No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/04/22 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 22, 2009 Chairman Fletcher called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Frances Howdyshell, Lou Munoz, Pam • Stewart; Ray Wimberly ABSENT: 'None STAFF PRESENT: Corkran Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; James Troyer, Planning Director; Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; • ANNOUNCEMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-01 (Wimberly abstain), to approve the • minutes of April 8, 2009. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 - TRICKETT - A request to reduce the building-to-building separation from 20 feet to 15 feet in order to allow an existing 70 square foot shed that was built without a permit and is located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and is part of a single-family residential housing tract that was developed using the Optional Development Standards at 13755 Pelican Drive - APN: 226-512-38. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The project consists of reducing the required building separation by 5 feet and will not result in any changes in land use, density or create a new lot. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Wimberly asked if there are other properties that also have similar encroachments on the building separation requirement because of accessory structures that are attached to their houses. Mr. van der Zwaag reported that there are other properties in the tract that have veranda roofs that do not meet the building separation requirement. Chairman Fletcher asked how the veranda encroachments got past plan check and the Design Review Committee (DRC). Mr. van der Zwaag mentioned that this issue was raised in the DRC and for reasons unknown, it was not corrected or caught until after the tract was built. Chairman Fletcher asked how many homes are in the tract. Mr. van der Zwaag reported between 200-300 homes. He said they were built using the optional standards so rather than larger lots,the tract was required to provide 30% of open space so the lots are smaller but they were required to provide other elements such as pocket parks instead. Commissioner Wimberly asked staff to review the intent of a variance request. Mr. van der Zwaag noted that the applicant's property has to have something unusual about it that in granting the request, would not adversely affect the other property owners. Vice Chairman Munoz confirmed that the structures were built without permits. Mr. van der Zwaag said that is correct, that Code Enforcement discovered it, performed and investigation and then stopped construction and advised the property owner to get permits. In order to satisfy Building and Safety, he had to remove portions of the structure so they could verify how the structure was built and if it was up to building code requirements. He noted that one of the other structures he built has electrical and therefore will require review as well. He said it has been in process for about a year. Commissioner Howdyshell asked if the structure is on concrete, attached to the house, and if it is safe in the local winds. Mr. van der Zwaag said it is attached and on a concrete pad and has a roof on it. He reported that Building and Safety has said that it would not be too difficult to remove but he could not verify if it is wind-safe. He said it appears it is built to City standards. Chairman Fletcher asked if there are other structures similar to this in the neighborhood. Mr.van der Zwaag confirmed that there are other detached structures but not attached and some of those encroach the building separation. Vice Chairman Munoz remarked that a detached structure could be moved so that it meets the requirement for distance from the property line. Mr. van der Zwaag noted that is correct. Chairman Fletcher asked if the applicant was present. Imelda Tricket, 13755 Pelican Drive, said she is representing her husband who could not attend the meeting. She noted her husband re-measured and the structure is 16 feet, 1 inch from their neighbor's house. She said they built the structure to add value to the property. She said the free standing structures are not as attractive. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 22, 2009 Commissioner Howdyshell asked why it would add value and if there is access to the structure from the exterior or interior. Mrs. Tricket said it would because the structure matches the house with stucco and roofing and it is built with wood that is bolted to the side of the house so that it looks like it is part of the house. She said the structure is accessible from the exterior and not the interior. Commissioner Stewart asked if it is built like a room addition. Mrs. Trickett said she was unsure. Chairman Fletcher asked if her husband built it or if someone was helping him and if he tried to get permits before he built anything and did he come to the City to get information. Mrs. Trickett said they hired a handyman, not a contractor. She said her husband tried at first to get permits, that he did get information and that he wanted to build it to code. He got the information and then started building. Vice Chairman Munoz asked if while he was at the Planning counter did he show plans for a permanent structure or a free standing shed up against the house. He remarked there is a big difference. Mrs. Trickett said he had plans. Vice Chairman Munoz asked what was the response from the counter planner at that time? Mrs. Trickett said her husband has all the specific information but that he was doing what was I necessary to build it to code and he was trying to get the permits at the same time. Chairman Fletcher commented that he decided to proceed without permits. Vice Chairman Munoz asked what he got from Planning. He said he wanted to determine if there is a problem at the Planning Counter; if Mr. Trickett presented plans for a permanent structure and if they had seen plans for a permanent structure would they have advised Mr. Trickett that he needed permits. He asked if she was familiar with the size or measurements of the structure. Mrs. Trickett said that her husband got some initial information there, and he determined that with the size of the building he could build it without permits. She said she was not sure if there was a miscommunication. She said it is 7 feet by 10 feet. Vice Chairman Munoz said that is pretty big. Commissioner Wimberly asked if we know the timeframe of when the construction began. Mrs. Trickett said about one year ago the process and the building began. She said they had the cement already at the side of the house. •• Chairman Fletcher noted that by looking at the drawing it is 7 feet by 10 feet. He asked if there are windows on the south side of the shed and why the shed is not more parallel to the house. Mrs. Trickett said the kitchen window is there. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. Seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. He then asked for the Commissioners to comment. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 22, 2009 Commissioner Wimberly stated his concern that to allow the variance may set a precedent for others in the area. He said he toured the neighborhood and could see no other homes that had attached accessory structures. Commissioner Howdyshell commented that there may be others, but not obvious by driving by. She noted that the photo indicates the structure is in line with the pitch of the house. She said she has a concern about the construction and that she concurs with Commissioner Wimberly. Commissioner Stewart said she did not have an opportunity to drive by the property as she was out of town. She said it could be precedent-setting but that it would be unlikely we would see many go to this level to make it compatible with the existing house. She said it does not make it less attractive and could add value to the property. She noted all the other permitting issues with the other structures have been resolved except this one. She noted that the veranda encroaches the 20 foot separation by 2 feet and now this is 15 feet; a 3 foot difference. She said a variance must not be detrimental to the property owner. She said she could make findings for that in that it would take more to remove it than keep it. She said she believes there was a misunderstanding, but she does not have a problem moving forward with granting the variance and she does not really see much of a problem in the future with setting a precedent. Vice Chairman Munoz said he concurs with Commissioner Stewart and many of the other Commissioner comments. He said he does not believe it to be precedent setting. He said a lot of folks are trying to circumvent the permitting process and that could be handled with notifications throughout the City. He expressed concern that the structure was built by a handyman and that could represent a liability to the homeowner. He said if we allowed all such structures to be built without a permit, we would be on shaky ground. He said although this is a concern, many of the verandas encroach the building separation. He said there is a gray area here and he thought they .could go forward. Chairman Fletcher said in general, he is not a big fan of government regulations and he supports private property owners' rights. He said the idea of a precedent being set may have value in that if 300 property owners did this. He said it might make a lot of sense for a homeowner to replace their sheds with something nicer and he thought it would set a precedent. He said there are a number of metal sheds in the area and he thought they were not supposed to be visible from the street. He said he had the same impression as Commissioner Stewart, but that the applicant was well aware of the need for permits and he went ahead and took the risk in building the structure. He said he does not know if the veranda roofs are a good example for encroaching the setbacks. He noted that if this had come to Planning by a builder, it would not have been approved, but in this case, it did get approved and built. He noted the findings that have to be made to support a variance request. He said he would have liked staff to have presented facts to support the findings. (Refer to Exhibit F, Development Code Section 17.04.040-Variances). He said this would be granting special privilege to this property owner that the other property owners do not have. He said he could agree that granting the request would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, but that he could not find reasons to support the remaining 4 findings the Commission is required to make. He noted that this would not have presented a hardship to this owner had he not built it in advance of getting permits. He said it is a legal/technical issue, that all 5 findings must be met and that without all 5, the Commission can not grant the Variance. He said that he did not think he could grant it if he wanted to. Commissioner Stewart disagreed and said that there could be some word smithing here but that they could grant it. She said they could in this instance, because this tract was developed using optional standards that they could look at the terms of hardship, practical difficulty or exceptional circumstance. She said she could agree that these are special circumstances. She said that at the end of the day, they are arguing over 3 feet, that they can still have control over future requests,that they could be regulated in some other fashion and that there are verandas that are already Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 22, 2009 encroaching. She said she understands the criteria for approving a variance but that she believes they can in this case. James Troyer, Planning Director, remarked that staff left the recommendation open ended because of the fact that some homes already have a 2-3 foot exception when they were constructed anyway because of their verandas. Commissioner Howdyshell commented that the variance request does not mention the optional building standards. Chairman Fletcher stated that regardless as to how the Commission feels about the matter, they need to have the facts to support the findings and therefore, he did not see how they could be justified in granting the request. He said those facts are not presented here to justify all 5. Vice Chairman Munoz remarked that they are lacking some information and he suggested they continue the item to the next meeting on May 13, 2009. He said they need the applicant and legal counsel present and he said they need to have staff address some questions and then they can make a decision with facts. He moved for a continuance. Chairman Fletcher said he is not opposed to a continuance, but he believes that a variance has to meet all 5 findings. He suggested staff and the legal counsel look at the request and give a recommendation as to why they should grant this as he believes it would set a precedent. Vice Chairman Munoz said he recognizes what the Chairman is saying and is right generally,that all 5 findings must be affirmative before the Commission can grant a variance. Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell,to continue the public hearing for DRC2009- ' 00195 to the May 13, 2009 meeting at 7:00 p.m. here in the Council Chambers. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: STEWART ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS None . _ _ . _ • COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENT Vice Chairman Munoz welcomed Corky Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director, back to the Commission proceedings and said he is glad Corky is feeling better. He also asked staff to see how the community could be notified or better informed about building permits. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:55 p.m. to a workshop held in the Tri-Communities Room. The workshop adjourned at 9:25 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 22, 2009 Respectfully J submitte�2 ,R. es R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: May 13, 2009 I • I Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 22, 2009