Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/01/25 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 25, 2006 Vice Chairman Macias 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,Califomia.Vice Chairman Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Cristine McPhail ABSENT: Pam Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner; Michael Diaz, Senior Planner; Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Barbara Tuncay, Planning Department Secretary; Rozalynne Thompson, Contract Planner; Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS No announcements were made at this time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1, to continue the minutes of January 11, 2006 for lack of a quorum. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17166 - PGP PARTNERS INC-A request to subdivide a 20.2 acre property containing 16 industrial buildings into 16 numbered lots in Subareas 4 and 5 in the General Industrial Zone, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Crescent Center Drive-APN: 0210-071-52 thru 56. Related File: Development Review DRC2003-00072. Vance Pomeroy, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Peter Vanderburg, 21068 Bake Parkway, Lake Forest, stated he is the applicant for the project. Vice Chairman Macias asked Mr. Vanderburg if he has read and concurs with the Resolution of Approval and the conditions of approval. Mr. Vanderburg stated he concurs. Vice Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated this is a straightforward project. Commissioner McPhail concurred. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, to adopt the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract SUBTT17166 as presented by staff with the adoption of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16867 - ETCO INVESTMENTS-The proposed subdivision of 8.9 gross acres of land into 12 residential lots in the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of the 1-210 Freeway-APN: 0225-171-19. Related File: Variance DRC2004-01285. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Item continued from January 11, 2006. C. VARIANCE DRC2004-01285-ETCO INVESTMENTS-Requests to reduce the minimum depth of Lot 10 from 200 feet to 180 feet to allow Lot 11 to have frontage along Etiwanda Avenue and to allow Lot 12 to also have frontage along Etiwanda Avenue and a reduced minimum width from 90 feet to 75 feet. Also, a request to construct a sound wall with a height in excess of 8 feet. All variance requests are related to Tentative Tract Map 16867, the subdivision of 12 single-family residential homes on 8.9 gross acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of the 1-210 Freeway-APN:225-171-19. Related File: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16867. Item continued from January 11, 2006. Vice Chairman Macias announced items B and C would be heard concurrently. Rozalynne Thompson, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel asked if Lot 12 is buildable. He asked for the width of the lot. Ms. Thompson stated that it is buildable and that the lot is 75 feet wide. Vice Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Steve Schapel, 2222 Newport Boulevard, Suite 200, Newport Beach, stated he is the applicant. He said he read the Resolution of Approval and concurs with the conditions and had no further comment. Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 25, 2006 Duane Ulloa, 6310 Hidden Brook Place, stated he was told that this lot was not buildable and now that it has been sold to this developer, it is now going to be built upon. He added that he was unaware until now that the City planned to connect Etiwanda Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard with a through street in this development. He said he did not have a major problem with the project proposal, but he had attended a neighborhood meeting with the developer and he had proposed an alternative plan which provided 2 cul-de-sacs in a bulb to bulb configuration. He expressed concem that if this was opened up as one continuous street,children attending the five nearby schools would be in danger and that it would allow easy access to the freeway which could be attractive to crime. He asked why the developer would take neighborhood input at these meetings and then no other meeting was offered after that. Dean Lingenfelter, 12902 Arapaho Road, stated he has been a resident for 7 years. He said the management of the Carriage Estates are a pack of liars and the previous speaker is a victim. He said that they told him that no one would build on that property. He said he came to City Hall and saw the aforementioned planned street running through the project. He said he is in favor of the project because currently, that property is an unsightly open field and it is noisy because there are no improvements on the property to block the freeway noise. Seeing and hearing no further comment, Vice Chairman Macias closed the public hearing and asked Dan James to comment on the street issue. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that the last project to go in was the Carriage Estates project and that the plans showed Vintage Drive not a cul-de-sac bulb, but a dead end street with a stub for a future east/west connection between Etiwanda Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. He referred to Page B & C 7 of the agenda packet. He said this was always the plan for the area. He said currently Banyan Avenue is impacted with traffic as well as Wilson and that this street connection is needed and was always part of the plan for future development. He said Vintage Drive was designed to go through as a collector street. Commissioner McNiel said that this project has been in the plans for a long time. He remarked that sales people do not always give the best information. He said City Hall is the place to get the best information. He said the project is reasonable and serves this piece of ground well. He added that it is a difficult piece of property. Commissioner McPhail commented that this project went through an extensive design review because it is an infill project. She said they looked at other options but the option presented seems to be the best one and that it was intended to be developed this way. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that he does not have a problem with the project, it is a remnant parcel that got carved out by the freeway construction. He said this plan is more suitable for this area and that he believes the variance to be appropriate. Vice Chairman Macias said he also supports the project and concurred with his colleagues. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McNiel to adopt the Resolutions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16867 as presented by staff with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL ABSENT: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried Planning Commission Minutes -3- January 25, 2006 DIRECTOR'S REPORTS D. A REQUEST TO INITIATE 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. Vice Chairman Macias confirmed that if the Development Code Amendment were to be initiated and then subsequently approved by the City Council, then for this specific defined area, a Conditional Use Permit would be the due process used to allow this type of use. Mr. Diaz said that is correct. Vice Chairman Macias noted that the checks and balances rest in the fact that Conditional Use Permits can be brought in for review. He then opened the public hearing. Gil Rodriguez Jr., 8841 Foothill Boulevard, stated he is the applicant. He said he did some research on the types of people who shop at thrift stores and discovered that they are generally high income, educated people. He said he would not have considered this use in his development until he realized a wealthy friend of his buys his T-shirts at thrift stores for one dollar each. He said he visited a thrift store and found the parking lot filled with high-end model cars. He said he no longer thinks of these stores as thrift stores;to him they are"positive aspect progressive retailers." He said he believes the use fits well into his project and would be an asset to the community. Commissioner McNiel asked where on his site would he open this type of store. Mr. Rodriguez stated that it is the free-standing building south of the Kentucky Fried Chicken shop in a building that is somewhat isolated from the rest of the center off of Vineyard Avenue. He said originally it was for a Goodyear store and they backed out of their deal at the last minute, so he is waiting to install windows until he sees what use will finally occupy the space. Commissioner McNiel asked if he is replacing the palms on the corner with younger specimens. Mr. Rodriguez stated he is; he has found replacements. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that this project is a problem in this City and asked if he has a specific timetable for finishing his development. He commented that this request for this use along Foothill Boulevard is probably not what the City would want. He said he would have a problem supporting this application. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he could explain all the delays in completing his development. Building F is the subject building (intended for Good year Tires), that it does not have windows because he does not know what use will go into it. Commissioner Fletcher asked if he has a definite timetable for completion of his property. Mr. Rodriguez said between now and March. He said Building D is the holdup part of the project, because a set of approved plans was lost by the City and he was forced to resubmit. He said in the Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 25, 2006 meantime his tenant raised the height of the ceiling by 3 feet that affected the operation of the fountain equipment causing the 3 palm trees to die. He said it is his personal nightmare. Vice Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fletcher said he does not believe Foothill Boulevard is the appropriate place for this use. He commented that time and expense was spent in developing the Foothill Boulevard Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan and that this use does not fit into that. He said that if the Commission agrees to consider this amendment,that the study should be expanded to include dollar stores and other deep discount stores as well as convenience type stores that were converted gas stations. He noted that those have been allowed in other areas and that several have not even lasted 12 months. He added that some have become problems in their neighborhood and that they do not enhance the area. He said considering that this property is already a problem and he would not be in favor of this revision to the Code. Commissioner McPhail said she would support considering a high-end thrift venue. She said they are popular and they also provide an opportunity for people who do not have all the benefits of others. She noted that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process can dictate the hours of operation, methods of collection, distribution, and other controls over the operation of the use. She said she would be in favor of exploring the amendment and the project proposal. She remarked that she recognizes that this site may or may not be ideal. Commissioner McNiel commented that a great deal of time has been spent on the Foothill Boulevard Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. He said we have done so much on the west side of town to improve that. He noted that Mr. Rodriguez has not produced what we expected in the development of his project thus far and yet the Commission allowed his project to go through. He said the wording of the definition of a thrift stores and second-hand stores shuns reality in that it states that"all collection and storage shall be conducted inside the building." He said he does not believe this will happen, that they will collect and sort items outside because the inside space is reserved for the sale of the merchandise and therefore he is cautious about the code amendment and the possible reality of that happening. He commented that he is not opposed to thrift stores per se, that some have done well, but others have become junk stores. He remarked that the CUP gives some muscle but we would prefer not to have to use muscle. He said the last time the Commission considered this proposal it was not a pleasant experience. He said that if this amendment is allowed then the conditions should be tight in Design Review with the guidelines and with no loopholes in the conditions. He noted Goodwill Industries is a good organization but this proposal opens the door for others as well. Vice Chairman Macias said he has visited many Goodwill stores and they are clean and well kept inside but items are dropped off in front of the store; it just happens. He said there has been great effort to maintain and enhance the west end of the City combined with the current focus on the development of the east side of the City. He concurred with Commissioner Fletcher regarding Mr. Rodriguez' project, that the progress has been very slow. He said hopefully it will change. He added that we need thrift stores, it is a good use and he is willing to take a chance. He remarked that he is informing staff now that it should be the "Taj Mahal"of all thrift stores and that something unique will have to be done to facilitate the drop off of articles for the store. He said he would support considering the amendment but with this "red flag" in mind. Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by McNiel,to recommend by minute action initiation of the Development Code Amendment DRC2005-01083. Motion carried by the following vote: Planning Commission Minutes -5- January 25, 2006 AYES: MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: FLETCHER ABSENT: STEWART - carried Vice Chairman Macias noted that numerous items of correspondence had been received regarding Aim All Storage. The Planning Commission recessed from 7:40 p.m.to 8:10 p.m. in order to review letters submitted by the residents. E. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00850 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES/AIM ALL STORAGE-A review of the construction and operation of an existing Aim All public storage facility on 6.13 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and the east 210 Freeway on-ramp. The purpose of this review is to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with 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 pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.04.035.G.2. -APN: 1076-331-02 and 1076-341-01. Related file: Variance DRC2004-00050. Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner, presented the staff report, noting that there is a lot of historical information related to this project and this meeting is the beginning of a two-stage process to review the Conditional Use Permit. He proceeded to give an overview of a previous approval to Aim All Storage for a different site that has been a success without complaint from the neighbors. He reported that an ordinance was adopted allowing storage facilities could be allowed in residential areas under certain conditions. He said it was from this ordinance (allowing the previously noted project) that staff believed this new storage facility could be considered. He read from Section 17.08.030— 5a which states: All storage activities shall be screened from public view by a combination of block or masonry wall, berming, dense landscaping, or building mass. The development of mini-storage facilities may be considered in residential land use districts as a means of mitigating land use conflicts outlined in Section 17.08.050.F. Them are certain locations within the City where residentially designated properties are located adjacent to undeveloped parcels of land where this transition between the existing residential neighborhood and non-residential influences(Le. high traffic corridors, commercial or industrial land uses, etc.) is a primary design issue that prevents desirable development, resulting in such parcels remaining undeveloped or under-developed. The mini-storage use would be considered in situations where the facility would act as mitigational buffers for residential developments impacted by unchangeable environmental issues, such as traffic and noise, as determined by the Planning Commission. He commented that after reading the residents' letters, he believes the residents do not feel the storage facility acts as a mitigational buffer for their homes from the unchangeable issues, such as traffic and noise. He said that the residents did attend public hearings and expressed strong opinions concerning the compatibility of the use. He said he began hearing complaints from some of the homeowners last summer. He said the issues include the completion of the Cal Trans sound wall (at the same height) at the northeast portion of the project; security issues including a gap in a wall and the height of a wall that may have led to a burglary of one of the neighbor's homes; lighting glare at night; sunlight glare from the rooftops and noise of rainfall on the metal roofs. He detailed the issues noting the progress of the efforts of the owners of the storage facility to resolve these Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 25, 2006 issues as shown in the staff report. He presented an aerial map of the site taken prior to construction that shows the relationship of the storage facility to the homes and the freeway and corresponding sound wall. He said Code Enforcement took sound and light level readings prior to this meeting. He said at the Crowl home on January 11,2006, at 9:00 a.m.the highest interior noise level recorded in an upstairs bedroom was 47 decibels with the City maximum allowed of 45 decibels. The highest outside reading was in the rear yard recorded at 58 decibels with the City maximum allowed of 60 decibels. He said in relation to lighting glare, readings were taken on January 18 and 19, 2006 at 7:45 p.m. at the Crowl residence. He said a reading taken outside under the streetlight was 1.2 foot candles and inside an upstairs bedroom was 1.5-foot candles including normal lighting in the room and from the hallway. He added that another reading was taken at the windowsill and it registered as zero foot candles. He noted that a reading was taken in the Aim All parking lot at the same time and the highest reading was under a parking lot light reading was 4.6 foot candles and then in the interior of the project in a drive aisle between the storage buildings the highest reading was .7 foot candles. He said the City standard is 5 foot candles. He said on the 19th they measured light at 10 a.m. to determine light reflection. He said they did this reading at the Crowl residence and within the upstairs bedroom it measured 20 foot candles and at the window it measured 152 foot candles. He said as a comparison, a department store typically would allow for about 75-150 foot candles so merchandise can be seen/displayed and labels can be easily read by the customers. He said they also measured the light in the kitchen and that came in at 125 foot candles. He added that although this is not a formal public hearing tonight,the residents were mailed a notice of this meeting so that they could come and comment about their concerns. Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, noted that this is the first step of the process to review a Conditional Use Permit. He quoted Section 17.040.035-G2 of the Development Code concerning ' the periodic review of an existing CUP as: The Planning Commission may periodically review any Conditional Use Permit to ensure that it is being operated in a manner consistent with 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. If, after review, the Commission deems that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full examination, then a public hearing date shall be set. He added that if the Commission made that determination and set a public hearing, then the Commission would be asked to do one of the following: (as quoted from Development Code Section 17.04.035 — G3). a. Find that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or, b. Find that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to conditions are necessary; or, c. Find that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and therefore revoke the permit, which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Commission. He added that the question is to determine what an appropriate manner is in terms of making that finding and determination. He said that it goes back to the criteria as to whether the use is being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval or in a manner that is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties in the Planning Commission Minutes -7- January 25, 2006 vicinity. He said these are the standards that would apply in this type of matter and it would be important for the Commission to look for and obtain facts and evidence as to whether the project is being operated consistent with the conditions and if it is being operated in a way that is not injurious to public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the properties in the vicinity. Commissioner McNiel clarified the timing of the resolution of the problems with the storage facility and if Mr. Coleman anticipates the resolution of those problems within the 60 days. Mr. Coleman replied that is our hope that they will resolve them within that timeframe. Vice Chairman Macias clarified that approval of the action tonight will mean that we can commence the review of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Coleman reported that staffs recommendation is to schedule the public hearing to occur in 60 days. Vice Chairman Macias added that they would begin reviewing the permit but that the hearing will not occur for at least 60 days and the process begins today. Commissioner Fletcher reflected on the term "materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity." He asked if this is subjective. Mr. Ennis replied that the Commission would have to determine that the manner that it is operated material injury is not in a minor manner but a material manner and that facts would have to support that determination. Vice Chairman Macias confirmed that ultimately, that determination would be made at the conclusion of staffs review and assessment of the situation. He said that at this point, the Commission is to only determine if there is enough evidence to warrant the investigation. Mr. Ennis stated that is correct,that tonight the Commission is not asked to make a decision on any of these questions, only that if there is enough concern to warrant a full examination. Mike Giurbino, 6999 Haven Avenue, stated he is the owner of Aim All Storage. He reported that City officials were present at all the meetings and that items such as painting the roofs was left up to the City. He said his architect and the City designed the project. He said the neighbors brought up the issue of the roofs, particularly for the G Building that sits right on the east property line. He commented that on the Arrow Route project facility, they painted the roofs red and everyone was happy and no one said anything further. He noted that it seemed like the big issue was to lower the project 10 feet so they would not have to view the building (to get the profile of the building down below the neighbor's garden wall). He said the elevation of the east property wall has a step down and this has been public knowledge from day one. He said he does not want to spend money on new lights because the fixtures he installed were required by the City. He said that when he tried to "sell"the project to the homeowners,they mentioned that the building would serve as a sound buffer from the freeway noise. He said the homeowners on Heather Street are happy with it, but the owners on Valinda Avenue are not because there is a gap in the wall there. He said they put the wall up as per the City's direction and now they want another one. He said his engineers are working on a wall that is 16 feet tall that connects to the building. He said he believes it is unfair because he did what the City wanted. He commented that he was out of the loop in that he told his architect that all he wanted was as much square footage out of the project(for rentable space)and that everything else was up to the architect and the City. He said he did not like the pink wall color the architect suggested and Design Review then asked for a different pink. He said he is now being Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 25, 2006 blamed for all the problems. He said he would agree to do what is reasonable and if a request is not reasonable he will fight it. He said he would put the wall up but he would not paint all the roofs. He said in his meeting with Chuck Buquet he agreed to paint the one roof(Building G), not the whole project. He said he does not believe the Crowl's can see that roof from the upstairs bedroom. He said he wished someone had stopped his development long ago and then he would not have bought the project. He said he feels sorry for the neighbors for their problems. He said to paint the roofs would be about$90,000, and that is unreasonable. He said he has forwarded all the letters to his attorney. He said the City is not protecting him at all and that he believes whatever the neighbors want, the City will make him do and that is unfair when the City dictated what they wanted to him. Vice Chairman Macias asked if he is committed to try and work this out with the neighbors. Mr. Giurbino said he is. Vice Chairman Macias said that in essence, this action would not adversely affect him and he will continue to work with the neighbors to resolve the issues. Mr. Giurbino stated he would like them to get together and tell him what they really want because he will work with those that have glare off their second story windows. He said the homeowners said they were going to check with their window guy and get back to him and they never did. He restated that he would work with the homeowners. Commissioner Fletcher said there are 9 homes on Valinda Avenue. He asked how many homeowners are complaining. Mr. Giurbino said there are two homes at the top and the Stone's home. Commissioner Fletcher asked what their complaint is. Mr. Giurbino said they wanted their wall raised and then they wanted it plastered. He said he agreed to do that and then they came back and said to match the existing walls. He said they agreed to the block, he built the wall, Mr. Stone was happy, and now he received a letter to the contrary. He said Mr. Stone was very happy with the job. He said he would continue to work with them but that they have to be reasonable. Vice Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Gordon Crowl, 6550 Valinda Avenue, stated his wife had attended all the meetings and did all the documentation and that he had attended one. He said the bottom line is that what was promised is not what was built. He said he does not fault Mr. Giurbino for much of this and that he (Mr. Crowl) believes the project should not have been built in the first place. He said they were told by two City Council members (that were since recalled)that the property was not suitable for homes. He said he has been in his current home for 14 years. He said that two people from the Planning Department worked on the project, one is deceased,the other retired. He said regarding the sound wall at the lower portion of the property site, the noise is less but at his home the gap creates a sound "port." He said his backyard is so noisy he can not be heard if he is speaking in a normal tone. He said the reason they agreed to the project is because they believed the two story building would act as a buffer and they were shown the sound wall would be continued all across the project, lessening the traffic noise. He said there is a hole with an 8 foot wall that does not do anything to help the noise problem. He said they would like to see the sound wall completed and if that is going to happen then that is fine;they would be amenable to that. He said the security was compromised because of the gap in the wall but it has since been filled in and he believes that problem is fixed. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 25, 2006 He reported that related to security, he believes the whole facility could be outfitted with infrared cameras that require no lighting but in lieu of that, the facility has done a good job limiting the glare but he reported that he can still see 14 halogen lights from his house and it is still very bright. He said he spent$18,000 replacing his windows to shut out the noise. He said he would like to see the facility outfitted with motion sensors to activate the lights. He said he has a tri-level home and so the lights can be seen from his kitchen and the upstairs. He noted he has a problem with the two story building. He said two large walls were put up as a facade and they are 4-5 feet taller than they need to be and he has lost much of his sunset view and late afternoon sun that heats his pool. He said he knows view is not guaranteed anywhere. He said because the facade walls were painted white, he said it was like two giant movie screens that lit up his back yard. He said they are painted brown which is better, but there are still lights that reflect off walls that glow through the night. Commissioner Fletcher asked if tinting the windows would solve that problem. Mr. Crowl said the glare impacts his upstairs, kitchen and formal dining room. He said it is so bad you can not look out the windows. He added that a mild rain off the roofs sounds like a hail storm. He said he would not agree to just having a film put on the windows. He said he wants the manufacturer of the windows to do it right, not with a cheap film from the hardware store. He said he would work with Aim All and he does not fault them he faults the people that began the project. He said he asked for the roofs to be painted from the beginning. He said for the most part, Aim All is quiet except for alarms that go off, one in particular was not turned off for 48 hours. Mr. Coleman asked if all of the windows were dual paned glass. Mr. Crowl stated that he had them all done that way because they knew the freeway would be going 111 in. He said the windows do have a "thermaflect"coating but it is not a tint, it just keeps the UV rays out. He said he could not look out his kitchen window because of the glare. Mr. Coleman noted that on page E-22 of the agenda packet, the photo exhibit demonstrates the glare condition and the reflection from the metal roofs and white walls that are now painted brown. He asked if the rain noise was a problem from the inside or the outside. Mr. Crowl said he was shocked by the noise that came off the roofs and he was inside at the time and it was just a mild rain. Jason Jiles, 6580 Valinda Avenue said they had just cleared the land and he thought it was going to be homes built there. He said he was never told it was going to be a storage facility. He said from his second floor bedroom the heat and glare is a problem and he does not have newer windows like his neighbor. He said he had planned to install new windows, but he did not know what the proper product would be to install. He said sometimes the noise is a problem as well. He said glare is a problem in his kitchen and bedroom. He noted he did not have a chance to add a letter to the packet. Commissioner Fletcher asked if he has single paned windows and if tinting would help with the glare and the sound. Mr. Jiles said he is considering new windows but he is still researching what type to put in before summer. Anthony Gonzalez, 6563 Valinda Avenue, said he is not directly impacted by the facility but the notice he received prompted him to come. He said he purchased his home 1Y2 years ago and the agent did not tell him there a storage facility would be built there. He did not think it would affect him Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 25, 2006 anyway because he lives on the east side of the street. He said he hoped it would benefit him although he did not think so. He remarked that he relies on the Council to protect the homeowners in the City. He said the decisions made here affect all the homeowners and only affect the Council indirectly unless they happen to live near the area pertaining to those decisions. He related as to how proposals that were mentioned earlier in the meeting such as the thrift store or the suitability of the property for homes backing up to the freeway will affect those living nearby, but might not affect the Commissioners directly. He said his concerns relate to the unhappy marriage prior to the building of the facility and that the Commission went ahead and approved the CUP. He said the only apparent benefactor to the project is the owner of the storage facility because he is generating revenue. He said none of the Commissioners live there to his knowledge but that he and his neighbors do live there. He said the decisions made here did not take into account that the homeowners, i.e. the voters, did not want the business here. He said the owner has the right to have his business and generate revenue, but from the start there have been complaints about this project. He said the homeowners feel they are forced to acquiesce and take less than what they want. Wayne Moore, 6600 Valinda Avenue, said that in May at the meeting at the Lion's Community Center, there were neighbors and several Commissioners in attendance. He said that they were assured that what the owners said that night would transpire. He reported that he complained about the wall of his backyard,that the wall blocking Building G was too low. He noted that he was told by Mike and his supervisor that they would put 3 courses of block on his existing wall and then he would not see their building. He said, "fantastic,"and they then agreed to stucco it similar to the wall he already had. He said they came out during the grading phase and Mike showed him what it would look like and it would be about 7 feet tall. He reported that what resulted is about a 12-foot ' tall wall and the building can still seen above that. He said the integrity is not what he expected. He said the next time someone tries to build a storage facility; someone from the Planning Commission should have thoroughly checked the plans to see that the things promised in the community meetings are carried out. He said he noticed the grading of the pad was not going to be sufficient to block the view of the building. He said to look at the integrity of the group and that would be enough to warrant the investigation. June Selos, 6542 Valinda Avenue, said she supports the testimony of the neighbors and her neighborhood has gone through a lot with the construction of the 210 Freeway. She said it once was a quiet neighborhood and she enjoyed her garden and the view of the mountains. She said on one side she had a view of the mountains and now has a 16 foot wall and on the other side she has the storage units on the sunset side of her home. She expressed concern over the security of the facility in that a burglary occurred on a Sunday morning in broad daylight and that is very scary. She also mentioned that children in the neighborhood could also be injured. She said she was unsure if they were suggesting the Cal Trans wall be fixed or the Aim All wall. Commissioner McNiel said as he understands it, the opening will be connected by a solid wall extending to the sound wall. Eileen Crowl, 6550 Valinda Avenue, said she appreciates how everyone has now come to their aide and wished it was at the beginning. She said she is waiting for the estimate on the tinting of the windows and said she has not communicated that yet to Aim All because she wanted to be sure the offer was extended to all of her neighbors with two story homes on the block. She said the glare was brought up at the first Planning Commission meeting, they were told it would not be a problem and "voila" it is. She said painting seems to be an issue,they do not want to paint. She said tinting will take care of the problem within the house but when she is outside around the pool,the glare is a "real bummer." She said she is looking forward to the sound wall being completed. She feels badly for the neighbors with the stepping wall; it makes you feel drunk when you look at it. She said the Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 25, 2006 residents feel "squashed" because nobody bothered to listen to them before the project started, its here, its not going away and they are forced to live with it. She said she likes the idea of giving them 60 days and she is willing to work with Aim All. She clarified that the light reading taken from her bedroom was done with no lights on in the room, all the light was from the storage facility. She said she is hoping that with everyone involved some things will get done. Commissioner Fletcher asked if the glare in her two upper levels is coming from the rooftops. Mrs. Growl said it is directly off the rooftop. She said Building G is below her garden wall but the sun hits Buildings C, D and E and affects the kitchen,dining room and bedroom. She said she feels like she's living in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Vice Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel said he appreciated everyone's conduct tonight and that some of the correspondence received was not as nice. He said there is plenty of evidence to pursue an investigation and that it should be done. Commissioner McPhail agreed and she also appreciated that everyone made their comments like adults. She noted it is encouraging to hear that the neighbors want to work it out. She said she hopes the problems can be worked out during the 60 day period before they come back together to review the evidence and then they will review the CUP and then they will go from there. Commissioner Fletcher commented that there is obviously enough evidence to have a review and that is important because they had a Development Code Amendment to allow this kind of development in residential areas and the best of plans went awry and this is how we find out about them. He reported that at the time it made a lot of sense and he still believes it makes sense but maybe this was not the best site or it could have been developed better. He said he likes the transition of the homes on the south side of the project that butt up to a residential neighborhood because those homeowners knew there was going to be a storage facility there. He wished something could have been done for the homes along Valinda Avenue similar to provide a different buffer. He said the original concern was to put a use there that was low traffic, low noise that would provide a buffer between the freeway and the homes. He said with the freeway, there is always more noise than expected. He noted that at the time it seemed like a good amendment and that in the proper areas, is still a good idea. He noted from what he heard, the sound wall seems to be in the process of being resolved because the facility owners have an engineer working on that which should alleviate much of the problem. He encouraged more discussion about tinting the windows for glare problems and he said he has seen advertisements for a film that deadens noise as well. Vice Chairman Macias concurred with all of what was said. He said approval of the action will launch the investigation without delay. He said the 60 day delay is for the public hearing at which they will identify staff results and will have a public hearing. Mr. Coleman said that is correct and he said that if any of the residents were aware of anyone that did not get a notice of the meeting to please contact him with their information so that we may notify them of the next hearing. He reported that the tax assessor's records are often sometimes not current or updated and the incorrect name may be shown as the property owner. He said there is sometimes a 9-12 month delay in their updates. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to recommend by minute action staffs investigation of the Conditional Use Permit for Aim All Storage with a public hearing to be set in approximately 60 days to review their findings. The owners of Aim All Storage are encouraged to Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 25, 2006 work with the residents during that time towards resolution of the identified problems. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL NOES: NONE ABSENT: STEWART - carried PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional comments were made at this time. R M1 1e fe R COMMISSION BUSINESS The Commission did not conduct any additional business. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail carried 4-0-1 (Stewart absent), to adjourn. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:25 p.m. to a workshop. The workshop adjourned at 10:30 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, an Cole an Acting Secretary Approved: February 8, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 25, 2006