Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/04/25 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 25, 2001 Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiel then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Rich Macias (arrived 7:06 p.m.), John Mannerino, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Mitch Slagerman, Senior RDA Analyst; Michael Smith, Planning Technician; Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the Adjourned Meeting which was scheduled to follow the Planning Commission meeting had been canceled at the request of the applicant. Mr. Buller stated that additional information had been received regarding Item B and was placed in front of the Commissioners. Mr. Buller suggested that Items C and E be taken together. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Stewart, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of March 28, 2001. Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Mannerino, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of April 11, 2001. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2001-00016 MODIFICATION-SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP - A request to modify a previously approved Design Review of 12 single family homes for Tentative Tract 15963 on 4.37 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located south of Banyan Street on the east side of Archibald Avenue and west side of London Avenue—APN: 201-251-01. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to adopt the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-08- BASELINE BARGAIN CENTER-A request to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a retail establishment in the General Commercial District, located at 9456 Roberds Street - APN 202-092-08. Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and noted that a revised Site Plan and a Phasing Plan had been presented and those documents were provided to the Commissioners. Mr. Macias arrived during the staff report presentation. Commissioner Mannerino asked if staff had reviewed the new items submitted. Ms. Wimer replied that staff had briefly reviewed them. She reported Senior Civil Engineer Dan James had indicated corrections are needed regarding the curb and gutter and frontage improvements on Roberds Street. She said Mr. James did not feel the applicant would be able to meet the phasing plan which was submitted and it would be 30 days behind. Brad Buller, City Planner, asked Ms. Wimer to point out remaining issues which need to be addressed before the application can be deemed complete. Ms. Wimer responded that updates are needed as to the layout of the parking lot. She said they provided the average landscape area. She indicated the parking count was the minimum required. She said the plan did provide the wrought iron fencing details which the City requested. She reported that the lighting plan has not been submitted as yet. She observed that the Commission had requested that a pedestrian walkway to the store entrance be provided and the public entrance to the building be relocated to the side of the building facing the parking lot and the applicant had not presented a new plan showing those changes. She said there were still outstanding planning issues. Chairman McNiel noted that the public hearing was still open as the matter was continued from a previous meeting. Sam Iftikhar, Baseline Bargain Center, 8811 Lurline Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they need more time to submit Civil Engineering plans. He thought the plans could be submitted in three to four weeks. He said they are ready to build but their Civil Engineer is not available until the middle of May. Chairman McNiel stated it was his understanding that the applicant is making efforts to comply but their inexperience with the process is causing them difficulty. He asked if they had looked at the proposed change of entrance. Mr. Iftikhar said their draftsman from C & G Construction is out of town until next week. Lora Iftikhar, Baseline Bargain Center, 8811 Lurline Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they are considering moving the entrance to the north side but that would take additional time up to the end of the year because they have to redo the ceiling and refinish the floor among other things. Chairman McNiel asked if the project will be done. Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 25, 2001 Mr. Iftikhar responded affirmatively but said it is time consuming. Mrs. Iftikhar said she was under the perception that they are making good progress. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had gone to the store earlier in the day and four Penske trucks were parked there. He said there were also a couple of pallets in a parking space with items on them. Mr. Iftikhar responded that he had moved some merchandise from his warehouse. He stated that only two trucks were still there. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that at the last meeting, the Commission had requested that they not park in that area and the Iftikhars indicated they would police the parking. Mr. Iftikhar stated he had to park there in order to go in and get the driver to help him move the merchandise. Commissioner Tolstoy stated there had been no room for customers to park because of the trucks and pallets. Mr. Buller indicated there will be conditions for street improvements in connection with the conditional use permit for retail use. He said some of the street improvements will face Roberds Street and some will face Amethyst Avenue. Commissioner Macias apologized to the Commission and staff for arriving late. He said he gathered new information had been presented and staff had not had enough time to review it. He felt the issue is completion of the application. He asked what it would take for the application to be in compliance. Mr. Buller stated a full submittal package is needed, including a site plan that will not require a Minor Exception or a Variance, or submission of a Minor Exception or Variance application. He indicated the submission needs a lighting plan and a conceptual plan for the entire site. Commissioner Macias asked how long it should take to submit what is missing. • Mr. Buller responded that staff felt the previous 60 day continuance should have been more than sufficient time to get a complete application and obtain approval by the City Planner. He thought it should have taken only about 14 days to submit the complete application. He stated the applicants had shown this week that they are trying to work out the problems. He said it should not take more than 14 days to submit what is needed but he noted Mr. Iftikhar had said their Civil Engineer was not available. Mrs. Iftikhar stated their Civil Engineer will not be available until May 20. Mr. Buller stated that a lot of other businesses continue to comply and follow the rules. He said staff supports the use in that location but the proper parking is needed. Commissioner Stewart asked if staff was working directly with the person preparing the plans or with the Iftikhars. Ms. Wimer responded she had been dealing with both the draftsperson and the Iftikhars. Commissioner Tolstoy asked how long the situation had been going on. Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 25, 2001 Ms. Wimer responded that the first evidentiary hearing was held on January 10, 2001. Mr. Buller indicated staff had been trying for almost two years to bring the project into compliance. Mr. Iftikhar indicated they could try to get another Civil Engineer this week. Chairman McNiel felt that may be wise and said there is more than one Civil Engineer. Mr. Iftikhar said they had tried to get one who could work on their project sooner but most could not do it for six or seven months. David Feldman, 6096 Muscat Place, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a customer of the store and shops there all the time. He said he opened a car dealership in another town and found it to be a time consuming process. He asked that the Commission allow the Iftikhars time to process their application if they are making a reasonable effort. Kent Baird, 8651 Ramona Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated he had attended the public hearing on February 14 and there had been a lot of people who spoke in favor continuing the hearing and a petition had also been presented. He stated the Iftikhars may have financial constraints and he felt they provide a good service to the community. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Mannerino commended the applicant's efforts and was not opposed to granting additional time. He said that even if there were 2,000 signatures on an application asking the City to suspend speed laws, the City would not be swayed. He observed that the hearing had been continued three times. He commented that this was the business that the Iftikhars chose and they must come in with a sophisticated application and sufficient financing. He said he would like to have the project retum in 30 days. During the 30-day continuance period, he wanted the applicant to meet with staff. At the 30-day point he wanted to see a completed application and a construction time-line submitted by the applicant. He felt that if the applicant submits the time line, they should not complain if they do not meet it. Commissioner Macias said he had come to the meeting prepared to make a suggestion to grant an additional 30 days, but he noted that would equate to 90 days. He observed that the Commission requested a phasing plan at the last meeting. He suggested that the Commission grant a 30-day continuance but put the applicant on notice that the retail use will be shut down after the 30 days if they have not done as the Commission requested. He asked if the Commission could do that. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey, responded affirmatively. He stated the resolution before the Commission was drafted to find that the operation was not in compliance and that if the operation was still being conducted in violation of the City Codes after 10 days, it directed the City Planner to revoke the Conditional Use Permit. He said the resolution could be modified to direct the City Planner to revoke the permit if a completed application had not been submitted and acted upon within 30 days. Commissioner Macias felt that if the project were appealed to the City Council, it would show that the Commission gave them fair warning and enough time to bring the operation into compliance. He felt it would show the Commission went the extra yard and notified the applicants this would be the last extension. Chairman McNiel questioned if 30 days would be sufficient time. Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 25, 2001 Mr. Buller felt that 30 days would be sufficient time to submit a completed application but would not allow enough time for the public hearing prior before the City Planner because of the lead time necessary for advertising and noticing the hearing. Chairman McNiel asked if 60 days would be sufficient. Mr. Buller responded affirmatively. Chairman McNiel asked if the Commissioners thought 60 days was out of the question. Commissioner Macias stated it is an ongoing business that the community appreciates and he would hate to shut it down now. He was willing to go 60 days but he wanted it made clear that if they had not accomplished everything within the 60 days, they would be shut down. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned why the matter hadn't been handled during the last 60-day continuance. He asked why the Commissioners should believe it would be done during the next 60 days. He felt it should be shut down. Commissioner Mannerino felt the City should monitor the progress. He suggested a 30-day continuance during which time a completed application for the retail Conditional Use Permit would need to be submitted. He said it would then be possible for the City to see if such a use would work for that property. Mr. Buller noted that would still allow the unpermitted use to continue for 30 days. He observed they have a Conditional Use Permit for a wholesale operation and they are finally in compliance with those conditions. He said that the City could shut down the retail use as that portion is in non- ' compliance. Mr. Ennis suggested the Commission could continue the hearing for 30 days and require that the completed application be submitted in that time. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to continue Conditional Use Permit 98-08 to May 23, 2001, during which time a completed application for the retail use would need to be submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried C. DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, EXTENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S ABILITY TO INCUR DEBT BY 10 YEARS AND ADDING CAPITAL PROJECTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. DIRECTOR'S.REPORTS E. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA — Review of conformity of Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 2 with the General Plan. Mitch Slagerman, Senior RDA Analyst; presented the staff report and suggested rewording the title of the Resolution to clarify that the Commission found the project in conformity with the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 25, 2001 Commissioner Stewart noted that the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study indicated it was for Amendment No. 3 while all other documentation listed it as being Amendment No. 2. She asked if that could cause problems. Mr. Slagerman acknowledged that the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study were incorrectly labeled as Amendment No. 3. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the map on Exhibit B showed the Foothill Boulevard Improvements as being on Base Line Road. Mr. Slagerman agreed that needed to be corrected. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if drawings are available as yet. Mr. Slagerman responded that City staff is beginning to look at the projects. He said the fiber optic loop is being discussed and there have been discussions that companies will need a higher band width to conduct business in the future. He said the Information Services and Engineering Divisions have proposed plans for placing a loop in the industrial area. Regarding the mislabeling of the Amendment number, Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney indicated the key would be the project description,which was accurate. He felt the reader would rely upon the project description and there would be no problem. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. There were no comments, and he closed the hearing. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to adopt the Resolution finding that Redevelopment Plan Amendment No.2 is in conformity with the General Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried NEW BUSINESS D. APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2001-00101 —WOHL INVESTMENT COMPANY— An appeal of a condition of approval in connection with the City Planner approval of a Tree Removal Permit on approximately 7.5 acres in the General Industrial District (Subarea 4), located at 9201-9299 Archibald Avenue-APN: 209-211-14 and 32. Michael Smith , Planning Technician, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel invited public comment. Karen Stinson, Wohl Investment Company, 2402 Michelson, Suite 170, Irvine, stated that they are in agreement with replacing the trees that were removed with 15-gallon Sycamore trees as conditioned by the Tree Removal Permit but requested that they also be permitted to plant two additional Sycamore trees in place of two Junipers that currently block views of tenant signage as one travels north On Archibald Avenue. Chairman McNiel thought the appeal was to substitute Palm trees instead of the Sycamore trees. Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 25, 2001 Ms. Stinson replied that following receipt of the staff report, they are now willing to install the Sycamore trees as requested but want to add two additional Sycamores and remove the two Junipers. Commissioner Mannerino asked if an application had been submitted to remove the Junipers. Brad Buller, City Planner, responded that the only reference to the two Junipers is in the appeal letter and that no application has been submitted. He said staff would be in favor of removing the Junipers and replacing them with Sycamores. He pointed out that the applicant had cited sign visibility as a reason for removing the trees and he observed that the Sycamore trees will grow and block the signs. He said that the City does not want to see the trees trimmed down to lollipops. He stated the Sycamore tree is the designated street tree for Archibald Avenue and it is to grow in its natural shape. Ms. Stinson said they wanted to use the Palm trees because their trunks are slim enough to allow visibility of signs. Mr. Buller said the Sycamore tree is also a designated tree along Foothill Boulevard. He said it works and will eventually grow above the signs. Chairman McNiel suggested the matter of replacing the Junipers with Sycamores be left to staff. He asked if the applicant understood what Mr. Buller meant when he said the trees are to grow in the natural state without being severely pruned. Ms. Stinson stated she did and said they would be lacing the trees. There were no further public comments regarding this matter. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution denying the appeal of Tree Removal Permit DRC2001-00101. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS E. TRAIL PRIORITIES ANNUAL REVIEW Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Stewart stated that she recently rode the new trail which was just opened in Upland. She said there appeared to be a lot of public support of the trail in that area. She noted that she was unable to find a connection from there to the trail in Rancho Cucamonga. Mr. Coleman stated a meeting was scheduled for next week to look at options for such a connection. Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 25, 2001 Chairman McNiel invited public comments, but there were none. Motion: Moved by Mannerino, seconded by Macias, to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed priorities. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0 to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Bra• - -^'fir V Secretary 1 Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 25, 2001