Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/12/21 - Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting December 21, 1993 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 5:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Steve Hayes, Associate Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Barker announced that he had another meeting at 6:00 p.m. and would have to leave at that time. , , , , , APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioners McNiel and Melcher arrived at 5:02 p.m. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Melcher, approved 2-0-0-3 with Barker, Lumpp, and Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of November 23, 1993. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-0-1 with Tolstoy abstaining, to adopt the minutes of December 8, 1993. , , , , , PUBLIC HEARINGS Ae CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-48 - SANAM - A request to sell distilled spirits in addition to beer and wine within an existing convenience market of 2,400 square feet within the Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-601-09. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. There was no public testimony, and he closed the hearing. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-48. Commissioner Lumpp felt the window signs cover too much of the window area. He requested that Paragraph 3a of the resolution be changed to show that the Commission concluded that the proposed use is in accord with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Chairman Barker echoed Con~nissioner Lumpp's comments regarding the proliferation of window signs and he requested that staff determine if there were more window signs than permitted by code. Commissioner Melcher felt that the resolution did not need to be changed because Paragraph 3c stated that the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Commissioner Lumpp stated he realized the matter was covered in Paragraph 3C but he wished to have Paragraph 3A revised as well. Commissione~~ ~elcher asked staff if the revision was necessary. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, stated the revision was acceptable. Commissioners Melcher and Tolstoy modified their motion and second to approve the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-48 with modification to indicate that the proposed use is in accord with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, EUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-43 - MARTINEZ - A request to establish a chiropractor office within an existing office complex in the General Industrial Designation (Subarea 4) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, south of 6th Street - APN: 210-071-63 and 64. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported that the applicant had indicated she was unable to attend tonight's meeting but that she was in agreement with the staff report. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. closed the hearing. There were no comments, and he Planning Co~nission Minutes -2- December 21, 1993 Motion: . Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 93-43. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , DIRECTOR'S REPORTS C. THE CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST FROM A HOMEOWNER TO AMEND THE NON- CONFORMING SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE - MESSINA Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner McNiel stated he had driven the area and there appeared to be a considerable Mount of non-conforming uses. He asked if staff had an estimate of the percentage of non-conforming use and he questioned if the City would be playing with fire if it changed the code. Mr. Coleman noted that there are approximately 10 to 12 residences which would be non-conforming uses at this intersection alone. He commented there are other residences on the south side of 8th Street. He observed that staff felt the ordinance should not be changed. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Gordon Scott, Mortgage Link, 402 South Milliken Avenue, #G, Ontario, stated he was speaking on behalf of the Messinas. He commented that the property is their home. He said they were not requesting that the code be changed to allow rebuilding of all non-conforming uses, but only those homes which are being used as the owners' homes. He felt California is a compassionate state and it is unfair to tell people they cannot rebuild their homes if they are more than 50 percent destroyed. He said they did not wish to allow non- resident investors to rebuild. Luis Meesina, 9341 East 8th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his home had been in the area before the factories were built. He said they have lived at the home since he retired and he wanted to be able to rebuild his house as well as the houses of his sons if they should be destroyed. Mr. Scott said the family had chosen to live there without knowing the zone would be changed. Chairman Barker noted there are four separate residences on the two properties mentioned in the report. Mrs. Luis Messina, 9341 East 8th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, confirmed there are four houses and said the other houses are lived in by her children. Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 21, 1993 Chairman Barker recalled that the matter had come before the Commission because the Messinas had tried to refinance and the lender in question did not want to refinance because of the restriction on rebuilding. Mr. Scott confirmed that was correct. He stated that the Messinas and others like them would not be able to take advantage of the lower mortgage rates which are now available. He noted that Commissioner Melcher had stated at the last meeting that not all lenders refuse to loan on such properties, but he said such loans would be at higher interest rates. He felt it should not be important that a change to the code may extend the life of the non-conforming structures for another 20 or 30 years because the houses are their home. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel observed the General Plan had long ago established what the land use should be. He said his heart went out to the Messinas, but he did not think the code should be changed. He stated that compassion many times overrides standards. He feared changing the code could mean a flood of such applications and he felt the City would ultimately regret the change. Commissioner Tolstoy noted that the houses in question are in the industrial area. He felt that in the future as industry moves in, there will be conflicts because of noise, vibrations, traffic, etc. He thought the purpose of prohibiting rebuilding of non-conforming uses is to discourage such uses because they are not compatible with the surrounding area. Commissioner Meisner stated he agreed with Commissioner McNiel. He thought the issue to be more political than planning and felt any relief would have to come from the City Council. Con~nissioner Lumpp asked the City Attorney's opinion regarding the request to differentiate between homeowner and absentee landowner. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, noted the request had at first been to abandon the rebuilding restriction and had now been refined to grant the rebuilding privilege only to resident homeowners. He noted that if the City were to try to configure the privilege to occupant homeowners, there would be a question if it should be applied to current resident homeowners under a grandfathering clause or if it should also apply to future resident homeowners. He foresaw problems with using standards of property owners rather than the property and uses. He felt a cleaner request would be to abandon the rebuilding limitation. Mr. Coleman observed that if the code is changed to allow rebuilding to resident homeowners and such a home is rebuilt, there would be no control over whether the property is then rented out in the future. He noted that small individual parcels become difficult for developers to build around. He stated that the City was certainly not asking anyone to move, but the provision in the develo~nent code merely prohibits rebuilding if the property is more than 50 percent destroyed. He thought the area in question had been zoned industrial even under the County. Planning Con~nission Minutes -4- December 21, 1993 Commissioner Lumpp asked if the code prohibits rebuilding of houses only. Mr. Hanson replied that it applies to all non-conforming uses, including commercial or industrial in residential zones and residential uses in industrial zones. Commissioner Lumpp noted that the Messinas had made nice improvements to their property. He felt the issue was Mending the code which applies to any piece of property which is in violation of the zone in which it is located. He felt allowing rebuilding would limit the City's ability to obtain development in conformance with the zones specified. He stated he had a great deal of sympathy for the Messinas, but he did not support the proposed change. He agreed that perhaps the matter should be dealt with at the City Council level. Chairman Barker agreed he was not comfortable with having restrictions based upon property owners rather than the properties. He said that standards sometimes fall when people are considered. He noted the request had been made because the owner wanted to refinance and the lender in question did not like the City restrictions. He thought revising the ordinance would lead to inconsistencies. He hoped that other financing would be available to the Messinae but said he could not support initiation of the requested amendment. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to not initiate an amendment to the non-conforming section of the General Plan. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE -carried , , , , , D. GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA - Proposed scope of work and master project schedule. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melcher noted that the staff report indicted the Housing Production Plan must be done by December 1994 and that it is separate from the Housing Element. Ms. Bratt confirmed that was correct but that it must be consistent with the Housing Element. Commissioner Melcher questioned if the Housing Production Plan would be required of all jurisdictions within the state. Ms. Bratt replied that it is required of all jurisdictions which have a redevelopment agency. Commissioner McNiel asked if the state provides funding for the mandated reports. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 21, 1993 Ms. Bratt responded negatively. Commissioner Lumpp asked the risk factors if the City does not comply. Ms. Bratt replied that the City would not be eligible for federal HOME funds, for which the City's Redevelopment Agency has indicated they would like to apply. She further stated someone could file a lawsuit and stop development if the City is not in compliance. Chairman Barker invited public comment, but there was none. Commissioner Melcher felt the Housing element update is an important part of the work of the Planning Division and the Planning Commission. He was pleased to see a schedule set forth to accomplish the update and asked that periodic updates be presented to the Commission as the project progresses. He thought the Planning Commission had previously been left out of the loop on housing. Commissioner McNiel agreed. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS It was determined that a workshop would be held at 5:00 p.m. on January 5, 1994, at the Tolstoy residence regarding Planning Commission goals and priorities and the Planning Division work program. , , , , , ADJOURNMENT Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to adjourn. 5:55 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop immediately following in the Rains Room regarding proposed modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-24. That workshop adjourned to 5:00 p.m. on January 5, 1994, at the Tolstoy residence for a workshop on Planning Commission goals and priorities and the Planning Division work program. Res ullsuybm~ Dan coleman Acting Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 21, 1994