Planning commission continues hearing on proposed 3,000‑square‑foot garage, directs staff to prepare approving resolution

The Jurupa Valley Planning Commission on a voice vote continued a public hearing on MA 24173, a proposal to construct a 3,000‑square‑foot metal garage behind an existing single‑family home, and directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval for presentation at the commission's May 28 meeting.

The proposal, presented by Senior Planner Renee Aguilar, would place a prefabricated metal building in the rear yard of a property the staff presentation located near Laminate Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. Aguilar said the structure would measure about 3,000 square feet, have a gabled brown roof, four roll‑up doors and a maximum height of 16 feet 2 inches. The existing lot currently contains a roughly 1,600‑square‑foot single‑story house, an existing garage/carport and a swimming pool, and staff reported the lot depth is about 310 feet (approximately a half‑acre).

Why this matters: Commissioners said the size and visual mass of a large accessory building can affect neighbors' views and neighborhood character. Staff told the commission the Community Development Director required the item be heard by the Planning Commission under section 9.24033 because of potential impacts on immediate surrounding neighbors.

Staff findings and notices: Aguilar told commissioners the project meets the city's A‑1 zone and the community's country neighborhood land use designation. Staff reported the average permitted accessory structure in a neighborhood survey was about 1,337 square feet and that eight permitted accessory structures were identified in the surrounding area. Notices were mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet, and the item was published in the Press‑Enterprise on May 3; staff said no public comments were received during the noticing period but that the applicant had obtained written acknowledgements from immediate neighbors noting potential impacts (noise, dust, traffic/parking).

Environmental and code review: Staff said the project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for new construction of small structures (Class 3/Section 15303) and that, if approved, a notice of exemption would be filed. Aguilar also described standard building‑permit inspections and code‑compliance checks the applicant must pass during construction.

Applicant comments: Applicant Antonio Gonzales addressed the commission and said the structure is intended to store recreational vehicles and equipment, saying, “Basically, the structure of the garage is for my recreational toys, boat, jet ski, quads in my truck, and ... a few construction tools that I just need to keep away from the sun.” He confirmed the building will not contain plumbing or a kitchen and that he does not intend to use it for a business.

Questions and staff clarifications: Commissioners asked about the parcel configuration (including references to addresses shown on imagery as 6506 and 6500 Charles Avenue), driveway backup space (a 20‑foot backup area on the plan), drainage (staff said engineered grades direct runoff to the street and away from neighbors), foundation/compaction (building department would enforce California Building Code requirements), and utilities (no water is proposed; limited electrical for lights anticipated). Staff said the structure would be placed on a concrete slab and that the prefabricated metal building would be delivered and assembled on site (the applicant estimated the structural assembly itself would take about a week, with additional time for sitework, concrete curing and inspections).

Deliberation and action: Commissioners said their principal concerns — noticing, drainage and compliance with setbacks and height limits in the A‑1 zone — had been addressed by staff and the applicant's neighbor consents. A motion to continue the public hearing and direct staff to present a resolution recommending approval at a future Planning Commission meeting carried on a voice vote (“Aye”; no opposition; one commissioner absent). The commission specified the matter be continued to the May 28 meeting for the resolution to be considered.

Next steps: The continuance directs staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval for consideration on May 28. Final project approval will occur only if and when the Planning Commission adopts the resolution at that later meeting and all required building permits and inspections are completed.