Docstoc

Minutes City of Glendora Regular Meeting – Planning Commission

Document Sample
Minutes City of Glendora Regular Meeting – Planning Commission Powered By Docstoc
					                                             Minutes
                                        City of Glendora
                              Regular Meeting – Planning Commission
                                  Council Chambers – 7:30 P.M.
_______________________________________________________Approved March 18, 2003_______

                                             February 18, 2003

The Planning Commission of the City of Glendora met in a regular session on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 in the
City Hall Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m.


Members Present:            Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman

Members Absent:             Henley

Staff Present:              S. Wong, Director of Planning and Redevelopment
                            W. Leech, City Attorney
                            J. Coleman, Recording Secretary
                            D. Chantarangsu, City Planner
                            M. Ornelas, Assistant Planner
                            J. Leviste, Assistant Planner
                            M. Alaniz, Assistant Planner

Chairman Hoeger opened the meeting and the meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chairman
Workman.


PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Chairman Hoeger opened the Public Comment Period and asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak to any
item that is not on the Agenda.

Eugene Osko, 2200 East Shenandoah Lane, Glendora, CA. He said there was a letter mailed to voters saying there
was a charge filed against him but that there would be no evidence in the mailing showing it was dismissed. This
has happened and it is illegal.


APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Upon motion by Commissioner Murabito and seconded by Commissioner Johnson, it was unanimously voted to
approve the minutes of the January 21, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting.


REORDER OF THE AGENDA

Alan R. Foreman requested that Item 7D be heard first.

Motion by Commissioner Murabito to move item 7H hearing related to 707 West Route 66, Glendora, CA be moved
ahead of item 7A; also that item 7D can remain where it is; seconded by Commissioner Johnson.


PUBLIC HEARINGS

H.       HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
                 707 West Route 66
                  R. Americano / G. Alexander
(1)      Adoption of a Categorical Exemption
(2)      Miscellaneous (M03-06)

Stan Wong, Director of Planning and Redevelopment reported for David Chantarangsu, City Planner.

         Chairman Hoeger opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else was
         present and wished to address the Commission

There was no one present.

         Chairman Hoeger closed the public hearing.

Upon motion by Vice Chairman Workman and seconded by Commissioner Murabito, it was voted to adopt a
Categorical Exemption for hearings related to property located at 707 West Route 66, Glendora, CA.

VOTE:             AYES:              Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                  NOES:              None
                  ABSENT:            Henley
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                            Page 2 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                                 Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Vice Chairman Workman moved to adopt the resolution PC M03-06 to request a waiver from the Route 66
development moratorium for a new wall sign based on Conditions; motion seconded by Commissioner Murabito
and carried as follows:

VOTE:              AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                   NOES:             None
                   ABSENT:           Henley

CONDITIONS:

1.    The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with Exhibit “M03-06” dated February 6,
      2003.

2.    Approval of the proposed sign is contingent on the approval of a waiver to the Route 66 moratorium by the
      Planning Commission.

3.    The applicant shall complete all construction and receive a final building inspection prior to the expiration of
      the Route 66 Moratorium.

4.    The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other responsible
      agencies.

5.    The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including attorney’s fees, resulting
      from the violation of any conditions of approval or any provision of the Glendora Municipal Code.

6.    Any violation of the Zoning Ordinance or any entitlement granted is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a
      fine not-to-exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and/or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not-
      to-exceed six (6) months. Each day or portion of a day during which any violation of the Zoning Ordinance
      occurs or continues constitutes a separate offense and shall be punishable as provided.

7.     The applicant shall agree to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed
      officials, officers, employees and agents from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes,
      proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs and expenses of whatever nature, including
      attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the issuance
      of this entitlement, any actions taken by the City relating to his entitlement, or the environmental review
      conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for
      this entitlement and related actions.

8.    The applicant shall sign a statement indicating agreement with and acceptance of the adopted conditions of
      approval prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.

9.    The delivery of materials and equipment and the outdoor use of equipment, hammers, and power tools shall be
      limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with no work allowed on
      Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays with the exception of interior work. Outdoor yard work is permitted as
      long as it does not involve heavy equipment or noise producing equipment.

          Chairman Hoeger announced that the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless
          appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Council.


A.        HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
                  1410 South Grand Avenue
                  Waleeb & Melissa Saab / Wilmore Ventures
(1)       Adoption of a Negative Declaration
(2)       Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-29)

This item was continued from the February 4, 2003 regular meeting of the Planning Commission.

Monique Alaniz, Assistant Planner reported.

          Chairman Hoeger opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else was
          present and wished to address the Commission

Waleeb Saab, applicant. He is just transferring a license between Top Hat and Pam’s Market. He was required to
submit a traffic study and a few other documents at the last minute. If it’s continued to March 18, 2003 he doesn’t
know what to do.

Chairman Hoeger asked if this item could be continued to the next Planning commission meeting. Mr. Wong said if
the Commission desires to do so we can continue this to the next meeting.

Chairman Hoeger closed the public hearing.

Upon motion by Commissioner Murabito and seconded by Commissioner Johnson, it was voted to continue the
hearings related to property located at 1410 South Grand Avenue, Glendora, CA to a date certain of March 4, 2003.

VOTE:              AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                   NOES:             None
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                   Page 3 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                        Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
              ABSENT:         Henley


B.        HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
                  947 East Route 66, Unit 107
                   Battery Chih
(1)       Adoption of a Categorical Exemption
(2)       Miscellaneous (M03-04)

Jessica Leviste, Assistant Planner reported.

          Chairman Hoeger opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else was
          present and wished to address the Commission

There was no one.

          Chairman Hoeger closed the public hearing.

Upon motion by Vice Chairman Workman and seconded by Commissioner Murabito, it was voted to adopt a
Categorical Exemption for hearings related to property located at 947 East Route 66, Unit 107, Glendora, CA. as
follows:

VOTE:              AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                   NOES:             None
                   ABSENT:           Henley

Vice Chairman Workman moved to adopt the resolution PC M03-04 to request a waiver from the Route 66
Development Moratorium for the installation of a new wall sign for property located at 947 east route 66, Unit 107,
Glendora, CA. based on Conditions; motion seconded by Commissioner Murabito and carried as follows:

VOTE:              AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                   NOES:             None
                   ABSENT:           Henley

CONDITIONS:

1.    The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with Exhibit “M03-04” dated February 18,
      2004.

2.    Construction shall commence prior to expiration of the Route 66 Development Moratorium and shall e carried
      on diligently to completion.

3.    The applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the City, County, State, and other responsible
      agencies.

4.    The applicant shall use a raceway in mounting the sign to the building façade. The raceway shall be the same
      color as the building exterior behind the sign.

5.    The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including attorney’s fees, resulting
      from the violation of any conditions of approval or any provision of the Glendora Municipal Code.

6.    Any violation of the Zoning Ordinance or any entitlement granted is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a
      fine not-to-exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) and/or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not-
      to-exceed six (6) months. Each day or portion of a day during which any violation of the Zoning Ordinance
      occurs or continues constitutes a separate offense and shall be punishable as provided.

7.    The applicant shall agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless the city and its elected and appointed
      officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all liabilities, claims, acts, causes,
      proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs, and expenses of whatever nature, including
      attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the issuance
      of this entitlement, any actions taken by the City relating to this entitlement, or the environmental review
      conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for
      this entitlement and related actions.

8.    The applicant shall sign a statement indicating agreement with and acceptance of the adopted conditions of
      approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

9.    The delivery of materials and equipment and the outdoor use of equipment, hammers, and power tools shall be
      limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with no work allowed on Saturdays,
      Sundays, or Federal holidays with the exception of interior work.

          Chairman Hoeger announced that the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless
          appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                   Page 4 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                        Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
C.     HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
               465 West Foothill Blvd.
               Lakhbir Kaur Sondh
(1)    Conditional Use Permit (CUP91-11)

Jessica Leviste, Assistant Planner reported.

         Chairman Hoeger opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else was
         present and wished to address the Commission

Yolanda Pedrego, 2209 Ohio Avenue, Signal Hill, CA representative for the applicant. They are requesting to
extend the hours of operation in terms of the sales of alcohol to compete with Von’s and Sav-on and the other drug
store in the same shopping center.

Bill Skaggs, 428 West Ghent, Glendora, CA. As the area is oversaturated with liquor sales please don’t add any
more alcoholic sales to our community if you can’t eliminate any.

         Chairman Hoeger closed the public hearing.

Upon motion by Commissioner Murabito and seconded by Commissioner Johnson, it was voted to deny the request
for approval for the modification of business hours for off-site sales of alcoholic beverages on Conditional Use
Permit 91-11 for hearings related to property located at 465 west Foothill Blvd, Glendora, CA.


VOTE:             AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                  NOES:             None
                  ABSENT:           Henley

         Chairman Hoeger announced that the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless
         appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Council.


D.       HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
                 1332 South Grand Avenue
                 M. Bagheri / W. Gard
(1)      Adoption of a Negative Declaration
(2)      Zone Change (ZC02-02)

Monique Alaniz, Assistant Planner reported.

Mr. Wong read a copy of a letter just received from Mike Bagheri, 611 East Foothill Blvd, Glendora, CA. There
was also a letter received from Kathleen Clark protesting the zone change.

         Chairman Hoeger opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else was
         present and wished to address the Commission

Annette Beilinson, 3601 Holt Ave, West Covina, CA, part owner of the property. She is in favor of the re-zoning.

Michael Pinkus, 600 South Magnolia, West Covina, CA, listing agent. He is in favor of the project.

Patricia Pinkus, 600 South Magnolia Avenue, West Covina, CA. She is in favor of the project.

Fernando Flores, 423 West Ghent Street, Glendora, CA. He is against the project.

Mary Ann Foreman 411 West Gaillard Street, Glendora, CA. She is against project.

Wayne Gard, 848 South Grand, Glendora, CA., part owner of the property. He is in favor of the project.

Ysidro Gurule, 1340 South Grand Avenue, Glendora, CA. He is against the project.

Bill Skaggs, 428 West Ghent Street, Glendora, CA. He is against the project.

Denise Brown, 413 West Ghent Street, Glendora, CA. She is against the project.

Mike Bagheri, 611 East Foothill Blvd., Glendora, CA. He is in favor of the project.

         Chairman Hoeger closed the public hearing.

Mr. Wong suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to change the General Plan to a single family
residential land use density reflecting the R-1 zoning. Chairman Hoeger asked if the property at 1340 would be
included. Mr. Wong agreed.

Chairman Hoeger stated that the Commission did not receive the conceptual plan as part of this application. This is
a request for a zone change. The conceptual plan is relevant in light of the fact that the request for the zone change
is for the plan that was submitted and that was for the four units which the DRC and staff have reviewed and
determined that they do not meet the City standards at this time and cannot make a positive recommendation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                                   Page 5 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                                        Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Upon motion by Commissioner Murabito and seconded by Commissioner Johnson, it was voted to adopt a
recommendation of a Negative Declaration to the City Council for hearings related to property located at 1332 South
Grand Avenue, Glendora, CA.

VOTE:             AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito
                  NOES:             None
                  ABSENT:           Henley
                  ABSTAIN:          Workman

Commissioner Murabito moved to recommend denial of ZC 02-02 to the City Council for a change from R-1,
Single-Family Residential to R-2, Restricted Multiple Family Residential for property located at 1332 South Grand
Avenue, Glendora, CA; motion seconded by Commissioner Johnson and carried as follows:

VOTE:             AYES:             Hoeger, Murabito, Johnson
                  NOES:             None
                  ABSENT:           Henley
                  ABSTAIN:          Workman

         Chairman Hoeger announced that the decision of the Planning Commission is a
         recommendation to the City Council.


E.       HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
                 522 East Carroll
                 Kevin and Donna Greer
(1)      Adoption of a Categorical Exemption
(2)      Minor Variance (MV02-29)

Monique Alaniz, Assistant Planner reported.

Chairman Hoeger said the Commission did not receive site plans.

         Chairman Hoeger opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else was
         present and wished to address the Commission

Steven Prince, designer for the project, 1301 Brenda Court, Upland, CA.         This project is to align the proposed
addition with the existing walls.

Kevin Greer, 522 East Carroll Avenue, Glendora, CA. Commissioner Johnson asked what the reason was the
applicant didn’t go 13 feet which would not require entry into the rear yard setback. Mr. Greer replied that he
wanted to match with the wall and give them more room.

Chairman Hoeger wanted it clarified for the applicant how that relates to the existing building and the configuration
on the property. Mr. Wong said the property has adequate size and meets the minimum dimension, minimum lot
depth, and the house can accommodate the proposed addition without seeking a variance. When we come up with
facts supporting or denying the application, such things as economic hardship, the placement of the house,
design/architectural style, are not a consideration. There have been a number of these requests over the years and
staff would like the Commission to instruct staff to come back with an ordinance to allow these types of setbacks
and to align with the existing building line so long as it does not change the character of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Murabito stated that the Commission asked staff to send a letter to the City Council requesting rear
yard setbacks. Mr. Wong replied that staff has done this and the letter has been sent to the City Manager. City
Attorney Leech stated he did not know if staff had an opportunity to evaluate the application applying the non-
conforming structure section 21.03.030 (C ). It might fall within that particular sub-section of the City Ordinance
for the side yard only.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:03 p.m.
Planning Commission reconvened at 9:10 p.m.

Mr. Wong said we have reviewed the code and the non-conforming section refers to existing non-conforming uses
that are permitted to encroach into the required yard setback. In this case it is not germane to this proposed addition.

Mr. Greer asked for an extension on the decision for tonight for about two months.

Upon motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Vice Chairman Workman, it was voted to continue the
hearings related to property located at 522 East Carroll Avenue, Glendora, CA to date certain of April 15, 2003 .


VOTE:             AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                  NOES:             None
                  ABSENT:           Henley
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                   Page 6 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                        Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
F.     HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
               853 East Route 66
               Stan and Nita Young
(1)    Adoption of a Negative Declaration
(2)    Miscellaneous (M02-25)
(3)    Development Plan Review (DPR02-57)
(4)    Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28)

Mario Ornelas, Assistant Planner reported.

         Chairman Hoeger opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else was
         present and wished to address the Commission

Marilyn Richardson, 9546 Del Mar Avenue, Hesperia, CA. Owner of 849 East Route 66 and is against the project.

Stan Young, owner, 853 East Route 66, Glendora, CA. CUP02-28, Condition #5, would create a severe financial
hardship. He is not in favor of the five year demolition of his apartments.

Chairman Hoeger said we could add a condition that staff will work with applicant to provide signage.

Bob Verhoef, representative of the Glendora Chamber of Commerce, 522 North Cullen Avenue, Glendora, CA.
He is in favor of the project.

Michelle Parham, 642 Le Mar Park Drive, Glendora, CA. She is in favor of the project.

         Chairman Hoeger closed the public hearing.

Chairman Hoeger said the Commission agrees that we do not want the condition removing the apartments. In its
place a condition requiring the applicant to work with staff to come up with appropriate or additional signage to
direct traffic to the back.

Upon motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Murabito, it was voted to adopt a
Negative Declaration for hearings related to property located at 853 East Route 66, Glendora, CA.

VOTE:             AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                  NOES:             None
                  ABSENT:           Henley

Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt M02-25 to request a waiver from the Route 66 development moratorium for
property located at 853 East Route 66, Glendora, CA; motion seconded by Vice chairman Workman and carried as
follows:

VOTE:             AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                  NOES:             None
                  ABSENT:           Henley

Commissioner Workman moved to adopt the resolution PC DPR02-57 to allow deficient improvement due to non-
conforming lot located at 853 East Route 66, Glendora, CA. based on Conditions and amended as stated; motion
seconded by Vice Chairman Johnson and carried as follows:

VOTE:             AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                  NOES:             None
                  ABSENT:           Henley

CONDITIONS:

1. The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with Exhibit “DPR02-57”, “CUP02-28” and
    “M02-25) dated February 18, 2003.

2. Approval of Development Plan Review (DPR02-57) is contingent upon the approval of Conditional Use Permit
    (CUP02-28) and Miscellaneous (M02-25).

3. The applicants shall sign a statement indicating agreement and acceptance of the adopted conditions of approval
    prior to issuance of permits.

4. A colors and materials board shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Redevelopment for review
    and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.

5. The applicants shall remove the two parking stalls in front (south) of the commercial building and provide
    landscape within the front setback.

6. The applicants shall re-stripe all parking area.

7. The maximum seating capacity for the restaurant shall not exceed 28 seats.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                                   Page 7 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                                        Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
8. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Redevelopment for review and approval
    prior to issuance of final approval of the project’s building permit. All landscaping shall be installed prior to
    issuance of use.

9. Construction shall commence within 18 months of approval and shall be carried on diligently to completion.

10. The applicant shall provide an exterior lighting plan to the Department of Planning and Redevelopment for
    review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The approved lighting shall be installed prior to
    use.

11. The approval of this permit shall be contingent on approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Any
    changes resulting from requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department shall be submitted to the
    Department of Planning and Redevelopment for review and approval prior to the commencement of
    construction.

12. The approval of this permit shall be contingent on approval by the City’s Building Department. Any changes
    resulting from requirements of the City’s Building Department shall be submitted to the Department of
    Planning and Redevelopment for review and approval prior to the commencement of construction.

13. The development shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

14. The approval of this permit shall be contingent on approval by the City’s Public Works Division. Any changes
    resulting from requirements of the City’s Public Works Division shall be submitted to the Department of
    Planning and Redevelopment for review and approval prior to the commencement of construction.

15. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
    (NPDES).

16. The applicant shall comply with applicable building codes and requirements of the City, County, State, and
    other responsible agencies.

17. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damages to public improvements in the public right-of-
    way resulting from construction-related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery
    of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or from the site.

18. The delivery of materials and equipment and the outdoor use of equipment, hammers, and power tools shall be
    limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with no work allowed on
    Saturdays, Sundays, or Federal holidays with the exception of interior work. Outdoor yard work is permitted as
    long as it does not involve heavy equipment or noise producing equipment.

19. The City shall have the right of entry to inspect the premises to verify compliance with the conditions of
    approval and the Glendora Municipal Code.

20. The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including attorney’s fees, resulting
    form the violation of any conditions of approval or any provision of the Glendora Municipal Code.

21. Any violation of the Zoning Ordinance or any entitlement granted is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a
    fine not to exceed $1000.00 and/or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not to exceed six months.
    Each day or portion of a day during which any violation of the Zoning Ordinance occurs or continues
    constitutes a separate offense and shall be punishable as provided.

22. The applicant shall agree to indemnify, project, defend, and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed
    officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes,
    proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs, and expenses of whatever nature, including
    attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the issuance
    of this entitlement, any actions taken by the City relating to this entitlement, or the environmental review
    conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for
    this entitlement and related actions.

23. The applicant shall with staff to provide adequate signage to control parking and prevent potential customers
    from utilizing unassigned parking stalls. A proposed plan shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and
    Redevelopment prior to the commencement of use.

FINDINGS:

1. The use is authorized pursuant to the Glendora Municipal Code.

FACT: Approval of Non-Conforming Lot Development Plan Review (DPR02-45) will allow the expansion of
existing restaurant facilities on a property zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing. Restaurants are permitted uses in
the CM, Commercial Manufacturing zone pursuant to Section 21.05.010 (C), Table C, of the Glendora Municipal
Code. The applicant is processing concurrently Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28) to maintain existing residential
(non-conforming) uses on-site. Section 21.03.030 (D)(2) specifies that the improvement of any property shall
require that all non-conforming uses be removed or altered to conform to the City’s current Code, unless the
Planning Commission approves a request for a conditional use permit. Approval of Non-Conforming Lot
Development Plan Review (DPR02-57) is contingent to approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28).
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                         Page 8 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                              Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2. The use is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable plans.

FACT: Approval of Non-Conforming Lot Development Plan Review (DPR02-45) will allow the expansion of
existing restaurant facilities on a property zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing which is an implementing zone of
the General Plan land use designation of Business Park for the area. Restaurants are permitted uses in the CM,
Commercial Manufacturing zone pursuant to Section 21.05.010 (C), Table C, of the Glendora Municipal Code.
Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan land. The applicant is processing concurrently
Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28) to maintain existing residential uses (a non-conforming use) on-site. Section
21.03.030 (D)(2) specifies that the improvement of any property shall require that all non-conforming uses be
removed or altered to conform to the City’s current Code, unless the Planning Commission approves a request for a
conditional use permit. Approval of Non-Conforming Lot Development Plan Review (DPR02-57) is contingent to
approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28).

3. Because of the nonconforming condition of the lot, including size, dimension, or configuration, the strict
application of this Title deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under
identical zoning classification.

FACT: The subject property is a non-conforming lot deficient in lot width, which creates a hardship to meet City
code requirements regarding parking, driveway width, and building size. All existing improvements have existed in
its present configuration since 1956 and 1957, including non-conforming improvements. Currently there is no
additional land surrounding the subject property that may be purchased to provide additional room for parking or to
increase the building size or driveway width to meet City standards. In order to comply with the zoning
requirements the applicant would have to demolish the apartment buildings—which will create a hardship because
of the mortgage loan stipulations—and part of the existing commercial building. The removal of any square footage
from the existing building will practically put an end to the proposed project. This request is similar to a similar
request by the Wienerschnitzel restaurant on a non-conforming lot (deficient lot width) located at 509 West Route
66, which was deficient in parking, building size, setbacks, and drive-thru length. The project was approved the
Planning Commission on May 7, 2002. Therefore, approval of the proposed project will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties the vicinity or along the Route 66 corridor.

4. The lot will be adequately served by streets, utilities, and other services, facilities, and improvements.

FACT: The subject property is an existing developed parcel with street frontage Route 66, a major commercial
road. The property is provided with all necessary utilities (water lines, underground electricity, telephone, gas),
facilities (water, sewer, storm drain system), improvements (parking, ingress and egress driveways, fire lanes, fire
hydrants), and other services (fire, police, public works). Approval of the proposed project should not impair
existing infrastructure.

5. The development or improvement of the lot will not adversely affect the character and integrity of the area, the
utility and value of properties in the area, and the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

FACT: The proposed project consists of interior improvements to expand the existing restaurant into a vacant
space within the same commercial building and to revamp the exterior architecture of the building with art deco
architecture. This will upgrade the aesthetics of the property and the exterior architecture of the building, which will
be consistent with the Route 66 theme. Since the existing commercial building is located on the south end of the
lot—fronting Route 66—and the lot is only 50 feet wide, the apartments are not visible from Route 66 given that
they are located at the rear (north end) of the property. Therefore, the approval of the conditional use permit to
maintain the existing residential uses will not create a negative impact in the aesthetics or character of the
surrounding area since the apartments will be obstructed by the commercial buildings and the improvements to the
building will be consistent with the commercial and professional uses along Route 66 and with the Route 66
architectural theme. The deficiency in driveway width is an existing condition that has been in existence since the
late 1950s without any issues. The scope of the project will not change the configuration of existing improvements;
therefore it will not expose the public to a new situation other than what already exists. The existing restaurant use
and hours of operation will remain the same.

6. Approval of the development or improvement of the lot will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

FACT: The subject property is a non-conforming lot deficient in lot width, which creates a hardship to meet City
code requirements regarding parking, driveway width, and building size. All existing improvements have existed in
its present configuration since 1956 and 1957, including non-conforming improvements. Currently there is no
additional land surrounding the subject property that may be purchased to provide additional room for parking or to
increase the building size or driveway width to meet City standards. In order to comply with the zoning
requirements the applicant would have to demolish the apartment buildings—which will create a hardship because
of the mortgage loan stipulations—and part of the existing commercial building. The removal of any square footage
from the existing building will practically put an end to the proposed project. This request is similar to a similar
request by the Wienerschnitzel restaurant on a non-conforming lot (deficient lot width) located at 509 West Route
66, which was deficient in parking, building size, setbacks, and drive-thru length. The project was approved the
Planning Commission on May 7, 2002. Therefore, approval of the proposed project will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties the vicinity or along the Route 66 corridor.

Commissioner Johnson moved to adopt the resolution PC CUP02-28 to allow expansion of a non-conforming
restaurant use and maintaining a residential use for property located at 853 East Route 66, Glendora, CA. based on
Conditions and amended as stated; motion seconded by Vice Chairman Workman and carried as follows:

VOTE:             AYES:              Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                  NOES:              None
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                   Page 9 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                        Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
              ABSENT:         Henley

CONDITIONS:

1. The subject property shall be developed in substantial conformance with Exhibit “DPR02-57”, “CUP02-28” and
    “M02-25) dated February 18, 2003.

2. Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28) is contingent upon the approval of Development Plan Review
    (DPR02-57) and Miscellaneous (M02-25).

3. The City and its Planning Commission and City Council retain the right and the jurisdiction to review this
    Conditional Use Permit in the event the use herein is modified, changed in scope, or the owner or operator seeks
    to expand, alter, reconfigure, or change the use. This reservation of the right of review of the conditional Use
    permit issued hereunder is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission, and
    City council to review and revoke the Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28) or to modify the permit for any
    violations of the conditions imposed.

4. The applicant shall work with the City’s Department of Public Works to provide adequate signage to improve
    the safety of the drive-way.

5. The applicants shall sign a statement indicating agreement and acceptance of the adopted conditions of approval
    prior to issuance of permits.

6. The City shall have the right of entry to inspect the premises to verify compliance with the conditions of
    approval and the Glendora Municipal Code.

7. The property owner shall pay the costs of any code enforcement activities, including attorney’s fees, resulting
    form the violation of any conditions of approval or any provision of the Glendora Municipal Code.

8. Any violation of the Zoning Ordinance or any entitlement granted is considered a misdemeanor punishable by a
    fine not to exceed $1000.00 and/or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not to exceed six months.
    Each day or portion of a day during which any violation of the Zoning Ordinance occurs or continues
    constitutes a separate offense and shall be punishable as provided.

9. The applicant shall agree to indemnify, project, defend, and hold harmless the City and its elected and appointed
    officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all liabilities, claims, actions, causes,
    proceedings, suits, damages, judgments, liens, levies, costs, and expenses of whatever nature, including
    attorney’s fees and disbursements (collectively, “Claims”) arising out of or in any way relating to the issuance
    of this entitlement, any actions taken by the City relating to this entitlement, or the environmental review
    conducted under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., for
    this entitlement and related actions.

FINDINGS:

1. The use is authorized by conditional use permit pursuant to the Glendora Municipal Code.

FACT: The proposed project is to allow the expansion of an existing restaurant and the preservation of existing
residential (non-conforming) uses on a property zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing. Restaurants are permitted
uses in the CM, Commercial Manufacturing zone pursuant to Section 21.05.010 (C), Table C, of the Glendora
Municipal Code. Section 21.03.030 (D)(2) specifies that the improvement of any property shall require that all non-
conforming uses be removed or altered to conform to the City’s current Code, unless the Planning Commission
approves a request for a conditional use permit. Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28) by the Planning
Commission will allow the preservation of existing residential (non-conforming) uses on-site.

2. The use is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable plans.

FACT: The proposed project is to allow the expansion of an existing restaurant and the preservation of existing
residential (non-conforming) uses on a property zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing, which is an implementing
zone of the General Plan land use designation of Business Park for the area. Restaurants are permitted uses in the
CM, Commercial Manufacturing zone pursuant to Section 21.05.010 (C), Table C, of the Glendora Municipal Code.
Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan land. Section 21.03.030 (D)(2) specifies that the
improvement of any property shall require that all non-conforming uses be removed or altered to conform to the
City’s current Code, unless the Planning Commission approves a request for a conditional use permit. Approval of
Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28) by the Planning Commission will allow the preservation of existing residential
(non-conforming) uses on-site.

3. The site can accommodate all of the required development standards.

FACT: All existing improvements have existed in its present configuration since 1956 and 1957, including non-
conforming improvements. The proposed project is to allow the expansion of an existing restaurant and the
preservation of existing residential (non-conforming) uses on a property zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing.
Due to the non-conformity of the lot, the proposed project will include some deficient improvements since there is
no additional land surrounding the subject property that may be purchased to provide additional room to meet City
standards. The applicant is processing concurrently Non-Conforming Lot Development Plan Review (DPR02-57) in
conjunction with Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28) to allow the expansion of the restaurant with some deficient
improvements because of the non-conformity of the lot. The Planning Commission will review both applications
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                                          Page 10 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                                                Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________
concurrently. Conditional Use Permit (CUP02-28) is contingent to the approval of Non-Conforming Lot
Development Plan Review (DPR02-57).
4. The site is adequately served by streets, utilities, and other services, facilities, and improvements.

FACT: The subject property is an existing developed parcel with street frontage Route 66, a major commercial
road. The property is provided with all necessary utilities (water lines, underground electricity, telephone, gas),
facilities (water, sewer, storm drain system), improvements (parking, ingress and egress driveways, fire lanes, fire
hydrants), and other services (fire, police, public works). Approval of the proposed project should not impair
existing infrastructure.

5. The use will not adversely affect the character and integrity of the area; the utility and value of properties in the
area; and the health, safety, and welfare of the public.

FACT: The proposed project is to allow the expansion of an existing restaurant and the preservation of existing
residential (non-conforming) uses on a property zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing. The project consists of
interior improvements to expand the existing restaurant into a vacant space within the same commercial building
and to revamp the exterior architecture of the building with art deco architecture. This will upgrade the aesthetics of
the property and the exterior architecture of the building, which will be consistent with the Route 66 theme. Since
the existing commercial building is located on the south end of the lot—fronting Route 66—and the lot is only 50
feet wide, the apartments are not visible from Route 66 given that they are located at the rear (north end) of the
property. Therefore, the approval of the conditional use permit to maintain the existing residential uses will not
create a negative impact in the aesthetics or character of the surrounding area since the apartments will be obstructed
by the commercial buildings and the improvements to the building will be consistent with the commercial and
professional uses along Route 66 and with the Route 66 architectural theme.

         Chairman Hoeger announced that the decision of the Planning Commission is final unless
         appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Council.


G.       HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
                 310 South Vermont Avenue
                 Hal Reynolds
(1)      Adoption of a Negative Declaration
(2)      Conditional Use Permit (CUP03-04)

Mario Ornelas, Assistant Planner reported.

Upon motion by Commissioner Murabito and seconded by Vice Chairman Workman, it was voted to continue the
hearings related to property located at 310 South Vermont Avenue, Glendora, CA. to a date certain of March 4,
2003.

VOTE:             AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                  NOES:             None
                  ABSENT:           Henley


I.       HEARINGS RELATED TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT:
              City Wide
              City of Glendora

Monique Alaniz, Assistant Planner reported.

Vice Chairman Workman would like to see some kind of regulation on animals on the premises.

Commissioner Johnson asked about uniformed security. Mr. Wong replied that he would like to see it wait for the
CUP review.

Commissioner Johnson said when we look at the CUP he would like to see something about medical services.

Commissioner Murabito said that insurance would be covered under the CUP as well.

Chairman Hoeger said she was asked why we are making a recommendation to amend the residential zone and why
schools are under single family residences. Her suggestion is that when we do the zoning code up-date that we take
public facilities and put them in a public facilities zone. Mr. Wong said after the zone amendment staff can come
back with a memo asking the Commission to direct staff to initiate a new land use designation for all schools
followed by a new zoning designation .

         Chairman Hoeger opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant or anyone else was
         present and wished to address the Commission

There was no one present.

         Chairman Hoeger closed the public hearing.

Upon motion by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Murabito, it was voted to recommend
adoption of a Negative Declaration to the City Council for hearings related to property located at City Wide,
Glendora, CA.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING                                                  Page 11 of 11
MINUTES OF February 18 , 2003                                        Approved March 18, 2003
__________________________________________________________________________________________

VOTE:            AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                 NOES:             None
                 ABSENT:           Henley

Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend adoption of Zone Amendment ZA02-07 to the City Council for
property located at City wide, Glendora, CA; motion seconded by Vice Chairman Workman and carried as follows:

VOTE:            AYES:             Hoeger, Johnson, Murabito, Workman
                 NOES:             None
                 ABSENT:           Henley

        Chairman Hoeger announced that the decision of the Planning Commission is a
        recommendation to the City Council.


CONSENT CALENDAR -                 None


NEW BUSINESS:             -        None


STAFF ITEMS

Mr. Wong said that next Tuesday staff from Vector Control will be talking about the mosquitoes. Later they will be
address the Nile River Virus


COMMISSION ITEMS

Chairman Hoeger said the Commission directs staff to initiate a General Plan amendment to the City Council
regarding the property on Grand. Mr. Wong answered that staff will come back with a report.


ADJOURNMENT

Upon motion by Chairman Hoeger, it was unanimously voted to adjourn at 10:07 p.m.




S. Wong
Secretary

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:18
posted:1/29/2012
language:English
pages:11
jianghongl jianghongl http://
About