Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/05/26 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting May 26, 2010 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, Francisco Oaxaca, Ray Wimberly ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney; Donald Granger,Associate Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Associate Planner; James Troyer, Planning Director ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Oaxaca stated that he listened to the recording of the meeting of May 12, 2010 and therefore would be participating in the continued discussion of the item being presented tonight. . . . . . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Oaxaca abstain), to approve the minutes of May 12, 2010. * * • w . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2010-00152-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to operate a heavy equipment sales and rental business that will sell and lease trailers for heavy trucks on a partially developed property of approximately 4.2-acres in the General Industrial (GI) District (Subarea 14), located at 9366 Santa Anita Avenue - APN: 0229-321-11. This project is categorically exempt per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City CEQA Guidelines. Continued from the May 12, 2010 meeting. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He updated the Commission on all the items that have been addressed with the applicant and what has been agreed to. He said that since their last meeting, the applicant has supplied staff with a photometric study that indicates the current lighting meets the 1 foot candle requirement. He suggested that Condition C-7 regarding the lighting plan be removed from the standard conditions because this requirement has been met. Vice Chairman Munoz asked of the alternatives presented, what is the applicant's preference. Mr. Smith stated the applicant would prefer to apply the binding agent to the gravel and not pave the area. Vice Chairman Munoz asked if that option is suitable and in line with the Code. Mr. Smith said the Planning Commission can decide. He said the Code does not specifically say what is acceptable, that it can be determined by the Planning Commission because it is a non- conforming site. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if the lighting requirement has been met. Mr. Smith stated that it has, that the study focuses on the northeast quadrant of the site,which is the employee and visitor parking lot. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if the intent of the Code in the requirement for paving is mostly for reducing dust and loose materials. Mr. Smith clarified that it is to reduce the potential for possible nuisances that could be generated on site by the use on the site. Commissioner Oaxaca asked for a more detailed description of the binding agents and how they work. Mr. Smith said he did not have any previous experience with this agent and deferred the question to the applicant. Chairman Fletcher asked if the only reason they are discussing this issue is because of the 180-day rule. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, remarked that the 180-day rule allows the continuation of a legal non-conforming use only if an application comes in within that timeframe. He said if a new use had come in, then a new Non Construction CUP would have been required but it would have been considered a continuation of a non-conforming use. Chairman Fletcher said he read the Development Code design standards and that if a new application had been filed that included construction,then all of the requirements noted would apply and there would have not been a concern. He said he felt there was room for interpretation because the parking standards in 17.12.030 are for residential or commercial districts. He said he could understand those paving requirements where the public frequents the site. He said he did not see anything in the Code that refers to storage areas. He said he believes the intent was more for employee/visitor parking and really did not cover storage areas. He said they should use common sense in this case. He said if it was a 10-acre site with the same use it would not be logical to require that. Mr. Flower noted that in the definitions Section 17.02.140,the definition of a parking lot does include storage areas. Chairman Fletcher said he interpreted the Code differently and did not see or read the definition with that interpretation. He said the Code is confusing because some things the Commission can approve and others the Director can approve. He said the examples given in the parking section all indicate automobile parking or loading dock areas for trailers at a warehouse facility. He said the City's maintenance yard has a large gravel storage area with razor wire along the top of the fence. He noted that there is a new development application pending for that site. He asked the size of the City yard site. Planning Commission Minutes -2- May 26, 2010 Mr. Smith responded and noted that the City also has a new facility/new construction project application that has been filed, and when it is completed, it too will be paved. He could not give the exact size of the site but noted that the area is much larger than the applicant's site. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard Suite 395, stated he is there on behalf of the owner, Darrel Butler. He reported that the photometric study had been given to staff and that new lights should not be required. He confirmed the only remaining issue is the surface of the trailer storage lot. He noted the sites adjacent to this one are gravel and they are not subject to requirements of soil binding. He pointed out on an overhead exhibit the neighboring sites. He maintained that the tenant did not vacate the site until December 2009 and therefore he contends the 180 day timeline is problematic. He said compacted gravel has been used on the site for 30 years and no complaints have been reported to his knowledge. He said the City has been using its maintenance yard for some time. He said his client has agreed to using the soil binder and that there are a number of products available. He said the County flood control uses it on access roads and it is also used on development sites. He reported that it is sprayed on soil to minimize dust as vehicles drive over them. He said it does not glue the gravel together; it binds onto the soil and the dust on the gravel and the base underneath and is reapplied as needed. He said this would be an additional assurance by the management of the site in the future. He referred to Page A-3 and requested option 'b'. He reiterated that nothing would have been required if the 180-day time limit had not come into play. He again reminded everyone that this was a Non-Construction CUP. Commissioner Howdyshell asked about the adjacent uses. Mr. Buquet reported they are for trailer parking for other industrial users. He said they are primarily the same type of use as proposed here. Commissioner Howdyshell asked for the life of the bonding agents. Mr. Buquet responded about one year. Chairman Fletcher asked how the lighting study related to the parking and if this is the area the customers would drive on. Mr. Buquet said that is correct, that the rear gravel lot is only for parking the trailer inventory. He confirmed that there would not be customer drive aisles in the gravel back lot. He said the photometric study relates to the public areas. He emphasized that because of their hours(9:00 a.m. -6:00 p.m.), lights are only really needed in the fall/winter when it gets dark at 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. He said the lights are primarily for site security. Chairman Fletcher said this is really only a temporary solution for economic reasons,that the site will be fully developed in the future. Mr. Buquet said most likely, a 70,000 square foot industrial building will be erected there. He mentioned he has worked with Mr. Butler on many industrial sites in the City. Chairman Munoz asked that because the agents have a life-span, if there is a proposed schedule for applying/reapplying the bonding agent. Mr. Buquet said the owner has agreed to maintain it so that the site is dust free and the time line is an approximation. He said it would be up to his client to maintain it. Commissioner Oaxaca noted that Exhibit G on page A-18 states different hours than what Mr. Buquet expressed. Planning Commission Minutes -3- May 26, 2010 Mr. Buquet responded that he was primarily noting the business hours that they are open to the public, that like other operations of this type, employees would be there for longer hours. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if all the other adjacent uses to their site are within our City limits. Mr. Buquet responded affirmatively. Darrel Butler, the property owner, stated in the last two weeks he has met with staff several times and enjoyed working with them. He said it is nice to come back to town with a project. He requested that they be permitted to apply the bonding agent, and he understands that it will be limited to a 10 year period and that this is a good choice for both parties. He said they have agreed to all the other conditions. Commissioner Howdyshell asked about the asphalt paving cost estimate; was it $300,000 or $400,000. Mr. Butler said Fulmer Construction gave him the estimate of $400,000 who has done all of his construction projects in the past. Commissioner Howdyshell clarified the cost for the binding agent is to be about$10,000 per acre, per year. Mr. Butler said it would be based upon the use/traffic it gets, the time could vary Mr. Buquet said the cost is more like $3,500 per acre. Mr. Butler concurred and retracted his original figure noting that he based that upon the entire 3 - acre area to be covered rather than the per acre cost. Commissioner Howdyshell asked if they have any facilities that are using the binding agent. Mr. Butler said no, all of their other properties are fully developed. He said he bought this property with the intention of building on it. Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Howdyshell mentioned that adhering to City standards is so very important to her and establishing and adhering to them should be kept in mind. She said she looked at the adjacent properties and from her observation, they appear to be asphalt but it was difficult to see from her vantage point. She expressed concern about the maintenance of the bonding agent and how that is to be monitored. She said asphalt has a very long life but she could not be sure about the bonding agent. Commissioner Wimberly asked about the 180-day rule and remarked that it was exceeded by only a few weeks. He asked if the Commission has discretion to overlook the 180 day time limit or allow an extension. Mr. Flower said no, neither the Commission nor Council can overlook that time limit as it is in the Code it is no longer a legal non-conforming use. He said they could change the Code, but as it stands now, that is how it is. Chairman Fletcher clarified and said it is presently a conforming use and a non-conforming site. Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 26, 2010 Mr. Flower mentioned that that the main element that is making this a non-conforming use is the absence of paving; it is a large component of the use of the site. He said that although it is a legal use, it is not being conducted with conforming development standards. He confirmed that it is a conditionally permitted use. Commissioner Wimberly asked about LEED standards and certifications as it relates to compacted gravel. Mr. Flower reported that LEED is an independent body for development and that their standards have not been directly incorporated in to the City standards. He said he did not see any one LEED standard for paving. He said although he understands the argument about percolation and runoff, LEED standards do not apply here, the Code requirements do apply. The standard requirement for the City is a requirement for paving with either asphalt or an acceptable alternative and the question for the Commission is whether compacted gravel with a binding agent would be satisfactory as the alternative material and whether it would prevent any problems that paving would also prevent. • Mr. Troyer noted that he spoke with the City's LEED consultant and that the paving material is one point out of 26 needed for certification. He said he did not rule out that the gravel surface could qualify for 1 LEED point. Commissioner Oaxaca said he shares the concern expressed by Commissioner Howdyshell regarding the ability to monitor the site for the effectiveness/longevity of the binding agent. He too wondered how to do that and thought it might be difficult. He said he is personally not a big fan of asphalt but over time it is a less and less attractive alternative. He said he believes the Code offers some flexibility to look at some type of alternative. Vice Chairman Munoz commended staff and the applicant for their good work over the last two I weeks. He noted that all of the issues detailed in the staff report: installation of landscaping, bike rack requirement, lighting requirement, new trash enclosure requirement, and stucco finish requirement, were all worked out to the benefit of the applicant. He said he was glad that the Commission directed staff to work with them, that it was a win for all. He said he still needed more information on a few points such as how to apply the building and zoning codes fairly/equitably and that the decisions made by the Commission are made with findings and the findings expose those decisions to their analysis- it shows others how the Commission arrived at their decision. He said he understands the environmental concerns and the economics and staff met the applicant beyond "half-way". With respect to the environmental concerns, he said all the standards still apply, they have not been relaxed, so the question is, how to do that. He said there is also the issue as to how the City applied these standards in the past and how that is explained to other applicants such as the applicant that recently withdrew his project rather than meet the requirements because of costs. He mentioned that the applicant pointed out the adjacent businesses and indicated that was a justification for them not to meet the requirements. He said if the Commission granted this request then they would be telling other businesses that our standards are negotiable. He reported that he sits on the DRC where he has to make these decisions and he questioned how he could relax those standards tonight or next time. He said the Commission had few options,the applicant worked well with staff. He had questions about the binding agent and using that as an acceptable alternative. He remarked that he might be inclined to reconsider this, but that he has more questions about the binding agents to be used. Chairman Fletcher said monitoring the site is not a big concern. He said it would not be the responsibility of the City to monitor that. He said the site includes a maintenance yard that is used without a great deal of concern to their neighbors. He said the gravel is a common surface for industrial areas and that the monitoring goes along with the CUP-if it creates a problem, then it will get addressed. He said the applicant offered to use the binder to control the dust. He thanked the applicant and staff for resolving the issues but the issue of paving still remains. He thanked the Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 26, 2010 applicant and staff for working towards the solutions at the table and getting the other issues resolved. He said the Commission can approve an alternate surface,the business is a conditionally approved use and that if the site was up to standards it would be a conditionally approved use on a conforming site. He said he sees a big difference between storage areas and vehicle parking. He said all the examples shown in the Code relate to residential and commercial uses that include employee and public parking. He reiterated that they need to use common sense and the Commission has some flexibility. He said he also wants to protect the values of the City. He said to require asphalt does not make economic sense. He said there is a difference between residential, commercial, and industrial areas. He mentioned the SCE site and the City maintenance yard and the huge salvage yard to the east of the 1-15 freeway, all of which have gravel lots. He mentioned the Ameron site and the Tamco Steel site. He said compacted gravel or granite makes sense for that type of a use. He said that the General Plan has Land Use Goals and Objectives that indicates industrial development shall be encouraged and that there should not be time delays in processing. He said he believes causing a delay in requiring them to pave their lot is contrary to the Goals and Objectives. He said the Commission has the authority to approve this and changing the non- conforming use to another and this would become a conforming site should the Commission approve this. He said there are improvements that will occur on the site that might not occur if they do not approve it. He said the binding agent will be an improvement. He said he would like to think that the Commission and staff would look at this with flexibility and with respect to the City maintenance yard he would like the City to continue to use gravel for this use and not spend tax payer money to pave it. He supported option "V. Vice Chairman Munoz asked staff about the City yard and what the plans are for the site. Mr. Troyer reported that future development is occurring on the site and it will be paved. Vice Chairman Munoz noted that they too are asked to meet the City Code. He said he understands that there are 3 other sites with gravel and that they also might be there long term as non- conforming uses that will come before the Commission again and then they would have to meet the criteria. Mr. Troyer noted that if they should file a new application, they would be required to upgrade their site. Vice Chairman Munoz remarked that we do not know about this facility's future plans. He reported that the dust blows on the Tamco Steel site and that is a concern. Chairman Fletcher remarked that this is a different type of use and they move things around on that site all the time. Vice Chairman Munoz said that we have no basis to look at binding agents; we have no history,we do not know if they are safe and we need more information. He said he would not support that option. Commissioner Oaxaca asked if the other uses near the applicant's site mentioned would also have to meet the 180-day rule. Mr. Troyer responded that they would be subject to a similar review. Commissioner Oaxaca stated that he shares some of Vice Chairman Munoz' concerns regarding the sanctity of the Codes; that there is the desire to maintain the look and feel of the community. He said he is not comfortable with the economic argument and that he would not use money to justify the decision. He said the General Plan and the Codes are reflections of what the citizens wants it to be like. He also said that he did not want to lose site of the individual. He said Mr. Butler seems to Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 26, 2010 be a good citizen, he has seen prior projects to completion and that has some value. He said he was unsure of what they would be getting into with the binding agent on a gravel surface because there is no history of its use in Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Fletcher reiterated that the Development Code and the Design Standards give some flexibility and that they should use common sense and they are not lowering their standards. He noted this will be a temporary use and that if it was new construction, all the standards would apply. He said most of the other upgrades were agreed to and the City will get new revenue and jobs from this business. He said the gravel lot will not detract and is largely screened from the public view. He said he has no concerns about the surface because it has been there for over 20 years. He said he is not saying the Codes are wrong but that this situation is different and warrants flexibility. He said he is concerned about the applicant that withdrew because of the expense. He said we would have gotten a greater degree of improvement on a visible commercial property than what we will get now because they have withdrawn. He said when this site gets developed, it will all get paved. Commissioner Howdyshell mentioned that he re-read Mr. Butler's letter. She said the timing is 6-10 years from now and that is a large window and no one can predict what will happen in that timeframe and it is only a projection. She asked if Fulmer Construction went out to bid for the $400,000 cost estimate and whether that is a reasonable number. She said there is no way to justify that estimate. Chairman Fletcher noted that staff gave two options. He said they should remove Standard Condition # C-7 regarding lighting. Steven Flower suggested that option"b"be slightly changed to include the provision that the binding . agent be applied to minimize dust as needed and that it be subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. He said this gives the Director the authority to revisit the issue of having the agent reapplied and to retain future flexibility. He noted that they raised a legal issue in that a Conditional Use Permit does not sunset in 10 years, that potentially, this site could not be brought to Code. He said that if within the 10 years the applicant does not develop the property he would still have to install the paving. He said in his opinion the condition addresses that and he commented that it is "phasing" the requirement in a sense. Mr. Troyer confirmed that the failure to do so would affect their CUP. Mr. Flower said if that occurred, they would be out of compliance with their CUP which would open them to modifying the conditions of approval or revoking the CUP. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Fletcher,to adopt the Resolution of Approval with the inclusion of Option"b" as noted in the staff report with the provision that the binding agent would be applied as needed subject to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and to also strike Condition C- 7 was also struck (regarding the requirement for a lighting plan) from the required conditions. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ ABSENT: NONE - carried B. REVIEW OF NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP99-43R-THE BEER MUG - A review of the business operation to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval or in a manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider revocation or modification of the approved Conditional Use Permit. Planning Commission Minutes -7- May 26, 2010 Located within the Regional Related Commercial District, Subarea 4 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, in the Foothill Marketplace at 12809 Foothill Boulevard, Suite C1-C4 - APN: 0229-031-33. CONTINUANCE REQUESTED Chairman Fletcher noted that staff has requested a continuance. He opened the public hearing for those who would be unable to attend the June 9, 2010 meeting. Seeing and hearing no comment, the public hearing remained open. Motion: Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca, to continue the review of CUP99-43R-The Beer Mug. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS Ed Dietl commented that as a 40-year resident, he does not want to see everything paved. He asked how the Planning Commission can make someone change their property. He said the public needs to know more about the 180-day rule. He said it seems like a rigid regulation without a purpose. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, said there are several code enforcement options. He said that if the use is permitted by a Conditional Use Permit but out of compliance then the conditions of approval can be revised or modified or the City can declare the problem a public nuisance (by the City Council) and require abatement by court order. He said that with the 180-day rule,the Code is amended from time to time whereby the new rules do not apply retroactively which results in properties and or non-conforming uses. He said the Code specifies what uses can continue in spite of the changes to the Code. He said they are legal but they do not conform to the current requirements of the Code. He said these are declared to be legal non-conforming uses. He said that if the legal non-conforming use ceases, then after 180 days the use cannot be revived-it can no longer operate as they had been. He said you have to give the property owner a reasonable amount of time and the Council determined that 180 days was a reasonable timeframe. He said the goal is to be fair with properties/uses developed prior to the Code and to eventually bring them into compliance. Mr. Troyer gave the example of the historic gas station. If the station was sold and the new owner wanted to run a business, all the new standards would apply to that new development application because all the old requirements would be seriously out of date. • COMMISSION BUSINESS AND COMMENTS Mr. Troyer expressed thanks to everyone and noted that the General Plan was adopted. He thanked the Planning Commission for all their hard work. Chairman Fletcher remarked that the process and resulting product were exceptional. He suggested staff look for awards to apply for. He said the document is more user-friendly. The Commissioners concurred and thanked staff. He thanked all the Commissioners for their input on the hearing item tonight and he respects all of their opinions. Commissioner Howdyshell said it was a good learning experience for everyone. Planning Commission Minutes -8- May 26, 2010 R R i! R ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 9rverl-14--) b-ibter James R. Troyer, AICP Secretary Approved: June 9, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes -9- May 26, 2010