Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/03/08 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting March 8, 2006 Chairman Stewart 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 Chambers at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Stewart then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias,Cristine McPhail,Luis Munoz, Pam Stewart. ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner; Louis LeBlanc, Assistant Planner; Mike Smith,Assistant Planner; Mike Diaz, Senior Planner; Doug Fenn,Associate Planner; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Barbara Tuncay, Planning Department Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS Dan Coleman,Acting City Planner, welcomed the new Planning Commissioner, Luis Munoz to the Commission and gave a brief overview of the planning process for the benefit of the audience. Chairman Stewart welcomed students from Rancho and Los Osos High Schools. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (Munoz abstain), to approve the minutes of February 22, 2006 regular meeting. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, carried 3-0-2 (Macias and Munoz abstain), to approve the adjourned minutes of February 22, 2006. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17493 — GREG RAMOS — A Request to subdivide 1.035 gross acre of land into 3 lots within the Low Residential District, located at 10295 19th Street, fronting on both 19th Street and Hamilton Street — APN: 1076-121-17. Staff has determined the project to be exempt from CEQA under categorical exemptions Section 15315 - Minor Land Divisions. Louis LeBlanc, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant was present. Greg Ramos, 425 W. Bonita Avenue, San Dimas, stated that he did not have any questions or comments at the time. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher commented that it was a simple Parcel Map and moved approval. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Macias, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17493 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE- carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM17426 - PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC-A request to subdivide an existing parcel of 5.31 acres into 4 parcels in conjunction with a proposal to construct a commercial and office complex comprised of three buildings with a combined floor area of about 42,221 square feet, plus a fourth building of about 7,200 square feet to be developed by others, on a vacant parcel of 5.31 acres in the Industrial Park District, Subarea 7, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue-APN: 0229-011-69 and 0208- 961-05. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the Planning Commission on April 28, 1999,and June 28,2000; respectively,and a Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on February 13, 2002. This project does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the previous Negative Declarations. Related Files: Development Review DR99-11, Modification to Development Review DRCDR99-11MOD, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15630, Development Review DRC2004-01125, and Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00764. Mike Smith, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing and seeing there were no comments, closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail stated that this was a housekeeping project that they were fully apprised of and moved approval. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17493 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE- carried Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 8, 2006 C. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2005-01083-SAHGA GROUP-A request to amend Table 17.32.030 - Use Regulations for Foothill Boulevard Districts of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, adding Thrift Stores as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 2 of the Community Commercial Districts,located along Foothill Boulevard between Cucamonga Creek and Hellman Avenue. Mike Diaz, Senior Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher stated that he wanted one question clarified and that was whether or not the Commission would be making the decision to approve the initiation fora Development Code Amendment that night. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Planning Commission's action on this would be a recommendation to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Munoz stated that he was unclear about the auditing compliance stated in the analysis section in the report or if the thrift stores would meet the conditional use conditions. Mike Diaz, Senior Planner, replied that if the Conditional Use Permit was approved, the list of conditions would be the contract that the applicant would follow and operate his business in conformance with and as long as they operate within the definition of thrift stores as well as any conditions the Commission may add, presumably that means things are going fine. Mr. Diaz also noted should there be any difficulty in the future, the Conditional Use Permit could come back to the Planning Commission for consideration of revocation. Commissioner Munoz asked if there is a formal audit process for the Conditional Use Permit or would it just come back as a normal complaint. Mr. Diaz replied that it could come back as a complaint or it could come back as something a planner may have noticed while out in the field. Commissioner McPhail asked if she was correct in stating that one of the conditions in the Conditional Use Permit could be reviewed in thirty days or six months. Mr. Diaz answered yes, it could be a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Stewart asked for clarification that the item would move through the Design Review Committee process and up to the City Council for final approval. Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner, explained that this applicant would be leasing an existing building and therefore would not go through the Design Review Process. Chairman Stewart asked if there would still be an opportunity to set some criteria since it will not go to City Council. Mr. Diaz answered that yes there will be an opportunity to set criteria, but some criteria may not be correct for all Conditional Use Permits and noted that each application would be evaluated on a case by case basis. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 8, 2006 Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing asked for comments and seeing there were none, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher stated that his opinion had not changed. He stated that they received a great deal of input from the community with planning the development of Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and didn't think that anywhere in that plan, included thrift stores. Commissioner Fletcher then read a portion of the staff report; "When the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was drafted and approved, Thrift Stores as a land use were not included in Table 17 .32.030 use regulations for Foothill Boulevard Districts because of concerns that thrift stores were not consistent with the efforts to improve the appearance and the use of properties along Foothill Boulevard". Commissioner Fletcher stated that he didn't see where any of that has changed and that he thought it still applied. Commissioner Fletcher also stated that he felt this effort to change the Development Code to allow something that previously wasn't approved was a useless effort and he would not be in favor of this. Commissioner McPhail commented that the Commission had just approved some wonderful churches and felt the City has a lot of community groups. She stated that through the Conditional Use Permit process the Commission has the ability to regulate and limit what they will tolerate in regard to appearance, parking ratio, hours of distribution,collections and so forth. She stated that they are not talking about a specific project, but rather the concept of allowing thrift stores and allowing the thrift stores that have clothes on racks and things properly shelved which has an appearance of even an upscale boutique shop. She stated that her opinion on this is that it is certainly a concept that this community should support in that there are many churches and non-profit organizations that use these facilities as very appropriate fund raisers and this is the kind of community where we welcome that kind of activity and stated that she would strongly support it. Commissioner Fletcher added that he is not opposed to this kind of land use or this business. He stated that there are areas in the City that are zoned for this particular use and commented that he felt that this is not the type of land use that the City envisioned for the Route 66 Corridor. Vice Chairman Macias moved for approval. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Resolution approving Development Code Amendment DRC2005-01083 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: FLETCHER, MUNOZ ABSENT: NONE- carried D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP - SUBTT17783 - CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES -A proposed subdivision to convert 589 existing residential apartments into 589 residential condominiums within the Meritage and Chambray projects on 24.6 acres of land in the Mixed-Use/High Residential District (24-30 dwelling units per acre)of the Victoria Arbors Village of the Victoria Community Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard,north of Foothill Boulevard. APN:0227-201-38,41,and 42. Related File: Development Review DRC2003-00337. This action includes approval of an Addendum pursuant to the California Quality Act Section 15164, to the previously adopted Negative Declaration that was adopted by the Planning Commission on December 10, 2003. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 8, 2006 Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Munoz asked why one of the building segments is gated when the other two are not and asked if they were all included in the 589 unit condo conversion. Mr. Fenn replied that there are three projects along Day Creek Boulevard, the Strathmore project to the north is not included in this conversion, but the ones to the south are. Mr. Fenn stated that they are set-up like an apartment complex where it's fenced off but open to go in and out as needed. He noted that he did not see a closed gate during the inspection. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, 10681 Foothill Boulevard, stated that the condominium map they are doing in Rancho Cucamonga is consistent with the one's they are doing for Fairfield in a number of other southern California projects. He stated that there are no immediate plans at this point to actually convert them to condominiums or sell them. He added that they have reviewed the conditions of approval with their client and they are in full concurrence with the conditions as proposed and stated that he is here to answer any questions of the Commission. 1 Commission Fletcher asked if Fairfield has converted any of their existing properties that Mr. Buquet mentioned. Mr. Buquet answered that they have not actually sold any as condo'conversions yet, but stated that they do have maps approved in all of the other cities and that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the last one they are waiting for. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Chairman Stewart stated that this is typically a good thing to do and it helps with the City's affordable housing Index and would probably allow some first-time home buyers to have the advantage of a home, and felt it was a positive thing to do. Commissioner McPhail moved for approval. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17783 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: ABSENT: NONE- carried NEW BUSINESS E. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL FOR DRC2003-00957 - GEORGE JABER-An appeal of the City Planner's denial of application. for incompleteness regarding the proposed development of 4 condominium residential units,to include two duplex buildings,on .59 net acre of land in the Medium Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the northeast corner of 19th Street and Hellman Avenue - APN: 0201-474-10. Related File: Preliminary Review DRC2003-00518. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 8, 2006 • Dan Coleman,Acting City Planner pointed out that in addition to plans,and information on those plans requested,there are key items that still have not been submitted. Mr.Coleman stated that the applicant would like to do condominiums,which require a subdivision application,which has also not been submitted. Mr. Coleman added that in addition, their development plans would require at least three variances that staff is aware of and the City has not received those applications as well. Mr. Coleman commented that it's not just a question of plans and information the applicant is lacking, but applications as well. Chairman Stewart opened the public hearing. Pete Volbeda,615 N. Benson Avenue, Suite C, Upland,stated that he was surprised to receive a denial letter, he stated that he has other jobs in the City that he works on and many of them go beyond sixty days before they resubmit. He stated that he noticed that the City quoted in the denial letter the "Streamline Act" and stated the he downloaded a planning overview from the intemet of the Streamline Act to review and commented that he agreed with the Commission that on E-2 of the City's report, it states, "The general intention of the streamlining act is to prevent agencies from the inappropriate stalling or slowing the progress of the zoning request that is otherwise ready to proceed,"which Mr. Volbeda stated he felt the intent is to get the City to act promptly rather than the applicant. Mr. Volbeda then stated that he had "court interpretations"and would like to read one line aloud to the Commission. He stated, 'There is nothing the language of the act prohibiting the applicant from voluntarily waiving the statutory time limit." Mr.Volbeda stated that it appears to him that the time limit isn't an issue as long as the applicant writes an"Extension Request letter,"which he stated he has done for other cities, but did not receive a letter of extension request from the City of Rancho Cucamonga but had he received one,would have written a letter requesting an extension. Mr.Volbeda then explained that they could have resubmitted, but he hired an engineer five months ago to do a Tentative Tract Map, and the engineer hasn't done his job which has been their main delay. Mr.Vobleda went on to say that they did hire another engineer to do the Tentative Tract Map but they haven't signed him on yet because they are waiting to see what the decision is going to be from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the process began 2 1/2 years ago and stated that there are 14 items of incomplete or deficient responses and asked the applicant if he took exception to any of the 14 items listed. Mr.Volbeda answered that yes he did and stated that he would like to go through each item one by one. Mr.Volbeda stated that item#1 is the noise study and that it is complete and believed that it was included with his last submittal. Vice Chairman Macias asked if the applicant had addressed the mitigation that is going to be required, the 3 feet versus 6 feet and then asked what the applicant's noise study entails. Mr. Volbeda stated that he didn't bring the noise study with him but he did know that it requires more insulation in the walls and dual glazed windows for sound attenuation. Vice Chairman Macias stated that acoustic mitigation measures require that the walls in the site plan be 6 feet high and it looks like the applicant is proposing the walls to be 3 feet high and asked if that issue has changed. Mr. Volbeda replied that he didn't bring the acoustical study with him therefore he did not know which walls need to be 6 feet high, but stated that they do have the study. Vice Chairman Macias explained that the issue isn't that they have the acoustical study. The issue is whether the applicant can address the mitigations that are going to be required. He Planning Commission Minutes -6- March 8, 2006 stated that if the applicant isn't prepared to discuss this now, then he would suggest that the applicant isn't ready to submit the noise study because it has requirements that aren't being met. Mr.Volbeda responded that as far as he knows,the requirements for the noise study are on the site plan but he would verify that for the next submittal. Vice Chairman Macias asked Mr. Volbeda to continue going over his list of items. Mr.Volbeda continued with item#2 on his list and stated that he had a sign on the project that said "Single-Family Residence" which was changed to "Four Condominiums" at a later date, which was then covered with graffiti, so he took the sign down to avoid additional graffiti and since they weren't ready to resubmit,they didn't see why they should have the sign up. He also stated that the lack of having a tentative map has also been the main problem for them. Mr. Volbeda continued with his list stating that revising the plan for the table is not hard to do; also,#4 is not a problem. The variance request has been completed although they are having difficulty with the Fire Department, but it's basically ready for submittal. He stated that item#6 is the floor plan and they have that and #7 he stated that they hired an engineer to do the conceptual grading plan which will include the cross sections and#9 is not a problem complying with that and # 10 is something new of course, but all that has to be done is download the templates and put them on the drawing,which is not hard to do either,and#11 is paying the fee for the fire department which is not a problem to do, the WQMP is not a problem; and then the access to the site for the fire department, which we still need to discuss with them and #14 is granting easements which is no problem either. Vice Chairman Macias stated that the staff report indicates that the application was reviewed and determined to be incomplete on three separate re-submittals by the Planning Department, Fire Department as well as the Engineering Department. Mr. Macias stated that the City's last Notice of Incompleteness was mailed to the applicant on April 21,2005 and 9 months transpired thereafter without a re-submittal or any other contact from the applicant to the project planner. Mr. Macias stated that the applicant indicated that they had problems with engineers and such, and asked if that is a reason why there wasn't a re-submittal in 9 months? Mr. Volbeda explained that they had hired an engineer, paid him a retainerr and signed a contract 5 months ago and he hasn't performed since. He added that they were dumb in not terminating him sooner and hiring someone else to do the job. Chairman Stewart closed the public hearing. Commissioner McPhail asked counsel what their alternatives were in this case. . Assistant City Attorney, Kevin Ennis, explained that the Commission has the discretion to reverse the action of the Acting City Planner and to permit additional time for the applicant to submit the materials, and they could specify a period of time in which that is to occur. The other alternative is to uphold the prior decision, which would mean that this application would be denied for incompleteness without prejudice, which means the applicant could reapply and it would start the time period running over again. Mr. Ennis stated that there was a reference made by the applicant that under the Supreme Court decision there could be an extension granted and/or the court is saying that there should be an extension. The attorney explained that situation is once the department deems an application complete, there are very strict time lines under which the local agency has to process the application and bring it to hearing and under the law if an agreement can be reached with the applicant to a 1, 90-day extension then that is what the Supreme Court decision is pertaining to. Mr. Ennis stated that this is a situation where the application is incomplete and after 2/12 years, staff is making a decision here saying that's it; we are going to deny your application. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 8, 2006 Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are fees that go with the reapplication. Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner, answered that they would be starting all over with a brand new application and fees and that the Planning Department has expended the fees and that this project has dragged out for 2'/z half years and has been deemed incomplete 4 separate times. Vice Chairman Macias stated that he would concur with the Acting City Planner and would move approval for the staff recommendation to deny the application. Chairman Stewart stated that she has to concur with Vice Chairman Macias because there was no communication from the applicant to the Planning Department at all in 9 months. She also stated that there are ongoing conditions of incompleteness,which are not easily resolved and if they were, she assumed that the applicant would have had them done in that 9 month period. She also stated that the applicant was denied on other agency grounds as well,such as the Fire Department and the Engineering Department. She felt that extensions were not going to be helpful to the applicant in this situation, because she felt the applicant was clearly not ready to proceed and felt that was evidenced strongly by the facts that were left out,such as the variance requests and now the fact that the applicant wants to do condominium conversions. Motion: Moved by Macias, seconded by Fletcher, to deny the Resolution Approving Consideration of Appeal for DRC2003-00957 and upholding the prior decision made by the City Planner as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE- carried PUBLIC COMMENTS ' No additional comments were made. . . . . . COMMISSION BUSINESS No additional Commission business was conducted. . . . . . ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, carried 5-0, to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectf submitte. / J/ Dan Coleman Acting Secretary Approved: March 22, 2006 I Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 8, 2006