demand for ' communications. He said the photo simulations are based upon the 85-foot height. Commissioner Fletcher asked if there is equipment available to boost the signal to make it work. Mr. Hayes reported that the technology changes by the hour and that the gaps are being filled by the best available technology. Ms. Hadley said AT&T Verizon is constantly upgrading and there still is a need for this site. Vice Chairman Oaxaca confirmed that the need is not just for capacity but also coverage. Mr. Hayes stated that if there was a national emergency. the-towers in this area would not work because of the overload. Mr. Flower responded to a question from Mr. Se/os regarding aesthetics. He said it generally means overall compatibility with the community and the character of the neighborhood Commissioner Fletcher noted that he reviewed this at the DRC and he could sympathize with the residents. He said the storage facility had some problems with noise and glare at first and those items were addressed. He said it presents inconveniences for the residents. He noted the restrictions imposed by Federal laws and the lack of view restrictions in this ' city. He said he did not think an 85 foot tree was the best solution but he did not hear any viable alternatives. Commissioner Howdyshell said she is sympathetic but also knows the need to fill the coverage and providers need to give service. She said she is not in favor of a tower this ci�k � HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION , AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO JULY 8, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 7 high and would have liked another alternative that is comparable. She said these towers are much more attractive. She reported she no longer has a view at her home either. She said she understands their need to expand-but now the residents'environment is changing, as the City grows these changes may have to be made. Vice Chairman Oaxaca noted he also was on the DRC and this proposal left us with few alternatives. He said this is far from ideal but he sees the concerns of the telecomm carriers. Chairman Wimberly agreed with all and empathized with the residents. Commissioner Fletcher said he is reluctant and irritated to be in this situation. He asked about providing more trees to help screen the tower. He said he would like to see a good faith effort to plant additional trees to minimize the aesthetics. Mr. Flower said that they would have to be located on the Cal-trans property and the City ' cannot condition that. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Wimberly, to adopt the Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 - carried 3-1-1 (Howdyshell no, Munoz abstain) The Secretary requested a brief recess at 8:42 PM. Commissioner Munoz returned to the Chambers and the Commission reconvened at 8:45 PM. E. MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896 -AC KAUSHAL- A request for site plan and architectural review of a 1,659 square foot single-family residence with a 506 square foot attached garage on a 3,358 square foot lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low(L) Residential Zoning District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. Related Cases: Variance DRC2013-00897, Variance DRC2015-00537 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00539. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the construction of one single- family residence. F. VARIANCE DRC2013-00897-AC KAUSHAL-A request to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet related to the construction of a single-family residence (Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896)on a substandard 25 foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. G. VARIANCE DRC2015-00537 -AC KAUSHAL-A request to modify the required two- car, side-by-side garage requirement in order to construct a tandem garage related to the construction of a single-family residence (Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896) on a HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO JULY 8, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 8 substandard 25 foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low(L) Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. H. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 - AC KAUSHAL - A request to increase the maximum permitted height of the property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet related to the construction of a single-family residence (Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896) on a substandard 25 foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low(L) Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre)at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. He noted the drainage for the site goes underground. Pete Volbeda stated he is the Architect. ' Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing and hearing and seeing none, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz said we got the best considering the constraints of the site. Commissioner Fletcher said this will improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Howdyshell said the design is brilliant: there are tough constraints. it has good articulation and the report justified it well, it has good findings. She said the home has all the components of a traditional home. Vice Chairman Oaxaca said they did a great job and found a solution that works-he said it is a trend you see more-little space creatively used. Charman Wimberly concurred and said the design and utilization is a brilliant piece of work. Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolutions approving Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896: Variance DRC2013-00897: Variance ORC2015-00537 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00539 — carried 5-0 V. COMMISSION BUSINEWHISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING CONIMISSION I. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES None 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ii!vll - T. AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RA 0110 JULY 8, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 9 J. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Mone 11 VI. ADJOURNMENT 9:00 PtVf 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 1, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. 1 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you maydo so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ' AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i O RANO JULY 8, 2015 RANCHO IO CCCANONGA Page 10 AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of 52,533 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us.