Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003/10/08 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting October 8, 2003 Chairman Macias called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:11 p.m. The meeting was held in the Board Room at Cucamonga County Water District, 10440 Ashford Street, Rancho Cucamonga,California. Chairman Macias then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias,Cristine McPhail, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney;Trang Huynh, Building&Safety Official; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Lori Shriver, Planning Aide; Mike Smith, Planning Technician • ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, gave a brief explanation of the public hearing process and the meeting format. Mr. Buller introduced Trang Huynh, the Building & Safety Official. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, carried 3-0-2 (Macias, Stewart abstain), to approve the minutes of September 24, 2003. CONSENT CALENDAR A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00661 — GREYSTONE HOMES - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 21 single-family lots of previously approved Tentative Tract 16372 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located at the northeast corner of Iron Horse Place and Church Street-APN: 1089-171-35. This action is within the scope of the project reviewed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137)that was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999, and no additional environmental review for the discretionary actions mentioned in this notice is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2003-00662 — GREYSTONE HOMES - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for 70 single-family lots of previously approved Tract Map SUBTT16373 within the Victoria Arbors Master Plan in the Victoria Community Plan, located northwest of Victoria Park Lane and Church Street—APN: 1089-171-32. This action is within the scope of the project reviewed in the Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 98041137) that was certified by the City Council on July 7, 1999, and no additional environmental review for the discretionary actions mentioned in this notice is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW- DRC2003-00319- EHR 22, LLC - A design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for nine single-family homes on 11.83 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located on Birdsong Place, south of Hidden Farm Road - APN: 1074-071-23 thru 31. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT15914 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00501. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, seconded by McNiel,to adopt the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE - carried PUBLIC HEARINGS D. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2003-00468 - GOODWILL INDUSTRIES-A request to operate a non-profit second-hand store of 9,500 square feet within an existing shopping center in the Neighborhood Commercial District,located at 9749 Base Line Road-APN: 1077-011-50. (Continued from September 24, 2003) Chairman Macias and Commissioner Stewart asked that the record show they listened to a tape of the September 24, 2003, meeting. Brad Buller, City Planner, explained that two Commissioners had not been present for all or part of the testimony on this item at the September 24,2003, meeting. He indicated the Commission closed the public hearing but continued the deliberations and action to this meeting. He reported that the applicant presented several items of correspondence after the public hearing was closed. He explained that if the applicant wished to have the Commission consider the new correspondence in its decision, the matter would have to be continued to November 12 in order to re-advertise the public hearing because the public had not had a chance to review the newly submitted evidence. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attorney, confirmed the publiq hearing was dosed at the last meeting and the Commission could not consider any new information without reopening the public hearing. He said that because the hearing was closed, it would be necessary to re-advertise the item. Mr. Buller asked that the applicant be permitted to advise whether they wished the new information to be considered as evidence and if so,would they confirm that they would consent to a continuance. Tracy Powers,Vice President of Retail Operations, Goodwill Industries Southern California,342 San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, indicated they would like to hear what the Commission had to say without reopening the public hearing. Chairman Macias indicated the Commission would proceed with deliberations and take a vote. Mr. Powers indicated that was acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 8, 2003 Mr. Buller noted the Commission had two resolutions: one for approval and the other upholding the City Planner's denial. He explained that the City Planner denied the application but additional favorable information was presented following the City Planner hearing and that new information was included in the September 24, 2003, staff report. Commissioner Stewart asked if she would be allowed to ask some questions of the applicant. Mr. Ennis confirmed that she could ask questions to clarify existing testimony. Commissioner Stewart noted that in the testimony, Mr. Powers had admitted that this storefront is not their ideal size as they would prefer 100 feet of storefront and this is only 60 feet wide. She noted there was a commentary that there were no other suitable locations in the City. Mr. Powers responded that the size is 9,500 square feet and their stores typically are between 9,000 to 13,000 square feet, so it is the right size. He indicated they operate a number of stores that are only 60 feet wide, even though they prefer a wider store frontage so that they can establish a donation center door in the front of the store. He said in this case, they would not be able to put in another door. Commissioner Stewart asked if they had looked at other sites in the City. Mr. Powers indicated they looked at every other site that is zoned properly for their use and there is nothing available that is the appropriate size and configurable for their use. Commissioner Stewart noted there had been a lot of testimony from the public and comments from the Commission with respect to drop offs. She asked if they have stores where drop offs are only during business hours and are brought directly into the store. Mr. Powers responded they discourage having people donate or drop off items when they are not open. He said that is why they are open seven days a week and long hours. He acknowledged that some people do drop off at night and there are no sites that do not occasionally have items dropped off at night. Commissioner Stewart asked if the fronts of stores are posted to discourage drop offs. Mr. Powers responded that typically there are not problems with drop offs in front of the store; it is usually in the rear area. He felt it would not be a problem in this location because the back alley is gated and locked at night. He said they typically post "No Dumping" signs and quote the City regulations so people know it is inappropriate. He reported they videotape the back of one of their stores in order to record automobile licenses. Commissioner McPhail stated the issues that seem to be pertinent are that the back area could be congested with drop offs; however, she thought that would not be an issue because it is locked at 9:00 p.m. at night. She felt the main issue is that the circulation in the parking lot is not ideal. She noted Goodwill has a distribution drop-off center at Arrow Highway and Haven Avenue and she felt putting a sign on the storefront indicating drop offs are appropriate at the other location could discourage any cumbersome drop offs at this location. She acknowledged the actual impact is unknown until it is tried. She felt this use should be encouraged in the community as it is a service organization and provides shopping opportunities that people enjoy. She felt their stores seem to be clean. She believed the center is currently blighted because the store has been dosed for so long and that blight is worse than putting in a store that may have circulation issues. She supported approving the use because it could be brought back to the Commission for discussion if problems arise. Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 8, 2003 Commissioner McNiel agreed that Goodwill Industries do great work. He felt that the location is not favorable to what they do because of circulation problems with no parking in front of the store. He believed that people dropping off goods would park in the drive aisle. He supported Goodwill's presence in the community and noted that he supported the thrift store at the Sunrise Center because the location does not have the same constraints. He felt that Goodwill would find another location in the community that is more appropriate even if it may take a month or two. He noted that Mr. Powers said there is one store with video cameras on the back to record automobile license numbers and he felt cameras would not be used unless there are problems. Commissioner Fletcher agreed with Commissioner McNiel. He said he indicated at the last meeting that this is not an appropriate location even though he supports the efforts of Goodwill. He felt the division by the prior tenant, leaving a small storefront, caused the problem with the property. He believed the Commission's job is to enhance the development and businesses that go into a center and he did not feel the addition of a thrift store would be an enhancement to the center. He observed the Commission heard opposition testimony from numerous other business owners in the center and the property owner also spoke in opposition. He thought he should also listen to their concerns as they were in the center first. He noted there is already a Dollar Tree in the center,a 990 Store across the street, and a Base Line Bargain Store up the street. He commented there are already problems with 99¢ shopping carts along the street. Commissioner Stewart acknowledged the matter is tough. She said she listened to the tape and read through the staff report to prepare herself, and also visited the site. She said she heard two primary issues in the tape from citizens and business people; i.e., the potential for drop offs and a potential fire hazard. She noted the Fire Department has indicated there would not be problems with utilizing the rear of the store for drop offs. She believed the Commission should make ajudgment as to whether the use will be injurious to the property or the businesses. She did not feel the use would be injurious. She was concerned about the ability to drop off in the area. She noted one resident indicated high school students frequent the center and it was felt that they would pilfer through anything left outside. She was not opposed to the store being located in the center. She said she was familiar with the Fontana store because she works in Fontana and has not seen any instance of drop off or other problems in that parking lot, either in the front or rear. She believed the stores are well maintained and are frequented by college students. She suggested that if the application were approved, that conditions should be added to require posting of signs prohibiting drop offs or refer people to the Arrow Highway and Haven Avenue center and she encouraged the use of cameras in the rear of the store. She thought the cameras should monitor the gate area. Commissioner Stewart said she would only favor the project if additional conditions were added. Chairman Macias agreed the application is one of the tougher issues the Commission has had to deal with recently. He believed there was a consensus of the Commission that the issue was not regarding the integrity of Goodwill Industries. He said the issues were land use, impacts on businesses, and compatibility. He stated that upon what he heard of the public testimony, it was Gear that regardless of the merits of the project it is not deemed welcome by the residents and the business community. He said he was initially impressed with the project but after he went to look at three Goodwill stores, one in Fontana and two in Los Angeles, he did not have a good feeling for the fit of the project into this center. He supported denial of the project. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution upholding the City Planner's denial of Conditional Use Permit DRC2003-00468. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL NOES: McPHAIL, STEWART ABSENT: NONE - carried Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 8, 2003 E. VARIANCE DRC2003-00017-CARNEY - A request for a variance to reduce the required lot depth and reduce the required front setback, for 4 proposed single family residences in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Klusman Avenue, north of Diamond Avenue - APN: 1062-401-05. Related Files: Development Review DRC2003-00015, Minor Exception DRC2003-00016, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00419, and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM 16038. Commissioner McPhail recused herself from acting on Item E, as her firm receives remuneration from the applicant. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and handed out illustrations of the alternates using a reduced standard turnaround at the end of Klusman Avenue, as discussed with the residents at the Neighborhood meeting on September24, 2003. He said the Revised Exhibit"A" was recommended by staff because it was discussed at that meeting. He noted that during the meeting, the applicant also indicated a willingness to modify the rear elevations by eliminating windows along the upper story or frosting or glazing the glass. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Cecil Carney, 12841 Newport Avenue, Tustin, stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing. Glen Cozart, 6201 Klusman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the residents in the neighborhood feel the development would affect only a few houses directly. He said he has lived in his house since it was built in 1983. He indicated Mr. Buller spent a lot of time with the residents and he appreciated his professionalism. He commented there are 1/2-acre lots just north of Banyan. He indicated all of the lots in the neighborhood are large and the houses are spread out. He felt that the proposed houses are too big because they are approximately 2,500 square feet and on smaller lots than the surrounding homes. By comparison, he indicated his home is only 1,600 square feet. He stated the proposed houses are on smaller and weird shaped lots. He believed pools and RV parking would have to be placed in the side yards. He did not think the proposed cul-de-sac would happen because he felt the gentleman who owns the property would not be willing to give up the property, as he wants to be left alone. He noted that the third lot has its house plotted only 5 feet off the side property line. He noted the Development Code allows four houses per acre, but this property is less than an acre. He asked if approval of the Variance would negate the Code. He did not feel the end of the street will be finished and there will be no parking permitted in the street for his house or the last two homes at the end of the street. He thought the driveway for the fourth house looks weird because it is incredibly close to the third lot and said he does not want to live in a neighborhood that looks weird. He felt the City should only allow two houses or three that are spread out rather than allowing a fourth driveway that is jimmy rigged around a block wall. Kim Felten,6155 Diamond Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the Code calls for four houses per acre, but the property is only.817 acre. She stated all other houses in the neighborhood are 1/3 to 1/4 acre and these lots would not conform to their neighborhood. She said she had a petition with 37 signatures from the immediate neighborhood in opposition to the development. (The petition was not submitted to staff). She noted that Mr. Carney offered to remove the windows from the second story rear elevations, but that did not mean that the new owners couldn't install windows. She did not feel there would be enough room for any street parking if there are seven houses on the half cul- de-sac. Marion Kuri, 6221 Klusman Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated her home is on 1/4 acre and she purchased it 20 years ago. She was concerned the parcel is less than an acre and will be split into four lots. She said three of the homes will be very close together and the one home at the north will Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 8, 2003 be on a large lot. She preferred that only two or three homes be built and spread out with lots that are comparable in size to the surrounding area. Sherrill Ichiho, 6147 Diamond Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, concurred with the other residents. She said all of them have large lots and she feared allowing the smaller lots will lower her property value. She said that the lot does not look large enough to hold even two houses. She felt the street should be widened. She did not feel there would be room for the new owners to put in pools or store their recreational vehicles. She thought the lot could hold two or three house, but not four. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Macias closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated the City often runs into this situation with in-fill projects where there are • remnant pieces of land. He said it is a developable parcel of land in an established neighborhood and the house design of today is going to be different from house designs of 20 years ago because of marketing purposes. He acknowledged it is unfortunate that such circumstances exist but he did not find the house designs and the lot sizes objectionable. He thought the lots are comparable in size to the neighborhood. Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that three lots are approximately 8,000 square feet and one is approximately 1,200 square feet. He said most of the existing lots in the neighborhood are between 10,000 and 11,000 square feet. Commissioner McNiel asked if some of the other lots are approximately 9,000 square feet. Mr. Buller responded very few. Commissioner McNiel felt that an 8,000 square foot lot is still a good-sized lot. He indicated the property owner has a right to develop. He noted that the lot depth would not change even if there were only two or three houses. Mr. Butler confirmed the Variance would still be necessary no matter how many lots. Commissioner McNiel believed that the property values would not be damaged and would probably be elevated because of the enhanced, more current houses. Commissioner Stewart asked if there had been a discussion regarding reducing the footprints of the houses. Mr. Buller stated the developer modified their plans so a Minor Exception is not necessary and a Variance for the front yard setback is no longer needed. He said only the lot depth Variance is now needed. Commissioner Stewart noted the parcel is an existing parcel of record. She thought there was testimony in the last meeting that it was acknowledged when the previous houses were built,this lot would be less than 100 feet deep. She asked for legal advice. Kevin Ennis,Assistant City Attomey, stated it was his understanding this is a remnant lot created by the development of surrounding properties and it is a legal lot. He observed the Tentative Parcel Map came before the Commission at a previous meeting and the Commission approved the subdivision into four lots and that action was appealed to the City Council. Mr. Ennis said the Variance as specified in this staff report is necessary to satisfy the conditions of the previously approved Tentative Parcel Map. He explained that if the Commission denied the Variance this evening, the applicant could not move forward with the four-lot subdivision. He observed the owner has the ability to subdivide the property into the size range permitted in the Development Code and Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 8, 2003 the City would have to have valid reasons if it would not allow the subdivision into the size range of lots allowed by Code. Mr. Buller stated that if the parcel is divided into two lots, three lots, or four lots, a Variance is still needed for the lot depth because it is not possible to get 100-foot deep lots. He said that was why staff believes the Variance is appropriate. With respect to the comment that a homeowner could put in windows where the applicant has chosen not to do so, he pointed out that would be true for any home. He said owners of single-story homes could chose to add a second story and the City cannot deny that ability nor the ability to put windows where homeowners chose. Commissioner Stewart observed that no matter what is done on the parcel, the Variance would be necessary. She said the net effect of asking the developer to reduce the number of lots would not help the situation. She agreed with Commissioner McNiel that it is not an objectionable development. She thought the revised Exhibit A alternative is an appropriate revision. To some extent, she felt the objections go back to an objection to loss of privacy and loss of view and she believed that in order to protect those things, people must buy all the surrounding lots. Commissioner Fletcher noted the approval of the Variance was for a Variance in lot depth only. He asked if the developer would have to come back for design review. Mr. Buller replied that the proposed unit revisions are in substantial compliance with what the Commission approved at a previous meeting. He said the Commission approved the Parcel Map, Development Review, and a Variance for the project and the project has been appealed. He indicated that appeal is still pending before the City Council. He explained that if the Commission approved the Variance this evening and the appellant still wished to go forward with the appeal, it would be heard by the City Council. He said if the Commission denies the Variance, the applicant would have an opportunity to appeal that decision to the City Council and the appellants would most likely drop their appeal. Commissioner Fletcher acknowledged that the existing homes have been there a long time and it is difficult for the homeowners to accept the new homes. He felt the residents are looking at the new homes as being out of sync with the neighborhood. He said when he first heard about the size of the homes, he felt it was good for the City because other homes in the City are 3,000—5,000 square feet and he thought this would be a good size for new purchasers of homes in the City. He said he was surprised at how narrow the lot looks and he tried to envision what it will look like; however, he thought a development would look better than the weeds that are there now. He noted that homes on the west side have deeper back yards. He questioned the height of the wall to the west. Mr. Buller stated there could be a grade change and the wall could be higher than 6 feet on the lower side. Commissioner Fletcher stated the new homes would be up against a high wall because of the grade differential. He acknowledged it is a difficult situation. He did not feel the Commission should stop development and he thought it is a good solution, even if it may not be the best solution. He supported the Variance. Chairman Macias did not object to the project. He felt it is a developable parcel of land and the applicant did a good job of providing a good, compatible product. Motion: Moved by Fletcher, second McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Variance DRC2003-00017. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: McPHAIL - carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- October 8, 2003 F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16421 -JONG-A request to subdivide 2.8 acres into 8 single family lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 10213 and 10217 Wilson Avenue-APN: 0201-182-03 and 06. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00756 and General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00132. On May 21, 2003,the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map 16421. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects within the scope of a previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated that staff recommended the item be continued to November 12, 2003, in order to allow for proper advertising and completion of environmental documentation. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, to continue Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16421 to November 12, 2003. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE -carried • PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission Business. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Stewart, carried 5-0, to adjoum. The Planning Commission adjoumed at 8:19 p.m. to a workshop. The workshop adjourned at 9:30 p.m. and those minutes appear separately. Respectfully submitted, ,0 is B d� er V S:a - ary • 1 Planning Commission Minutes -8- October 8, 2003