Loading...
09/15/2005 I I I Community and Economic Development (ALIfORNIA Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION (9D9) 824-6621 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING September 15, 2005 The reqular meetinq of the Grand Terrace Planninq Commission was called to order at the.Grand Terrace Civic Center. 22795 Barton Road. Grand Terrace, California, on - September 15. 2005. at 7:00 p.m.. by Chairperson Douq Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Tom Comstock, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Michelle Boustedt, Planning Secretary ABSENT: None 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bidney • Roll Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE ITEMS: 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 4, 2005 MOTION PC-37-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes of August 4, 2005. Commissioner Comstock seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-37-2005: Approved 3-0-0-2 Commissioner Whitley Abstained Commissioner Bidney Abstained 1 2. Planning Commission.Meeting Minutes of August 18, 2005 MOTION PC-38-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes-of August 18, 2005. Commissioner Comstock seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-38-2005: Approved 4-0-0-1 Commissioner Bidney Abstained 3. CUP-05-06, E-05-19: CUP-05-06 and E-05-19 have been filed for an amateur radio antenna structure consisting of a tower-mast and "yagi" antenna. APPLICANT: Hans Ehlert and Eleanor Keeling Ehlert LOCATION: 22830 Lark Street (The subject site is located on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Lark Street and Crane Street. RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, take testimony, close the Public Hearing and approve the Resolution for Approval for CUP-05-06 as recommended by Staff. Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his staff report. The Applicant's have filed for an approval of an amateur radio antenna structure consisting of a "yagi" antenna on top of a tower mast located on a single family lot on the corner of Lark and Crane Streets. The subject lot contains over 7,400 square feet of area. The lot is presently occupied by a two story house which was constructed about four to five years ago. Properties in the immediate surrounding areas are zoned for single family uses and are developed as such. The amateur radio antenna structure is currently erected on the easterly side of the house, near the corner side yard of the house. This structure was erected in late May to early June of this year. A stop-work notice was issued by the City's Building and Safety Department on June 1st of this year as a building permit had not been issued for the tower mast and antenna. Currently, the City of Grand Terrace has no specific zoning ordinance which regulates amateur radio antenna structure or for what is commonly called ham radio antennas. However Section 18.06.020 of the Zoning Code defines accessory structures as including "antennas, radios, and other towers and satellite dishes". The Staffs opinion is that this request falls within that definition. Further in the Zoning Code in Section 1810.040 in Footnote "D", it stipulates that the height of an accessory structure shall not exceed 20 feet. However, it does note that an exception to the height limit may be granted by the Planning Commission through a Conditional Use Permit process. 2 The site plan that was prepared by the Applicant shows the location of the antenna as indicated on the easterly side of the house. There is an existing concrete foundation structure measuring about five feet by five feet, to support the structure,where the tower is presently located. _ The actual foundation is located just outside of the corner side yard, the antenna overhangs in the fifteen foot corner side yard. Construction plans for the house revealed a grading plan which showed the grading that took place on the site including the' footprint of the existing house, retaining walls, and spot elevations that may be useful on discussions with regard to this project. The elevations showing the applicant's original request shows the height of the tower to be called out as 30 feet, and 6 1/2 inches. The yagi antenna will be a little over 24 feet off of the ground. A field inspection made by Staff on August 8, 2005, revealed that the tower was capable of being raised to a higher elevation. A wench or crank could be used to raise the antenna to a higher elevation. The Applicant indicated that he did not need any greater height and had no plans to raise the antenna. The Planning Commission was provided with a description of a yagi antenna. The antenna was developed by Mr. Yagi in Japan in the 1920's and was extensively used by allied forces in World War II. The amateur radio antenna as proposed by the applicant as an accessory structure is categorically exempt by the California Environmental Quality Act and it does fall under a Class III Categorical Exemption which does allow for accessory structures for residential uses. In the mid 1980's the Federal Communication Commission issued an order that local governments could regulate amateur installations to insure public safety and health of persons in the Community, but could not enact regulations which were so restrictive that they precluded effective amateur communications. This ruling was known as the limited Federal Preemption Rule or the "PPR1" Rule. It .is the Staffs understanding that through extensive lobbying activities by ham radio operators throughout the country, many States, including California which passed Assembly Bill Number 1228 adopted this rule. It passed both houses in the State Legislature and was signed by the Governor in July 2003. That particular law states that "Any ordinance adopted by the Legislative Body of a City or County.that regulates amateur radio station antenna structures shall allow those structures to be erected at heights and dimensions efficient to accommodate amateur radio service communications, and shall constitute the minimum practical regulation to accomplish the City or County's legitimate purpose. The City Attorney was contacted with regard to this Law and how it may apply to this particular project. The City Attorney has commented that based upon the law, the Commission does not have the option of denying this request. This request can be approved with some restrictions but they must be within the parameters of the law with the minimum practical regulations. It is Staffs opinion the minimum practical regulations fall within two main areas: Public safety and the visual appearance/aesthetics of the installation. Public safety will be easy to deal with and will be handled with the requirement in which the applicant will have to file for 3 a building permit and will have to go through plan check and submit structural drawings to insure structural soundness and can withstand what ever wind load is projected for this structure. The plan check process will take place presumably after the Planning Commission acts on this request. The aesthetics on the project would focus primarily on the height of the tower mast and the size and appearance of the .antenna and installation. The Applicant indicated that the antenna needed to be a certain height above the ground in order to be able to broadcast and be able to receive radio signals effectively. When the site was visited in early August, the applicant indicated that he would be willing to move the tower and installation to the back of the house in order to placate some of the criticism that was coming from the neighbors about the installation. The approved construction drawings for the residence show that the roof line of the house measures about 22 feet in height. Staff felt that it would be a good idea to move the facility to the back of the house to screen as much of the tower as possible and to keep it away from the public right of way on Lark Street. Further mitigation of the visual impacts of the facility could be achieved by acquiring additional landscaping along the westerly, northerly and easterly property lines of the residence through appropriate landscaping. The National Association for Amateur Radio was contacted as well as Amateur Electronics Supply, who was recommended to us by Mr. Vic Pfenninghousen who is also a ham radio operator and is the Chairman of the Emergency Operations Committee for the City of Grand Terrace. Both sources informed Staff that a small antenna, even though it may be less visually intensive, would not be as effective as the proposed yagi antenna. One small antenna design reviewed by Staff contains more elements on it and seems to be visually less pleasing than what the applicant is proposing. At this time, the Staff recommends that the original yagi antenna be a part of the recommendation for the project. A Resolution of Approval was prepared for this project in support of moving the antenna to the back of the house and limiting the height as shown in the original drawing to 30 1/2 feet. The Applicant did provide Staff with a critique of the staffs recommendation earlier this week. The applicant informed Staff that the antenna rotates in order to pick up more sensitive signals. Should the antenna be rotated, the facility would come to within three feet of the northerly property line. The applicant also feels that the antenna be kept in its same location because it was his understanding that most of the criticism is coming from the people who live on Kentfield Street and will further aggravate those resident's objections to the appearance of the.antenna. The applicant is also objecting to the condition of the requirement of additional landscape screening in the back of the property line. He does not feel that it is appropriate for the proposed use. The applicant also feels that when the antenna is rotated from the current location, it will stay farther away from the northerly property line. The recommendation of limiting the height to 30 1/2 feet has also been objected by the applicant. A drawing has been provided to show the height of the tower to be raised to 75 4 feet. Theoretically, the height increased could be allowed under the Conditional Use Permit to modify the height of the accessory structure. The City Attorney was contacted, and it is his advice that the original notice for this hearing was not broad enough to include the 75 foot increase, and if the Commission would like to consider allowing a height increase than what was originally applied for, the matter should be continued and renoticed, so that anyone who might have a concern with the height of 75 feet will get adequate notice. The City Attorney also advised that the specific issue of whether this case should be -approved or denied based on alleged radio interference by the neighboring residences could not be considered, and those types of issues and complaints should be referred to the Federal Communications Commission. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report. Vice Chair Addington asked with regard to the response made by the City Attorney regarding interference complaints of citizens. Can the Federal Communications Commission perform any type of enforcement of such violations or are the citizens required to read the back of appliances that states that all interference must be accepted. Associate Planner Lampe replied that he had researched a series of web pages for people to make complaints via telephone or email. It is unclear what the remedies would be. Vice Chair Addington feels that should this request be approved, a City Code Enforcement Officer would be able to handle the situation fairly quickly. It is a concern that should it be handled by the FCC, such complaints would not be handled right away. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the City Attorney did state that such issues would have to be handled by the Federal Communications Commission. The Staff has contact information for the FCC, should someone have such a complaint. Vice Chair Addington asked with proposed Condition Number 13. The landscaping would have to be done to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Is there any type of idea of what type of landscaping is being required? Associate Planner Lampe replied that the landscaping would be something like a fast growing plant like a cypress leyandi or canary island pine that has a .tall silhouette and would be a minimum of 15 gallon in size. At this time, as the applicant wants to keep the antenna at the side of the residence, in the same location, the necessity of landscaping the westerly and northerly property lines would not be as important. Vice Chair Addington asked if the building setback that is required applies to accessory structures. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the setback requirements do apply to accessory structures, however, the antenna which occupies air space is not subject to set back requirements. We cannot regulate air space. The only portion of the structure that is attached to the ground is the tower, and as long as the tower is within the setback limits, we have no recourse for the antenna portion. 5 Chair Wilson asked with regard to the present position of the tower structure, does it fall within the proper setbacks? Associate Planner Lampe replied that at this time, the tower is just beyond the 15 foot side yard, so that the mast itself is beyond the 15 foot setback for a corner side yard. Vice Chair Addington asked if the mast was hanging over the public right of way. Associate Planner Lampe replied that he does not think that it does not.,lie over the public right of way, but if it is rotated, it probably could hang over the right.of way. The City Attorney was contacted, and he advised that as long as the antenna does not create a safety issue, by being over the right of way, that it cannot be regulated as we cannot. regulate airspace. Vice Chair Addington asked if street trees are within the public right of way, and would those be considered a public safety issue. Associate Planner Lampe replied that there are no street trees in the area. Chair Wilson asked Associate Planner Lampe if he wanted to confirm that the Applicant now wants to raise_ the tower higher than what was originally applied for in the original application? Associate Planner Lampe confirmed this question by stating that the applicant would like to further raise his antenna to 75 feet. The applicant had advised of a possible continuance. Commissioner Comstock asked if the applicant wants to raise the tower to 75 feet, would he also have to remove the existing structure and re construct the entire tower. Associate Planner Lampe replied that he was unsure of this, and'it would be a question that should be raised with the applicant. Commissioner Whitley asked what would be the opinion of the City Attorney in terms of the Commission's authority to regulate a 75 foot tower height. As he reviewed the materials that were provided, there is some authority, that can be kept to establish reasonable parameters as to whether or not having the tower of 75 feet is necessary to obtain the necessary reception, or could the reception could be obtained at a lower height such as 40 feet. Would the Commission have the authority to say that it can be restricted to 40 feet if the applicant can get appropriate reception at that level? Associate Planner Lampe replied that the City Attorney feels that the burden of proof would fall upon the applicant. Should the applicant feel that he cannot get the proper reception at 40 feet, whatever the Commission comes up with, he would have to prove this. One of the issues that the applicant is trying to show is should the antenna be raised to 75 feet, the interference would greatly decrease among the neighbors appliances. The applicant had originally informed Associate Planner. Lampe that it was not his intention to raise the antenna at all, but has changed his mind since the filing of the application in June. - Chair Wilson opened up the Public Hearing. 6 Eleanor Keeling Ehlert-Applicant 22830 Lark Street Mrs. Ehlert explained that a ham radio operator is FCC licensed and must undergo several tests and to learn Morse code. Once the operator is licensed, it is the responsibility of the operator to serve for emergency purposes. Ham radio operators work with emergency agencies during disasters. Mr. Ehlert is not set up to do as such as yet, but he is set up to join Radio Amateur Emergency Services for Southern California. The current tower is capable of broadcasting when there is no telephone or cell services available. None of the equipment that they own is tax deductible, and there is no way of earning any money. When a tower height is raised, a 75% increase in reception results. So in case of an emergency, the reception is better. The concrete design has been certified by the Civil Engineers of California and it is a 6 foot deep by 5 foot by 5 foot foundation. It has been made to withstand 100 mile per hour winds. These towers are designed to withstand disasters so that communication could be made after a disaster hits. Vice Chair Addington asked how high can the tower be winched? Hans Ehlert-Applicant 22830 Lark Street Mr. Ehlert replied that the tower can be winched to 55 feet. Commissioner Comstock asked how many watts was the base station for the tower, and are there any future plans for upgrade and increase of wattage. Mr. Ehlert replied that it currently uses 100 watts. The increase or upgrade would depend upon the height of the antenna. Legally, the tower could be upgraded to 1500 watts. The lower the tower sits, the higher the possibility of interference. Commissioner Comstock asked if it was Mr. Ehlert's plan to keep the station at 100 watts. Mr. Ehlert replied that at this time he has no plans of increasing the wattage. Commissioner Comstock asked why a permit was never pulled to install the structure. Mr. Ehlert replied that he had called the Planning Department in February of 2005 and inquired what the requirement,was with regard to obtaining a permit for the structure. He was told that the City had no ordinance which governs an antenna use structure. Three weeks later, an email was sent to the Planning Department with regard to obtaining permits, to which a response was made that if the antenna were to stay at 35 feet, no permit was required. Associate Planner Lampe replied that it was to his understanding based on a drawing that was reviewed that the tower would be 55 feet high, and because of the height, that a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Chair Wilson commented that there are specific items in the Building Code that are classed as accessory structures and not all accessory structures are itemized to have foundations 7 nor are they always classified as ,requiring a permit. If there has .been discussion with regard, to this accessory structure, there would have been a possibility that this would not have fit under our code because it's not specifically covered under our code. Associate Planner Lampe replied that when the City's Building Official was contacted, this particular instance would require a building permit no matter how high the structure is. It would be the City's responsibility to make sure that it would be structurally sound. The stop work order was issued because a building permit had not been obtained. Lindy Ward 22825 Kentfield Street Mrs. Ward states she is the northernmost property owners from the site. She provided some photographs for the Commission to see how the antenna obstructs their view from their back yard. Mrs. Ward also has a concern with regard to the width of the antenna. It was her wish that the Ehlerts' would have come to them to talk about what they were proposing to do, especially with regard to how the antenna would impact their view. Mrs. Ward also stated that one summer ago, Mr. Ehlert had lit his back yard on fire to eradicate weeds rather than to mow them. In her opinion, Mr. Ehlert has not expressed any type of safety mindedness by doing such a thing, and she does not foresee him being any more safety minded in the future. At the present time, the tower is brand new and is shiny. But what will the tower look like in a few years. Will the tower be kept up or will it become rusty and un kempt looking. Mrs. Ward contacted a realtor in which the realtor has implied that the antenna has effected the value of her property greatly. Mrs. Ward also feels that if the tower is not earthquake safe, the tower would topple onto their property. If the antenna is moved to the rear of the Ehlert's residence, it would be extremely close to their property line. At this time, there is interference on her Son's cell phone and there is interference as well on various neighbor's baby monitors. Vice Chair Addington asked if Mrs. Ward was the neighbor to the rear of the subject property. Mrs. Ward replied that she was in fact the neighbor to the rear of the Ehlerts. r Vice Chair Addington asked if Mrs. Ward is against the antenna being moved to the rear. Mrs. Ward felt that she hated to make a selfish decision, but it will affect their property in a negative manner. Mrs. Ward was pleased to see that the City was willing to require landscape screening, but they will also have to pay for landscaping as well. Jesus C. Morga 22810 Kentfield Street Mr. Morga stated that he lives directly across from Mr. and Mrs. Ward. Mr. Morga is in agreement with everything that Mrs. Ward has stated, but he only sees the top of the antenna from his residence, and would hate to see it going any higher. 8 Mr. Morga also stated that when they bought their residence in this neighborhood there were no telephone poles located on the street. Mr. Morga admitted that he was the resident that had called the fire department when Mr. Ehlert had lit his back yard on fire. When Mr. Ehlert was erecting the antenna, Mr. Morga had walked down the street and stood at the fence line and let Mr. Ehlert know that he had made many neighbors very unhappy. Mr. Morga stated that Mr. Ehlert's response was "Oh well." Mark Cukota 22815 Kentfield Street Mr. Cukota lives to the north of the subject site. He is in agreement with Mrs. Ward and feels that the antenna is a visual nuisance in the area. Mr. Cukota has spoken to several real estate professionals who specialize in Grand Terrace, and have both mentioned to him that the antenna has and will effect the property values of houses directly surrounding it. Should there be any sort of structural problem with the antenna structure, his four year old son plays in their back yard, and could lead to a tragedy, and he would not want to see the antenna moved to the rear of the property. Mr. Cukota is also part of an EOC team and is directly involved and is well aware of what ham radio operators can and cannot do. The.opposition of the neighborhood is not against ham radio operators, but. rather the visual nuisance that the antenna poses to the neighborhood and also it could be a possible safety hazard should the antenna ever fall. _ Pictures were also submitted by Mr. Cukota to the Planning Commission with regard to the _ view from his back yard with the antenna as a visual. James A. Hodder 22253 Van Buren Street Mr. Hodder has been a resident of the City for 27 years. He is a member of the EOC for the City of Grand Terrace and helped to write the first Emergency Operations plan for the City. Mr. Hodder is in the hopes that the City stays friendly to all ham radio operators. Mario Mendoza 22825 Lark Street Mr. Mendoza lives directly south from the Ehlerts. Mr. Mendoza had met Mr. Ehlert the day the antenna was erected when he came acrossed the street and introduced himself and told Mr. Mendoza the specifics of the antenna. At that time, Mr. Mendoza had a concern with regard to the rest of the neighbors liking the antenna or disliking the antenna. Mr. Ehlert had replied that he did not care what the other neighbors felt about the antenna because there was nothing they could do about it. Mr. Mendoza wanted to state that he has nothing against ham radio operators, but being a former Riverside County and Forest Service wild land firefighter,, he has the same capacity to be a first respondent and also has the capacity to reach people in case of an emergency, without interfering with anyone's view. Mr. Mendoza feels that Mr. Ehlert's hobby is 9 outdated and there are many other ways of keeping his hobby with more modern technology- R. Todd Thall 22810 Lark Street Mr. Thall states that he lives two houses down on the same side of the ,Ehlerts. His concern has already been addressed by other people .and feels that the antenna is an eyesore and is concerned about his property values. Gene LaRochelle 22820 Lark Street Mr. LaRochelle lives next door to Mr. and Mrs. Ehlert. He understands that it is the responsibility to accommodate- ham radio operators, but he is concerned with an unapproved foundation with a 75 foot tower. Mr. LaRochelle had many concerns with regard to the winds in Grand Terrace and how it may affect the neighborhood should the antenna not be stable enough to withstand such winds. Should the antenna topple over, who will be responsible for any damage that has been created. Jo Stringfield 22273 Barton Road Ms. Stringfield does not live in the neighborhood, but she read an article in the newspaper with regard to the hearing. She contacted the Ehlerts and had discussed the antenna with Mr. and Mrs. Ehlert. Currently, there are 700,000 license_d ham radio operators in the United States and 2.5 Million all over the world. Amateur radio operators also have-their own satellite systems that may be used-as well. Aid is provided through ham radio operators when there is a communication overload as well. Ms. Stringfield is hoping that the Commission allows Mr. Ehlert to keep the antenna in the same location. Jorge M. Arreguin 12547 Crane Street Mr. Arreguin was present to support the neighbors who are against the antenna project. He has concerns with antenna being lifted to 75 feet. Bobbie Forbes 11850 Burns Avenue Ms. Forbes reported that she is a realtor, and that she is not the only realtor that has spoken to the neighborhood. This neighborhood is one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Grand Terrace besides the Honey Hills area. Ms. Forbes does have concerns with regards to the antenna. 10 Ms. Forbes feels that the antenna will deter people from purchasing in the neighborhood. Although she is unaware how it will affect the value of the homes, she feels that it will keep many people from purchasing when any of the homes in the area go on.the market. Ms. Forbes recalls when she sold a home in a certain area, there were CC&R's that stated that a ham radio antenna tower could not be over a certain height. Ms. Forbes feels that ham radio operation is a tremendous service, however, such an antenna should probably be in a different neighborhood. Jeffrey McConnell 21758 Walnut Mr. McConnell wanted to know what services or operations the City of Grand Terrace furnishes in case of an emergency. Eileen Shumate 12710'Dickens Court Mrs. Shumate felt that a compromise should be made with regard to the project. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Comstock reported that he lives next to two ham radio operators, and there have been times where the ham radio transmission interference has constantly interrupted their television, radio and cell phone operations: Many of the residents who are current ham radio operators have had positive things to say with regard to ham radio operation, however, natural disasters rarely happen in this area. Most of the people within the community that live in close proximity to ham radio operations, feel they are an aggravation. Commissioner Comstock read a portion of the executive summary which states, "as in not so inconsequential side benefit, moving an antenna higher will also. greatly reduce the potential of exposure to electro magnetic fields from neighboring humans and animals." The Commissioner considers the antenna to be a health and safety issue and doesn't feel that a service is being done to the community. The Commission as a governing body is only given a couple of options. At this point, electro magnetic fields are a health and safety concern, and Commissioner Comstock wanted,to voice his opposition to the project. Vice Chair Addington asked staff with regard to the photographs that were provided by the residents. The photographs have shown that the mast has been raised. It appears that the photographs illustrate that the antenna is much higher than what has been presented. Prior to this meeting, has the applicant been restricted from raising the antenna? Associate Planner Lampe replied that the applicant has not been given any approvals for the project, and has not been 'given a height limit. The height that was in the staff report was based on the original drawing that was submitted by the applicant. The photographs seem to show the antenna higher than what is illustrated. The City currently does not have an ordinance which regulates ham radio operation antennas. There is a definition that classifies this structure as an accessory structure, and. 11 there are provisions in the zoning code that state an accessory structure can only be 20 feet in height but that the Planning Commission has an option of modifying that height limit through a conditional use permit hearing, which was the basis for this hearing. Vice Chair Addington asked what the environmental assessment entails. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the environmental assessment was based upon an accessory structure. CEQA has various categorical exemption categories in which Class III does allow for accessory structure for residential uses to be categorically exempt. Chair Wilson asked if the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the antenna is considered categorically exempt under CEQA. Chair Wilson asked with regard to, the request, the applicant has requested the consideration for a specific height, and specific conditions in order to be able to construct the antenna even though the antenna has already been constructed. At this point, there is an impasse that the applicant is not willing to accept the conditions. Therefore, the only reasonable recourse that the Commission has is to continue the item until there is a consensus. Planning Director Koontz replied that if the Commission so wishes to the continue the item, research can be done with other cities that contain antenna ordinances to find out what other cities have done. We may be able to use the other Cities ordinances and come up with conditions based upon those other ordinances: Vice Chair Addington asked if the fifteen conditions that have been written by staff for the antenna project become violated, does the City have the right to tell the applicant to remove the antenna and tower. Associate Planner Lampe replied that as long as the conditions fall within the authority we have, which would be public safety and visual impacts of the project, they may be enforced without question. Chair Wilson states that if the antenna would be classified as an accessory structure, and is allowed by a conditional use permit, and should one violate the conditions of the conditional use permit, then the conditional use permit can be revoked. The applicant would still be allowed to use a ham radio, but the applicant would also be required to remove the accessory structure, should he violate the conditional use permit. Vice Chair Addington asked what the maximum height of the antenna is at current. Hans Ehlert-Applicant 22830 Lark Street Mr. Ehlert stated that the tower is made by US Tower Corporation. It is a commercially built tower made for ham radio operators and is retractable to 21 feet at the top of the tower and can be extended to 55 feet to the top of the tower. 12 The tower has a top plate with a truss bearing which .can be any length. In this case, it is a 12 foot mast. The antenna is mounted two feet above the bottom of the tower. If the proposed drawing is used with the 1 inch whip that is being requested would total 75 feet. Vice Chair Addington asked the applicant if .he intended on raising the tower to the maximum height. Mr. Ehlert replied that he did intend on raising the tower at certain times. Commissioner Comstock asked the applicant what his normal hours of operation were. Mr., Ehlert replied that it depends on when the radio bands are open. Mostly during the early morning hours around 3:00 am to 9:00 am. Vice Chair Addington asked staff should the Commission choose to continue the item, and continue.with the recently requested height of 75 feet, how long is the public review period. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the item would have to be re-advertised. MOTION PC-39-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to Continue CUP-05-06, E-05-19 to the November 17, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Wilson seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-39-2005: 4-1-0-0 Commissioner Comstock Voting No 4. SA-04-02, SA-04-03, SA-04-04, SA-04-05, TTM-04-01, SP-04-02 E-04-01: Continued Public Hearing for an approximately 2 acre vacant area consisting of two parcels. APPLICANT: Massaro &Welsh, Civil Engineers LOCATION: North side of De Berry Street between the Gage Canal on the west and Mt. Vernon on the east. RECOMMENDATION: Re-open the Public Hearing an receive the Staff Report and any testimony, close the Hearing and Approve the Resolution calling for the Approval of SA-04-02, SA-04-03, SA-04-04 and SA-04- 05 and Recommend to the City Council the Resolution for Approval of TTM-04-01 (Tentative Tract No. 16624) and the Adoption of the Ordinance for SP-04-02. Associate Planner Lampe presented his staff report. The item is a two acre site located on the north side of DeBerry between the Gage Canal and Mt. Vernon Avenue. The project was heard and filed early in the year 2004. During the last year, the project has undergone several revisions, including the deletion of a four unit apartment building on the easterly end of the proposal. 13 In June of this year, the staff was informed that the Son of the Developer was to take over the project and intended to modify the map for one additional lot for a total of 15 single family residences and to reduce the size of the proposed open space at the end of the project on the corner of Mt. Vernon and DeBerry Streets. 1 At the meeting of July 21, 2005, the Planning Commission had expressed the opinion that the new developer was headed in the right direction and there was a significant improvement to the proposal. The Commission also expressed a desire to see variability in the front yard setbacks and also in the proposed street elevations. The latest proposal was received from the new developer in August, which shows a variety of setbacks as requested by the Planning Commission. The setbacks ranged any where from 15 to 20 feet. All reviewing agencies were notified of the revised changes as made by the new developer and they had no comments. The applicant has provided revised floor.plans and elevations. There will be two homes that will have the garage in the front of the residence, because there will be no alley to the rear of the residences. The architecture of the residences will be Spanish style with tile roofs and architectural embellishments around the windows and doors and the use of earth tone colors. A preliminary landscape plan was supplied by the applicant with use of various trees and shrubbery in the front of the residences. The final landscaping plan will have to. be in substantial conformance with the preliminary landscaping that has been submitted. A revised version of the. specific plan was also reviewed. The staff feels that the specific plan meets the minimum standards as the Government Code and can be.used as the basis for the proposed ordinance for the specific plan for the project. The environmental study was completed for the project. Staff is recommending a mitigated negative declaration be adopted for this project. There was a public review period for the project beginning in June of 2005. A resolution has been prepared for the project whereas the project be recommended to the City Council to approve and adopt the project for the tentative tract map and approve the ordinance to adopt the specific plan. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report. Vice Chair Addington reported an ex parte communication with Associate Planner Lampe in which he asked several questions. Associate Planner' Lampe contacted the Engineer, in which. the engineer called Vice Chair Addington with regard, to BMP of Lot 15 and pedestrian access to the pocket park. Chair Wilson opened up the.Public Hearing. Jason Karger 19236 Dandelion Court Mr. Karger thanked the Commission and is requesting that the Commission approve the project. 14 Vice Chair Addington commented to the applicant that the product is easy to review and thanked him. Planning Director Koontz stated since .Jason Karger has taken over the project, he has been extremely cooperative and very responsive and a pleasure to work with. Commissioner Comstock asked Mr. Karger if he was planning on planting willow trees in the front of the residences. Mr. Karger replied that he did not intend on planting willow trees in front of the residences as his father wanted to do. Paul Welsh - Engineer Massaro Welsh Architects .1572 N. Waterman Avenue #5 San Bernardino Vice Chair Addington thanked Mr. Welsh for the tentative map and grading 'plan that was provided. Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Welsh what clean water BMP's are being proposed for the project. Mr. Welsh replied that another member from the office was going to discuss the water quality management plan. Doug Massaro- 1572 N. Waterman Avenue #5 San Bernardino Mr. Massaro replied that in order to fulfill the requirements of the water quality management plan, the storm water runoff from the development must be treated on site prior to discharge. The velocity of the runoff must be increased to allow the suspension to settle out prior to leaving the site. The public works officials were contacted, and what is being proposed is to provide swales or depressions several inches to one foot in depth on the south sides of the lots. The swales are designed to contain the first flush, thereby removing the pollutants prior to discharge. Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Welsh with regard to lot 15 and what it will look like should the house be flopped. The reason for this is to try to provide for a four foot wide ADA compatible pedestrian easement to the pocket park. At this time, the garage would be too close to the property line making pedestrian access unfeasible. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing. Vice Chair Addington asked if this project is approved, the landscaping plan as shown does contain willow trees. Can the proposed willow trees be removed. Planning Director Koontz replied that a condition can be added to exclude willow trees be planted in the front of the residences. 15 MOTION PC-40-2005: Commissioner Comstock made a,motion to add a condition to , the project that there will be no willow trees planted in the front of the properties, but to allow appropriate trees to be approved by the Planning Department. Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-40-2005: 5-0-0-0 1 MOTION PC41-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to Approve SA-04-02, SA- 04-03, SA-04-04, SA-04-05, TTM-04-01, SP-04-02 and E-04-01, with the amended condition Chair Wilson seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-41-2005: 5-0-0-0 ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8:55 pm CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Sav-On is now under construction. City Council has approved the Senior Housing project. Manhole Builders project has been brought back to the Planning Commission and will be continued to the month of November during the first meeting of the month which will be November 3, 2005. • Information from Commissioners Vice Chair Addington has reported that he will not be attending the October 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Whitley reported that he will not be attending the October 20, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Vice Chair Addington reported that he read an article in the Press Enterprise with regard to the Outdoor Adventures Center with regard to new plans for the center to include housing. 16 Planning�pirector Koontz replied that there is a new proposal to take a small portion of the project to make it a residential area as part of the lifestyle design. The exact amount of square footage will remain for retail, and the hotel has always been proposed. In order for this to move forward, the developer will have to come back with a revised specific plan and a supplemental EIR to reflect the changes to the project. A full marketing analysis has been performed and this is what the developer has come up with. The proposal was made to the City Council as a preliminary report. The item will have to come back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing as well as the City Council. The specific plan would have to be revised. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 9:05 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 2005 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, 1� 00 Gary K-dontz, Planning Director Doug Wilson, airman Planning Commission a 17