Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/04/13 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting April 13, 2005 Chairman Macias 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, Rich Macias, Larry McNiel,Cristine McPhail, Pam Stewart ABSENT: Rich Macias STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Candyce Burnett, Associate Planner, Doug Fenn, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Jim Markman, City Attorney; Lois Schrader, Planning Department Secretary; Joe Stofa, Senior Civil Engineer ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve the minutes of March 23, 2005. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16987 - CHRISTIAN LAND SERVICES - A request to subdivide 4.22 acres into 6 parcels in the Mixed Use District(Subarea 18 Specific Plan),located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Milliken Avenue-APN: 0210-082-47. Related File: Development Review DRC2004-00490, Parcel Map SUBTPM16245,Tract Map SUBTT16972-1. On June 1, 1994, an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 93102055) was prepared and certified by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as a Program Environmental Impact Report for the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that once a Program Environmental Impact Report has been certified, no further Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of the Program Environmental Impact Report. Doug Fenn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Daryl Christian, 3 Jenner Street, Suite 180, Irvine, stated he is the applicant. He noted that this application for the subdivision is the final step of the wrap up in processing this map. He thanked staff for their assistance in the process. Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He commented that this is considered a routine, clean-up matter. Motion: Moved by Stewart seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to approve Tentative Tract Map Subtt16987 as presented by staff by adoption of the Resolution of Approval with conditions. AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2003-01144-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A request to amend Section 17.16.030 use regulations to allow public storage facilities, including outdoor RV parking, in the Utility Corridor District. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-01130 and Preliminary Review DRC2002-00704. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-01130 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON-A request for a public storage facility on 5.38 acres in the Utility Corridor District, along with outdoor RV parking, six storage buildings totaling 71,175 • square feet, and a management office of approximately 1,430 square feet to be located on the north side of Base Line Road, east of Day Creek Flood Control Channel within the Edison power line corridor-APN: 1089-031-12. Related Files: Development Code Amendment DRC2003- 01144, Tree Removal Permit DRC2004-00847, and Preliminary Review DRC2002-00704. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, gave the staff report noting that the applicant provided a more recent exhibit for the plant palette since the distribution of the agenda. He reported that the plant palette is essentially the same as shown on page B & C-6 of the agenda packet. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ariel Valli, Valli Architectural Group, 81 Columbia, Suite 200, Aliso Viejo, stated he represents the applicant. He said he is available to answer any questions or concerns and he thanked staff for their assistance during the review process. Vice Chairman McNiel asked what he anticipates as a timeline for construction purposes on the project. Mr. Valli replied that assuming the Development Code Amendment is approved by City Council, he would anticipate a 6-week window for the preparation of working drawings and then another 4 months for permits before construction can begin. Lloyd Dearinure, 12167 Avon Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that consideration should be given for the homeowners that live adjacent to the Edison Corridor. He reported several concerns about the proposed project. 1) He believes the City's General Plan calls for agricultural uses in the corridor. He said he does not want to live next to businesses and to allow businesses there would Planning Commission Minutes -2- April 13, 2005 be unfair to the homeowners; 2) He believes his property value will go down as a result of the project; 3) He believes the project will negatively affect his quality of life in that he lives north of trail and it will be visually unappealing; 4) He believes allowing RV storage will create traffic concerns, particularly for access and egress from the project site. Vice Chairman McNiel noted that the proposal is for the property specifically between Base Line Road to the railroad tracts and that the project does not affect Victoria Park Lane. He said the Development Code Amendment may in the future allow additional uses in the other corridors shown on the map, but it is not part of this project being considered tonight. Mr. Dearinure continued and said that he had visited existing storage facilities and noted several other problems; 5) There would be further impacts from security lights from the project; 6) The project will create a new source of noise; 7) The project will attract a crime element and possibly meth labs; 8) The project decreases open space enjoyed by the homeowners. He noted that Southern Califomia Edison advertises on their website the possibility of carwashes being built on these corridors. He commented that the residents live in the neighborhood, not Southern Califomia Edison (SCE). Kathleen Munson, 11996 Sagemont Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, said she agrees with Mr. Dearinure. She remarked that the rear of her home faces north and she lives between Rochester and Day Creek Boulevard. She said she researched the corridor property before she purchased her home and thought the corridors would remain open. She remarked that much of Rancho Cucamonga is designed after the Irvine area and that it has evolved into a well-planned community. She commented that there were plans to develop a jogging path and that it did not get developed as scheduled because of a lack of funds. She expressed concem that once the property is re-zoned, the use could change. She said she has observed high school students gather in the trail area and that there is drug and alcohol use along with the illegal running of motorized vehicles in the trail area. She said she loves the area and its proximity to her job. She added that she would not consider buying a home next to a storage facility and that her home value will be affected. She said she believes the project will attract crime and sometimes families are discovered living in these storage facilities. She said these facilities often have razor wire along their fencing. She said she received a citation from the City for having a trashcan in the front of her house and it seemed out of place to allow this project in comparison. She asked the Commission to be sensitive to the homeowners. Randall Taylor, 7177 Westhaven Place, Rancho Cucamonga, said he is in law enforcement and his backyard faces the Utility Corridor. He said he echoes the concems of the previous speakers. He added that he spent a great deal of time searching for his home before purchasing in terms of a new neighborhood, a good place to raise his children. He said they had hoped for a new park. He said he hears stories about storage facilities attracting crime. He commented that he drives 1 hour and 15 minutes to work everyday, but considers it worth the drive because he feels he is safe where they live but if the project were approved, it would not be the same; the project would bring down the neighborhood. Mario Avola, 12168 Avon Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has worked for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs department for 15 years. He said the community is beautiful and that he loves what he sees so far but that he does not want to look at dirty boats and RV's from the back of his property. He repeated the same concerns mentioned by the previous speakers adding that he would not have purchased his home had he known this type of development would ever be allowed. Donald Bomemann, 7137 Westhaven Court, Rancho Cucamonga, echoed the previous speakers' concems. He commended SCE for notifying the residents about the development proposal. He said he was not informed by Richland (the developer that built his neighborhood) that any of this was being discussed. He said SCE did not submit any plans for the proposal until after all the escrows were closed in his housing development. He commented that a storage facility would become a dumping ground. He added that he believes there would be a liability issue if 50,000 volts of Planning Commission Minutes -3- April 13, 2005 electricity were to strike a metal storage building if the power lines came down. He said the City would gain more tax revenue if it allowed housing on the property rather than commercial property. Deborah Dearinure, 12167 Avon Court, Rancho Cucamonga, added that she too searched for her home before making the purchase. She said the proposed business would be unpleasant to look at. and would cheapen the vista provided by Victoria Park Lane. She commented that she understands the portion near her home is not one of the corridor areas slated for development at this time. She added that they would not want to have to fight this issue in the future. She noted that she felt the notice sent out was unclear in presenting the project and the direction/purpose of the notice. She said her neighbors did not know anything about it. Maria Segoriano, 7142 Westhaven Place, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has lived here for 3 years and she loves the schools and would hate to leave but they would consider moving if the storage facility goes in. She expressed concem about the view from her upstairs windows, the value of her home, and crime. Brad Buller, City Planner thanked the residents for their input and clarified that there are 3 distinct components to the project being presented: 1) the Development Code Amendment, 2) the Conditional Use Permit, and 3) the Memorandum of Understanding. He reported that most of the speakers commented on the corridor space that abuts their homes. He clarified that this specific Conditional Use Permit project does not apply to those areas directly abutting their homes. He said the site has a flood control channel and utility corridor to the west and an existing fire station to the east. He remarked that all of the speakers referred to the project as a variance and he clarified that it is not a variance, but a Development Code Amendment. He remarked that the Utility Corridor already has a list of uses allowed and that the amendment would expand that list to include another commercial use/public storage. He added that in regard to property value, storage units have in some cases made excellent buffers between uses, some are better land uses as a transition than others and some have been welcomed. He noted that as long as the property remains a utility corridor, the City has very little control over it. He said to allow storage on the property could be a way of better protection of the property than leaving it as open space. He said that the Commission has the option to modify the request being presented tonight to include only certain portions of the corridor for storage depending on how comfortable they are with the proposal. In response to an earlier comment from a resident, he pointed out that the City actually has fewer homes than the density allowed by the City's first General Plan. He commented that much more space has been allotted for parks and open space than originally planned. He commented that to the north of the proposed self-storage facility is a proposed linear park known as"Rails to Trails." He suggested that the residents might respond differently to the Conditional Use Permit portion of the project proposal if the Commission chose to limit the development of certain portions of the corridor that might directly affect them. He gave the public another opportunity to address the Commission with their specific comments in that regard and asked them if they would still be directly opposed or just opposed in general. Randall Taylor returned to the podium and said he would feel the same; the project would bring noise and glare. He said the area separating the homes from the project may seem large, but it is not. He asked if the zone change would include the entire corridor. Mr. Buller said it includes the areas indicated on the map all the way up to the 210 Freeway. He said there is also the site specific Conditional Use Permit and then the Memorandum of Understanding that enters into a general agreement with SCE that identifies portions of the utility corridor for trails and park services. Mr. Taylor asked if similar facilities could be constructed in the corridor adjacent to his property. Mr. Buller said they could. He said to limit which corridors could be included is within the Planning Commission's discretion. He pointed out that many commercial uses are currently allowed in the Planning Commission Minutes -4- April 13, 2005 corridors including uses such as agriculture, hydroponic culture, green houses,livestock grazing and breeding, on site sales, cemeteries, crematoriums, mausoleums, stables, trails, country clubs,flood control structures, and electrical substations to name some. Lloyd Dearingure commented that it is possible many people threw out the notice of this meeting because it was not clear as to what the notice was about. He felt many more would have come out in opposition had they understood more about the project. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that the number of people that came to the meeting tonight is a significant representation compared to the number that usually come to the meeting for a specific Rem. Kathleen Munson added that she still would object to the proposal; she visually enjoys the open corridor and the development would be an eyesore. She said she favors agriculture ora golf course. She said that would beautify the area. She reiterated that the project would de-value her home and it would be discouraging to see that. She said she is waiting for the jogging/bike-path to be developed and she is concemed about the potential increase of crime. Donald Bomemann reported that all the homes to the west of the project site are 2-story homes: He said many homeowners paid premium prices for decks outside of the 2nd floor master bedroom. He said they were discouraged when SCE removed the trees in the corridor. He said he has some glare already from the fire station to the east and lights from the project would impact him. He said the project is about 300 feet away and that is not that far away. He added that it would be unattractive visually and he is against it. Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stewart commented that this is a difficult decision. She noted that the decision tonight is site specific and that development would only be allowed with the processing of a Conditional Use Permit. She said the Planning Commission has the authority to control what goes into those noted areas regardless of the zone change. She noted that the zone change does not specifically mean a storage facility would have to go on that site. She added that the Commission could bring the use back for review if we experience problems with the use. She said that the use • could be modified, revoked and shut down if necessary. She commented that they have spent a lot of time reviewing storage facilities in Rancho Cucamonga and the code for their development is very restrictive. She added that this facility would have security cameras and a security gate. She said we do not allow razor wire or metal buildings. She said the buildings are high end architecturally. She said she believes this would be a compatible use for the utility area and that it already has a hazardous waste collection facility and a temporary fire station. She commented that the Commission may say"yes"to this one but not necessarily to others in the future; that each one will be considered individually, uniquely and on their own merit. Commissioner McPhail stated that this site is not directly behind homes and is buffered by the flood channel and in the proposed trail to the north. She said that this project has been through the Design Review Committee and the Committee has required a "high-end" of detail and it would be architecturally attractive from all sides. She said that in this case, for this site, she believes it would be a good use, but that each one will be looked at carefully and the impacts they will have on residents. Commissioner Fletcher commented that they are trying to be sensitive to the residents. He noted that the Development Code Amendment lends flexibility for the uses that can be used in the corridor and gives direction to SCE as to what uses would be acceptable. He commented that each application will have to go through the Design Review process and will have to conform to our strict standards. He noted that every time a storage facility is proposed, we hear concerns about the increase in noise, traffic and crime. He remarked that we do not see that happening in Rancho Planning Commission Minutes -5- April 13, 2005 Cucamonga in the facilities we are approving. He said we perform a detailed review of the surrounding streets and neighborhoods before approving storage facilities. He commented that there is a storage facility near his office and they are good neighbors; they do not create traffic issues, there are no loud parties, there are no businesses conducted in the units;there are no meth labs; no concertina wire. He added that the facility would be allowed under a Conditional Use Permit, which means if there are problems, the residents can report them to the Planning Commission and the use can be brought back for review. He said the flexibility of different uses allowed with the Development Code Amendment would be good. Vice Chairman McNiel said that they are charged as a Commission is to provide services needed by the residents of the community. He noted that if you have ever tried to rent storage space in Rancho, it is likely you will have to go on a waiting list,that there is a shortage of these facilities. He said that we have very few problems with the facilities that we do have. He stated he does understand the residents' concerns and appreciates their desire for open space but that we do not have view rights in Rancho. He added that this project would serve the community at large and he supports it. He said the project was "well done." Mr. Buller asked what the height of the wall is along the flood control channel side of the project. Mr. Valli confirmed it is 8 feet along the channel and around the perimeter of the facility. He added that all the security lighting is in"shoebox"housing and the light will shine straight down to minimize the impact of glare on the adjacent properties. He said the lights mounted on the walls will be at about a 9-foot height level and those in the parking lot will be about 15 feet high. Mr. Buller then encouraged the homeowners to view the specific plans of the project. He directed staff to have site lines available provided by the architect that depict the landscaping and screening on the west side of the project. Jim Markman, City Attorney, clarified that the Planning Commission will be taking action on the three specific items being considered: 1)the Resolution recommending approval of the Development Code Amendment; 2) the Resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit and 3) the Memorandum of Understanding. He added that the Conditional Use Permit application is not effective until the City Council approves the Development Code Amendment. He added that this action(for the Conditional Use Permit) can be appealed and there is a 10-day appeal period. He noted the Code Amendment and the Memorandum are automatically forwarded to the City Council for final action. Commissioner Fletcher remarked that development in Rancho Cucamonga is not rampant although it may be rapid. He explained that everything proposed in these items is allowable in the General Plan. He said in response to the residents that fear rampant development, that there is concern when open space is developed. He added that along with tract homes that are topping the one million dollar-mark come expensive motor homes. He added that we do not allow motor homes to be parked on the street and therefore we need to provide facilities for their storage. He said this facility is upscale in design. He noted that he believes this would be a good solution for the utility corridor. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Stewart to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts,to approve the Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-01130(noting the corrected plant palette), to recommend approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2003-01144 to be forwarded to the City Council for final action, and to approve by minute Action the Memorandum of Understanding and Master Plan as presented. AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: MACIAS - carried Planning Commission Minutes -6- April 13, 2005 NEW BUSINESS D. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00078-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA/SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON — Consideration of a Memorandum of Understanding for the use of Southern California Edison Utility Corridors for recreational trail use and some commercial/industrial uses in selected areas as allowed by the General Plan. This item was discussed in conjunction with items B and C. PUBLIC COMMENTS No additional comments were made at this time. • ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent), to adjourn: The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Br- •=r ler V • Secretary Approved: April 27, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 13, 2005