Loading...
01/19/2006 -All Community and Economic Development (ALHORNIA Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 (909) 824-6621 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING January 19, 2006 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to - order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on JaAuary 19, 2006 at 7:03 p.m.,by Chairperson Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Brian Whitley, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Michelle Boustedt, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Brian Whitley,.Commissioner 7:00 P.M. -CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bidney • Roll Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Charles Hornsby 22656 Brentwood Street Read the 4th Amendment and how he thinks it applies to the current situation in town -- `� search and seizers. Quoted John F..Kennedy of 20 years ago. On eminent domain, he 1 Mike Ravenclone 21868 Grand Terrace There has been no traffic studies or traffic enforcement. He regularly sees people exceeding 45- 50 miles per hour down Grand Terrace Road. He was requested to hold his comments on the subject until it comes up on the agenda. Jo Stringfield 22273 Barton Road Ms. Stringfield agreed with all Mr. Ravenclone' said. She said it wasn't her plan to sell her home --that she had stated that before -- and now she's at the point where, "if I can't live in my home, I feel that I should have the right to participate." It's her property, and she was raised here. She shouldn't have to feel guilty because "I inherited." She has lived in the community, and took care of her parents. She feels the City has tried to make her feel guilty because she owns property, and is taking away her civil rights of owning property. She wants it on record that she has an attorney now, and she plan on trying taking care of herself. She's tired of being pushed around and treated rude. Bobbi Forbes 11850 Burns Ave. Ms. Forbes spoke in regards to the amateur radio antenna tower. On Lark, she said she wanted to give an update as far as a Realtor sees it. She is trying to sale a house on that street, and hasn't sold it yet. The buyer is buying another home in town. They released their contingency for the sale of their Crane St. home so they don't lose the other home, and they have done that. She and others are hoping that everyone who is making amendments or changes to the tower be successful, so that these people can be able to get a fair price for their home on Crane St. People who come to the open house make comments about the tower. STAFF Director Koontz announced that Michele Boustedt, Planning Secretarv,will be transferring to the Finance Department. He then introduced her replacement,Rose Smith, as well as Richard Garcia,the new Assistant Planner who has replaced Jeff. ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 15,2005 2 RECOMMENDATION: Approval Vice Chair Addington requested corrections: ' He is not shown as attending the meeting. • Page 6, Fesco Engineering should be changed to Fuscoe Engineering; • Page 8, In the motion that he made,there needs to be a clarification on Item 3. MOTION PC-01-2006: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve with corrections of the minutes of December 15, 2005 Commissioner Bidney Seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-01-2006: Approved 4-0-0-0 2. SA-05-26; E-05-25: Applications filed to construct a one-story single-family residence with 1, 484 sq. ft of living area and a 535 sq. ft. garage. APPLICANT: Stonewood Construction Company on behalf of the owners, Samir and Mirna Zaharia. LOCATION: 2,060 sq. ft. vacant lot on the north side of DeBerry Street; approximately 110 ft. west of Stonewood Drive in the City of Grand Terrace. i RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing and approve the Resolution for Approval for SA-05-26 to construct a one-story residence and approve E-05-25 categorically exemption, and if this project qualifies to be in the class of projects which is exempt from CEQA review. The project is recommended by Staff. Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his staff report. The subject site is an approximately 8,000 sq. ft. parcel located on the northerly side of DeBerry Street, about 100 ft. westerly of intersection Stonewood in this location. Some members of the Commission may remember that we had a parcel map on this property about 2 1/2 -3 years ago, in which the subject site, the original parcel, divided into two lots with the large back yard of this house being split off as a separate lot. At that time, there was no specific development proposal for that particular lot, but the property owner in this house has now come in and hired Stonewood Construction to construct a home for them on this rear parcel. The property, of course, is located in the low-density residential category of the General Plan,the R1-7200, both the lot size and the proposed project is consistent with the City's zoning and General Plan. The rear yard and area of the parcel is presently vacant. The surrounding area is developed to essentially single-family residential homes to the south, west, east, and north of the site. DeBarry Street, running along the frontage of the subject site, is a 66 ft. wide collector street and is developed with curbs, gutters, and walks at this location. The site plan for the proposed house is shown on Sheet P1, and will have approximately(just shy of) 1,500 sq. ft. of living area with a two-car garage in front. The garage will be turned to the side so that the garage door will not face the street. There apparently is a specific request, and 3 the client is developing this house. The garage will be about 535 sq. ft. in•size. All zoning setbacks and coverage provisions of the underlying zone have been met for this project. The floor plan as shown on Sheet 1 of the Staff Report shows that a Great Room, Living Room in the center of the house, a dining room, three bedrooms, two full baths, the laundry room, and breakfast nook will all be part of the floor plan of the house. The elevation shows that the house will have a contemporary type of look. There will be river rock veneer around the front of the house to add to the architectural embellishment of the house. It will have an orange or reddish tile roof. The applicant has brought in a sample of the roof tile for the Commission to look at along with the color board. The landscaping plan, which is also shown with the site plan, shows that the front yard will be landscaped with trees, shrubs and a ground cover. The preliminary grading plan shows how the property will be graded. This was shown on Sheet P2 of the Staff Report given to each member of the Commission. The drainage, of course, will be around the house flowing out to the street. This grading plan was basically taken from the one that was submitted for the preliminary grading for the parcel map, which was part of that public hearing. In conclusion, and as indicated by the Chairman, this particular project does qualify for Class 3 Category Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, which allows for the construction up to 3 single-family residences without going through the formal environmental checklist process. As indicated, we do have a color board that we can give to the Commission showing the house will be painted in earth-tone colors, which we feel will be compatible with the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report. Vice Chair Addington: Richard, on the grading plan, there is no topo shown. Are you aware of whether this project proposes any grading other than the remediation grading for this report for the foundations? Rich Shields: No. We are going to require a precise plan, and that will show the flow lines, and we also will need to get a water quality management plan. Richard was correct in assuming that it flows to the street. Yes. You're correct. There is also a drainage easement on the westerly property line that doesn't belong to this property, but belongs to the property to the west. They are not going to utilize that, but it is right on that property line. Chair Wilson: There is a feature on the front elevation of the residence that shows almost like a column next to the archway. The archway kind of frames the front door. Has there been any discussion in relation to the width of that column? The width of that column could maybe be expanded slightly to look a little more attractive. John Lampe: Might I suggest that we ask the applicant to expand on that when she comes up. Chair Wilson invited the Applicant to speak. Corinne Robinson _ Stonewood Construction Company 22145 DeBerry St. 4 I am Corinne Robinson, President of Stonewood Construction, and I need a copy of the plan to answer your question. Chair Wilson: See how the arch frames the front door. It gets a little skinny down there. I think we're talking about 12 inches or in that range. I wonder if it might be better if it was a little bit larger--makes it a little bit more attractive. Ms. Robinson: I don't have a problem, and I don't see an objection to the way this is, actually. Twelve inches when you put your arches there. If you will notice, it matches the arch on the other side. This is a pop out here in front of it, right there. That's a recess right next to it. So, they actually match in size. So, I can't really see a reason to change it. Chair Wilson: Well, why don't we work with Staff and just see if maybe we can make it a little bit meatier. I think it would lend to the design. There is not a lot of shadow on the front of the house,that's why I was going to suggest it. Ms. Robinson: Well, it's one of those things that is kind of irrelevant -- a couple of inches. If you're talking about making it two or three feet wide, no, I would object to that. Chair Wilson: Thank you. I understand that. Do you or anybody have further comments in relation to your project? Ms. Robinson: No. It's just a pretty straight forward simple project consistent with the neighborhood; and since I live right across the street, and have for 35 years, I wouldn't be putting something there I found objectionable. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission. Vice Chair Addington: This question is directed towards the Commissioners. In your opinions, are the east west elevations kind of bland or do you think a small architectural feature such as small pop-outs that are covered with stucco would add to some shadow relief out there? Considering those two sides are being seen by the adjacent neighbors. Chair Wilson: I have no personal preferences. Commissioner Bidney: I don't have any personal preference. The house faces DeBerry, and the side yard, and the back yard to the front house, and the other house faces DeBerry and it sides to the west. I don't remember reading whether there was fencing between the two properties. I guess it would be fencing in the back yard west of the house. If there is a six-foot high fence along there then there's no need to add additional solutions on the west side. Ms. Robinson: Thank you. In fact, I should have shown something on the plot line. Chair Wilson: In relation to the plaster texture as proposed. Is it a washed? I know we've got a color board. Ms. Robinson: It is a rough stucco finish. Chair Wilson: Oh. O.k. Do we have any further discussion? Please vote. 5 Michelle Boustedt: Motion carries all ayes. i MOTION PC-02-2006: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve SA-05-26 and E-05-25. Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-02-2006: Approved 4-0-0-0 3. SP-05-03, SA-05-21, SA-05-22 Tentative Tract Map 05-04 (County No. 17861) and E-05-03 to construct 18 single family, detached modular homes on 2.55 acres. APPLICANT: Dennis D. Jacobsen Family Holdings II, LLC LOCATION: 21941 Grand Terrace Road (An approximately 2.55 acre, vacant parcel located on the easterly side of Grand Terrace Road just north of the Grand Terrace Mobile Home Park. Director Koontz: Before we do the staff report, as you did note, staff has received a request from the applicant for continuance to address various issues. With that in mind, we would like to ( know if you would like a full presentation or an abbreviated presentation? Chair Wilson: I think we are safe with a full presentation tonight, and then we'll just count on the fact that we're going to receive further public testimony in the future. John Lampe: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. On the overhead to your right is the subject site which is a half acre, "L" shaped parcel located on this location on the easterly side of Grand Terrace Road just north of the Grand Terrace Mobile Home Park in this location. The site is partially enclosed by a variety of existing fencing including block walls, chain link and wooden fences. The parcel is generally flat but does have a 2-3%percent grade towards the street, which is Grand Terrace Road. The surrounding area is developed to single family residential on the westerly side of Grand Terrace Road, a mixture of single family in this location — to the north, and two duplexes and additional single family to the northeast of the subject site. To the southeast of the subject site is a very large vacant field that is zoned for commercial purposes as is an existing RV Park in this location to the direct south of the subject site. Again, this is the Grand Terrace Mobile Home Park with about 65 spaces; that mobile home park has been there for a very long time, I'm sure you have heard of it. The site plan which is marked Exhibit 1 in the package that was given to the members of the Commission shows that proposed development consisting of 18 single family detached modular units on the site. All of the proposed units will be two stories in height. The proposed lot lines - or the darker lines in this location will be extended slightly beyond the building footprints to maintain a minimum building setback of five feet and a minimum lot size of a little over 3,000 6 square feet. The actual smallest lot is 3,200 square feet and is located in this location. Each unit will have a two car garage located towards the front of the unit or to the side with a driveway to the 30-foot wide private street, which is in a loop configuration running through the middle of the development. The submitted Specific Plan that goes along with this project states that the proposed project will be carrying out the same design concept that was established under an adopted Specific Plan that was approved about fifteen years ago for this site. Although looking at the old file and what was approved--that was for a slightly different configuration of the lot sizes and it was for stick built type of housing. We did provide in the staff report to the members of the Commission a copy of the old map, Tract 14016, which was recorded in the early 90's. Some of the lots on the site plan will have short driveways. Scaling out, it appears to be about six feet or so from the private road to the garage doors. The remainder of the lots will have deeper driveways where a vehicle can be parked in the driveway in front of the garage. Additional parking will be provided as parallel parking along the portions of the interior looped street. If you add up all of the parking, including the parking that will be in front of the garages, there will be about 71 spaces for the prof ect. There are two common open space recreational areas shown in the project. A pool area in this location and another open space recreational area with no specific amenities, although it does show in the landscaping plan that it will be landscaped. There are no other recreational facilities that are shown on the individual lots such as patios in the back yard and side yard areas, possibly because the yard areas are so small for each i, individual unit. The developer is proposing to replace the potpourri of existing fencing with a six foot block wall; however, there was no indication of the submitted exhibits or the Specific Plan as to the design and appearance to the proposed wall. In addition there was no indication of what kind of interior fencing that would be proposed between the individual units for this project. The project will have basically two floors plans. These were included in the staff report as Exhibits 2 and 3. Exhibit 2 which is Plan 2sfp31-6 will have a total of 1,697 square feet of living area and will contain a living room, kitchen, dining area, master bedroom, bath and laundry on the first floor. On the second floor, there will be two additional bedrooms and bath. The second floor plan has a very similar layout with a slightly larger living area consisting of 1,766 square feet. The architectural style of the project features a colonial style of architecture in the words of the Specific Plan. This was shown on Exhibit 4. The exterior finish will be wood siding with cultured stone veneer along the base of each proposed residential unit. The proposed architectural style for the other floor plans is somewhat similar as shown on Exhibit 5 in the package that went to the members of the Commission. There was a preliminary landscaping plan that we included in the package as Exhibit 6. This plan shows a generalized plan palate including trees, shrubs and vines, and the generalized planting for the site. It also shows that there will be some additional planting at the entrance of the facility along Grand Terrace Road, but we should keep in mind that there is a request from the Public Works Department for additional street widening and improvements along Grand Terrace Road. So, some of that landscaping will probably have to be modified for street 7 widening. In addition, the common areas and landscape areas will have to be maintained by a - homeowners association that will be a part of the approval process for this project. This is a proposed small lot subdivision or as some would say a PUD type of subdivision. Therefore, the necessity to file a tentative tract map, which was labeled as Exhibit 7 in your package. Lots 1-18 will be residential lots with Lot 19 being the private street loop system together with the pool location and the open space areas, including the other open space recreational area across the street from the pool. The individual lots will range from 3,195 square feet to 4,773 square feet. If you add all of the lots up and divide by 18 you get something like 4,000 square feet for the average residential lot. Also submitted with the package was the preliminary grading plan shown as Exhibit 8. As we noted before, the site is fairly level and the Specific Plan does contain the statement that finished grades will be approximate to the grade of the adjoining properties. All lots will be drained to the street where the water will flow towards Grand Terrace Road, and there will be two catch basins in this location at the entrance way off of Grand Terrace Road to pick up the water draining from the site. Part of the scheme for the drainage is to have the proper water quality filters as part of the water quality management for this project. We did receive with the submittal of the package, two color boards for the project showing the proposed color scheme for the project. Also, we have received colored elevations, which are to the Commissioners' left, where you will see two floor plans. One of the plans will be colored in the general blue theme and the other floor plan will have a green color. { This project was reviewed by staff to determine the potential environmental effects. We did complete the initial study that is required by the California Environmental Quality Act; and it is staffs conclusion that this project, because of it's limited size, could quality for a mitigated negative declaration -- that a small project like this will not have adverse impact on the environment. Also, in the staff report,we did provide to the Commission the mandatory findings for the zoning code that have to be made before a project like this for the site and architectural reviews and the tract map can be approved or recommended to the City Council. On November 3, last year,the Community Development Department sent a four page incomplete letter to the applicant listing various items that needed to be corrected, modified, and/or provided to make the applications before you this evening complete. Following a second submittal of materials, including revised exhibits and a revised Specific Plan, the department sent a second letter on December 20th, 2005, which was nine pages in length and outlining an additional critique of the application and the submittals. On January 9th of last week, we received a third submittal for this application, including a third set of revised drawings and a third revised Specific Plan. On the following day, January 10th, the Community Development Staff met with the Director of Building and Safety to review the third submittal of materials. The staff continues to have concerns and issues regarding this project. We have listed in some detail the concerns that the staff has about the design of this project and the proposals made by the applicant. Basically, they seem to revolve around the exhibits and engineering issues. Beyond that, even if these issues were resolved in a fourth submittal of materials and exhibits, the staff would have a general concern for the overall design concept for this project. What you have before you this evening is 8 a small lot subdivision, needless to say. Even more critical, I think that design is even more important to make something like this work. Staff is not sure that what we have seen so far,that the proposed architectural concept as proposed by the Applicant, accomplishes this goal at this location. As I have said earlier in the presentation, the color scheme that was submitted with the green for some of the floor plans and blue for the other plans also does not seem to work. We have too many issues to make a specific recommendation for this project this evening. As was generally indicated at the start of the hearing on the project, we feel at this time that the Planning Commission basically has three options. One is (which as you have, apparently, already indicated you were going to be continuing this project) to allow the applicant another chance to revise the exhibits and drawings to the staffls satisfaction. The second option would be to go forward and approve the project instructing us with what findings and conditions that you wanted to make for it, and the final third option would be to simply deny the project. That does complete my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to try and answer any questions that you or the other members of the Commission may have at this time. Chair Wilson: Does the Commission have questions for staff before we- open the Public Hearing? Vice Chair Addington: I didn't notice any sidewalks on the exhibits. Are sidewalks proposed? Director Koontz: No. Vice Chair Addington: Without sidewalks, does this project meet ADA requirements? Rich Shields: Well,there are other projects that are located within the City of Grand Terrace that have roll curbs with no sidewalks that have been approved recently, so I would have to say that .. Vice Chair Addington: But you said roll curbs and sidewalks, and this one doesn't have sidewalks. Rich Shields: Roll curbs without sidewalks. I don't think it meets ADA for sidewalks, but then they are not supplying sidewalks. So, if you're not supplying sidewalks, then you didn't have to meet the ADA requirement. Vice Chair Addington: So if someone was coming in from the public walking, they would have to take access by means of a private road? Rich Shields: Yes, and that someone could be someone that would be disabled or non-disabled. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. So that is allowed under the ADA laws? Rich Shields: Yes. 9 Chair Wilson: Any other questions of staff or comments before we open up the Public Hearing? Alright then, we will begin by asking the Applicant and his representative to come forward and _ state your name and address to speak on behalf of your project if you so desire. Mark Holly: My name is Mark Holly and I am a consultant for Douglas Jacobsen. My address is 22347 La Palma Avenue in Yorba Linda. As mentioned earlier, we have requested a continuance, so I can go through and-talk about the entire project or just answer some questions. Chair Wilson: At your pleasure. We are glad to hold comment until the next meeting if that will work out for you. Mark Holly: Let me address some of the issues right off the bat. I would like to address this color scheme issue. The reason you see the two colors on the board is to identify the different floor plans as opposed to the colors that are actually proposed for the plan. The colors that will be proposed will be beige or neutral colors. So that's the first thing. So I will go down the list here. On the tentative tract map there is mention of an Edison easement. There is a facility that Edison has there. It is an existing easement, and what we are doing is getting a letter from Edison to address that question to either reduce that house in size or change it so that we maintain a minimum five foot setback from the easement. Chair Wilson: I think staff has clearly stated that they would like to know what the nature of the animal is, and so you will be working with staff on that. Mark Holly: Yes, we will provide that. The second issue that staff had was the Exhibit showing the access for the fire and garbage trucks. There was a drawing that we prepared, which is Exhibit 9 on the package; but Exhibit 9 does not show the correct truck turning movements. There will be limited traffic, so I don't think it will be a problem. Chair Wilson: Have you had the fire department take a look at that as a preliminary step? Mark Holly: No, it was just submitted through staff. Chair Wilson: I would suggest that you get that done. Vice Chair Addington: Also, looking at your Exhibit 9, it looks like your curbs for your vehicles are conflicting with the parking out there, which I doubt the fire department will approve. Mark Holly: We'll drag those over the curbs is what you're saying? Vice Chair Addington: I'm just looking at your Exhibit. I don't think there's enough room to turn and have parking at the same time. Mark Holly: Okay. I can address that later with the engineers. I can't do it right now. Chair Wilson: Great. That's what we will be looking for. There is an issue here on Item 5, and I'm going to cut to the chase a little bit. The inconsistency -- whether it's going to be rolled curb. Is that what it's going to be? 10 Mark Holly: The plan is to have a combination of both vertical curb and a roll curb. The roll curb will be where all the driveways are. The vertical curb will be along the side of the parallel parking, and that will prevent the cars from going up on the grass and so on. Chair Wilson: There are issues with line of sight distances and some other things. Unless you have something specific that can't be handled by staff, I suggest we go ahead and deal with staff. Mark Holly: The one line of sight issue that I do know that has been mentioned is the house in the corner there, and I think that we can re-arrange that house on there so that we increase the view back across from traffic. We can solve that, and we will do that with staff. Chair Wilson: Just for our own edification, what kind of fencing is proposed between the lawns. Mark Holly: At this time,there are none. It was just proposed to be open. Chair Wilson: Is there anything else you would like to bring up at this forum? . Mark Holly: Just the drainage. The site backyards will be draining to the side yards, and the side yards to the street; then down the gutters and picked up by the catch basins. Chair Wilson: Do the catch basins connect to the City drainage systems? Mark Holly: Yes, they do. There is a large inlet just on the frontage there, and we have proposed to use that. Any water collected would be run thought the fossil filters to treat it. Vice Chair Addington: In regards to the off-site drainage, how are you accepting the off-site flows from the north and the east? Mark Holly: Any flows that we can provide. Openings in the walls,.if necessary. We will have the block walls to allow that to come in, and we can run it between the homes. That's somewhat of an engineering issue, but that's what I would suggest. Vice Chair Addington: You can do this without causing any flooding on the upstream properties? Mark Holly: Yes, you can size those openings to handle that. Matt Adddington: Along your south property line, it appears you're retaining about three feet against the existing walls, how are you dealing with that? Mark Holly: The foundations will be a little bit deeper along the area so that you would have a little bit of a retaining wall, and there would also be a 2 to 1 slope. That will be worked out with engineering. Vice Chair Addington: On the next drawing you provide, you will show detailed sections of all of that? Mark Holly: Yes, we will. 11 Commissioner Comstock: I feel like I need to hold your feet to the fire just a little bit on this. We received two copies of letters that the Community Development Director sent to you, and I don't know if it was you or your company outlining several items and then a nine page letter with additional items. I just want to ask why weren't those issues addressed the first time, and had to re-write again the second time; then, we find that when this project was submitted to us, how come that was not addressed the third time? Mark Holly: Well, first of all, we would like to apologize for the lack of ability to be able to do the checklist. Again, I know that we turned around quickly, that's the only excuse that we have and I can assure you that it won't happen again. Commissioner Bidney: I've studied this quite a bit, and I just can't see how I could vote for this project with a two-story building when everything else in the area is single story. It doesn't conform to anything in the area. I don't know how you're going to revise this to come back here later on and I'm not satisfied with what you're going to do unless it's a single story. It's too crowded. There's no patios, no bar-b-ques, no fences for neighbors, so you can't even come out in the back yard and yawn without affecting your neighbor; and as it stands right now, unless there's an extreme differential coming back to us, I'm afraid I've got to vote no on this, and that's my expression of truthfulness. Director Koontz: At this point staff needs to step in a little bit. Bear in mind that there is an approved adopted Specific Plan and a recorded tract map already on this, and it has been there since the mid 1990's. (� Chair Wilson: And this particular project as proposed does actually adhere to the zoning that is on this Specific Plan? Director Koontz: It's the exact same number of units as the original Specific Plan that was approved and it is an adopted plan that had two-story units on it. So there is a worst case scenario. The plan that got approved originally is still a valid plan until something else takes its place. So, if someone wants to develop what was recorded and what was approved under the original plan and build that, it's going to be very difficult to change that. Commissioner Bidney: How many houses were in that plan? Director Koontz: Eighteen, the exact same number. Commissioner Bidney: The map I saw originally was something like fourteen single story units. May have been an old map. Director Koontz: When this project came up, we went through the old files to compare what was originally approved and what the applicant is proposing now. Commissioner Comstock: In looking at the architectural styling of these homes, whether they be single story or two story, I don't think I could be in favor of this project the way it stands; and the way the architectural styling is done on those. To have the entire houses surrounded primarily with lap siding to me is...we need to break that up. We need to have more of a stone veneer in front of the home and side of the homes. Also, the majority of the people that will be going by this property will be looking at the side of the homes; and in looking at the side of the 12 homes I noticed that it looks like we've got a single wide mobile home placed upon a double wide mobile home in many respects. I drove down La Cadena west between Center Street and Columbia and there is a manufacturer over there of similar homes, in fact I noticed that the architectural styling of the roof and the pop out of the roof in the front is identical to what you've submitted in the plans here. And just pulling up there with my wife today, I asked her what she thought of that plan and how it looked. She said that it was not attractive at all. I would have to agree with her. I've shown the plans to a couple of other people, and they also are in agreement that it doesn't look like very good architectural styling. I would like to see something come back that has some very serious changes in the way the architecture has been put together. I understand that you are using modular housing to try to cut down on costs; and I'm not opposed to modular housing, as long as it does not look like modular housing. And I think most of the residents in the area are also not opposed to having a decent project come, but what we have before us as far as the architectural detailing, I don't see that as being very attractive at all. Mark Holly: I appreciate your thoughts on it. We will take another look at the plan, but we do have some additional elevations and actual photos of some of these units, and when they are finished they do not look like a trailer park and they are not a typical modular home with low angle roofs and so on. This looks more like a finished home when it is done. Chair Wilson: Thank you, and perhaps you may want to work with staff to give us some examples. Vice Chair Addington: Should this item be continued tonight, when it comes back, can we have a copy of the original Specific Plan and documents as a reference on this one? -" Director Koontz: Yes. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. Also to share with you Mr. Applicant regarding this project, this project is submitted to us on so many levels that is technically incomplete. I really feel that we are wasting our time here tonight. I am really disappointed with the quality that was brought in and the lack of detail that was brought in, and the fact that your professionals by law never signed or put their seal on the documents. I understand that you are also the developer for our Town Square Project, and you know I'm not having a good fuzzy feeling about that Town Square Project right now. Chair Wilson: We will invite any other representatives for the applicant's project to speak, and we will invite those who have issued a request to speak to come forward, but we will ask you to consider that you may want to hold your comments for a later time. We will begin with Mr. Michael McClellan. Michael McClellan: My name is Michael McClellan and I live at 21868 Grand Terrace Road. I have seen no traffic studies on Grand Terrace Road. There is one exit for this development and that's on Grand Terrace Road. It was stated earlier that the drainage will be on Grand Terrace Road. There is only drainage on one side of Grand Terrace Road. There are no curbs and gutters on the west side of Grand Terrace Road, and I regularly see the people speeding up and down Grand Terrace Road and directly up and across to the trailer park. Several times, I could not get out of my own driveway because of the amount of the traffic from the trailer park. How is this going to affect another individual that has his house directly across from this development? Thank you. 13 Ken McClellan: I live at 21882 Grand Terrace Road and I have lived there for approximately some 30 odd years. First is the drainage you talked about. We don't have to worry about it this year, but in some years when we've had a lot of rainfall, it usually runs down Grand Terrace Road and down my driveway. And I think there needs to be more engineering than what he talked about. That's one concern. The other concern is that you're putting 18 houses on two and a half acres. I have two and a half acres, I came to the City once before and they told me I could only put five houses on 1 acre. Is this zoned R2 or is this zoned differently? John Lampe: The property is zoned R2. The maximum density is 9 units to the acre and I think that staff report indicates that the overall density is about 7 units for this project. Chair Wilson: Is that typical for an R2 designation or is this under the Specific Plan? Director Koontz: That's the standard density under the R2 zone. Ken McClellan: We were up here years ago when you were going to put 50 apartments there. The zoning was changed to R2 with an agricultural overlay. Now, unless that changed, it is still the same. Those of us across the street have large lots, and I hate to see people crammed into a 3,000 square foot lot with a house 1,600 square feet and the house is as big as the lot. As the gentleman there said, there's no room for a patio, and there's no room for even a sidewalk. If they want to reduce this down to a livable number of units, I'm not opposed to it, provided they make adequate drainage procedures. And the other thing is the traffic, as my son had mentioned, on Grand Terrace Road. It should be called the Grand Terrace Road speedway. And if the Planning Commission can do anything about it, I would sure like to see a couple of speed bumps. I've seen a motorcycle go down there close to 100 miles per hour, so I think this would only exasperate the traffic conditions. Thank you. Jeffrey McConnell: I'm always grateful, that you, Commissioner Doug Wilson, explains things to the people here so in that light I want to explain something to everybody here, because it's very misunderstood about modular housing. Even Mr. Comstock made a statement that was not true. He said he's not against modular housing but he said that as long as it doesn't look like modular housing. .Well, that doesn't make sense. One of the biggest misconceptions about modular home building the industry faces is that they think its like a trailer home, but it's not that at all. One thing it is not is a trailer. It is constructed on a chassis, which is built in a factory, but it's built like pieces of a puzzle, and is transported to the site and then put together like a puzzle. It's not like what you see traveling down the road, those are pre-manufactured homes. I understand this very well. I'm currently developing in Rialto with a pre-manufactured home and am well informed about the situation. A pre-manufactured home does not appraise the same as a house or a modular home. It can only be appraised with other manufactured homes. A modular home is built better than a stick built home. It's built with, at least, 10% more building materials because it has to withstand transportation from the factory to the site. I grew up in a modular home, by the way, and it's actually built better than any stick built home. The thing about a modular home is that it doesn't look like a modular home. You can make a modular home look like a regular stick built home. So the basic reason for the developer is to save time and save money. You can put one together in seven days and deliver it to the site. It can look like a trailer or it can look like a really nice custom home. This architectural design does look a little funky, and I would appreciate it if they improved the architecture. There are many things that you can do with a modular home. You can customize it, you can Google modular homes and you will 14 find a wealth of information to understand what modular homes really are. So, I didn't get a chance to go and look at the site, but one of things that I am really concerned about since these '+ are individual homes, lots I mean, is that the CC&R's include the landscaping in the front, so we don't have a green lawn, brown lawn, green lawn, brown lawn. What Mr. Gary said about in 1994 is true. There was a Specific Plan that was approved, and I am aware of it. The developer did not buy one lot, he bought 18 separate tax bills and he can build that. He can thumb his nose at us tonight and he can go back and build the 18-unit Specific Plan. So, I am glad that he is building something nicer than condos, because as a great white man once said here in Grand Terrace, the difference between a condo and an apartment building is about five years. And it's true, because we have a lot of condos in town that are rented out. So I prefer separate lots for private ownership and more value. Modular homes are appraised the same as stick built homes, with more value. Anything for the west side of Grand Terrace in general, I want to make sure that since I am involved in the real estate industry that everything is built to maintain and improve property values. Maybe the west side should have a neighborhood architectural theme, since it will eventually be developed, and it's zoned R2 or R3. It will be developed. It's just a matter of time. I always say that; all the time. You can't stop it. If the applicant doesn't want to deviate from the 18 units, the 21/2 acres is nine units per gross acre. He can develop according to that formula 22 units. So, I would prefer the 18 homes that he's planning. I hope they do look at the architecture. It could use some going over. Chair Wilson: Just a question of staff, what is the original approvals minimum square footage of the lot, because we've been batting around at the fact that there is a tract map on this, I guess and the tract map on it must have a minimum square footage lot. John Lampe: I don't know the exact size of what was approved 15 years ago. There was a copy of the approved tentative map that was given to the Commission in the staff report. It was a recorded map, No. 14816. Of course, the lot sizes were set by the Specific Plan, which set the development standards for the site. Perhaps since this matter is being continued, we can give you more detailed information in the future. Chair Wilson: I would like to know that,thank you. Vice Chair Addington: On the original tract map provided to us, it didn't give dimensions on those lots. Chair Wilson: That is why I am asking the question. Because it would seem to me that there's been a lot of discussion about individual lots. At the same time, it seems to me that it lends itself well to an air space type of use, and these kind of projects we have seen usually are set up on those kinds of circumstances of a condo map rather than a regular tract map. Director Koontz: That was the original approval. Based on the lot,was the footprint of each unit with one common open space lot? Chair Wilson: So,we would make the minimum setbacks and so on to make them fit in. We will continue. Commissioner Bidney: I would also like the staff to get into the archive, and I would like to see the approval of the tract map. If it was approved by the City Council at that time, I would like to know if it's a done deal. 15 Director Koontz: It's a done deal. There is a recorded subdivision on it, and it was approved by the City Council. Any subdivision has to be approved by the City Council. Back then, and today. Douglas Jacobsen: My address is 21800 Burbank Boulevard in Woodlands Hills. I bought this 2.55 acre parcel property that was subdivided into 19 parcels. The smallest of which was about 1,200 square feet, the largest of which was about 2,000 square feet. I bought it because I wanted to build a trailer park next to the trailer park. So after I bought it, I came in and I said to Tom Schwab, "I would be happy to give up these 18 small parcels for homes to build a trailer park, because it would serve my purposes", and Tom said, "I'm not letting you build a trailer park." So I said, "here's the reason it makes sense: there's a trailer park there." The Specific Plan on this property will have somebody come in and build houses where you think that these lots are small. The presentation that I have for you shows what the lots originally looked like and how tiny they were. And the Specific Plan is very clear, on those little tiny postage stamp lots that have no yards at all. The footprint of the house is the lot. All of the yard, all of the area is common area outside the footprint of the house. When Tom told me I couldn't build a trailer park, I said, okay I won't build a trailer park. What does the Specific Plan say that makes sense for these little houses. I've read it and, I don't like it. Tom said, I've read it too and I don't like it. So we talked about it and what we could do with the land because I bought it to build a trailer park, and obviously, I wasn't going to get to do that. So we wanted to make the lots as big as we could make them, and these lots are almost 400% larger than the smallest lot that's on that approved parcel map that I own. The intent was to not come here and ever build a housing project. I am a retail shopping center developer. I've built 40 shopping centers in the last 12 years. I haven't built houses. My uncle built houses and said just do modular homes, Doug, it will be a lot easier for you and you're not a housing guy. I hired an entire new team and I have people working for me who haven't worked for me before. I'm doing houses because your City Manager won't let me build a trailer park because it's inappropriate for his citizens. I understand that, so we came into maximize the size of the lots, and as you critique this parcel map and you think it's really bad, we're working with what we have. You should see what you have right now before you criticize that too badly. Because what you have right now is, in my opinion, not a workable parcel map. But it is there. There is a Specific Plan, and we can build to it. I would never thumb my nose at any City, that's not how I do business. I would come in and say here's what we would like to do. What do you think? And, if the opinion is, we don't like it, then my attitude is, then let me come back to the drawing board and see what we can do. We've changed the house configurations numerous times. We've been to many housing shows to understand what the best housing developer out there is. I have a video tape that's in my computer right now that I was planning to show you tonight, if we didn't continue, that shows how nice these units are. These houses are nice. And I'm not talking about those that are stacked. I agree those are terrible. That's not what I am looking to do. If the Commission is not in favor of seeing this developed in a way that gives the maximum lot size, then we won't come in for a parcel map. We'll come in to the Design Review Board and ask you to critique like you did that one house that was prior to us. We'll do them one at a time, and we'll follow your lead. We will work with staff. I think Gary Koontz is a brilliant Planning Director, and we will follow your lead; and if that's the way we need to do it, we will do it. I wanted to build a trailer park, and all my _ neighbors hated trailers parks. I've had ten phone calls saying no trailer park, no trailers stacked ! on top of each other that look like a vertical trailer park. I've had those phone calls. My phone number is easy to find. Everybody who wants to find me, finds me; and they have. They've said, "don't do it." I am not doing it. So when it comes time to decide how we are going to go 16 forward, building houses is not my first choice. I want to build a trailer park right there, but I'm r not going to do that. So, when I come back (it may not be for a month), we will have revisions. _ I am going to make some changes in my team. I am disappointed that...I've paid a ton of money for drawings that I don't think are worth the ton of money I paid. It is what it is, and I'm stuck with a different circumstance that I thought I would be in. This is no way indicative of the shopping centers I've built, and I would love to take you out sir and show you all the shopping centers I've built and how spectacular they are -- fully occupied, still making money, and they look exactly like the drawings that I submitted to those mayors and community development directors. They function, they work well, they are well planned, and they are smartly done. So, for what's its worth, thank you for continuing it tonight. I apologize for the fact that we did not put our best foot forward, however, I am working with a parcel map that is unique, and I am trying to make the best of it. Chair Wilson: We will get a hold of that, and we will take a look at it. Thank you. Vice Chair Addington: I have more of a suggestion than a question: The architecture presented tonight, as it looks on paper, does look like the boxy double stacked trailers. If this is what you're proposing, should this project be continued until the next meeting? We would very much like to see pictures of what you're proposing in color so that we can see it versus what was presented tonight. That would be very helpful. Doug Jacobsen: One of the things that we have decided to do that we didn't get in is take the pictures of the actual houses. There are houses all over that are modular. What we wanted r_ to....the color scheme was really indicative of unit style, not of the colors that we wanted to do. We can do better. We will come back with something that you can sink your teeth into, :understand, and then make an informed decision. If you don't like it, then we'll have to find something else. But I will not thumb my nose at this Planning Commission or the City Council or the City Manager. We will come back until we get it right. The next submission will be better than this one, and I apologize for the fact that we didn't do the best job we could have done. Thank you. Chair Wilson: We do have a couple of more requests to speak forms. Terry Erhart. Terry Erhart: I live directly across the street from this development at 21920 Grand Terrace Road. I have to admit that when I first heard about the fact that you were developing across the street, I was actually looking forward to it because it is an open lot and frequently has a lot of weeds on it. I was quickly disappointed when I found out the size and the capacity that this was going to be developed. We already have a mobile home park directly across the street. If you talked with any policemen in Grand Terrace, they will tell you that is the worst area of Grand Terrace, and frequently has policemen over there almost every week. I think it's indicative of the smaller sized houses. So that area is rural, and I was actually hopeful that this development would actually promote some kind of a positive thing in that area with a larger sized home on a lot; but this is not helpful, especially right next to a mobile home park area. I am also concerned about the fact that these will be two story residences when there is not a single two story anywhere in the vicinity. There is also a side thing which is my neighbor, Lynn Roberts, has a very nice view of the mountain, which will actually be destroyed by the fact that we will have two story houses. Not that he has a great view, but it will essentially be gone. I am also concerned about parking. When you do not have an adequate place for a person to park their car...I know you've outlined parking spaces on the street. And if anyone knows how many 17 people actually park their vehicle in their garage...so you're going to see the streets just lined with cars, and that to me is an eyesore and that's something that will not be helpful and positive for the community. The traffic speed is very much a problem on that street. No one is exaggerating when they say that they have met a top speed of 65 miles per hour right about where this spot is going to be developed, and if something isn't done to discourage or slow down that speed, you're going to get a lot of accidents, because somebody coming out of this development will be caught off guard by the speed. Ironically, we had somebody driving erratically down the street at top speeds and ran into the telephone pole in front of our house. And so it's not uncommon. Every day, you can hear them coming. So I think that we can do better. Thank you. Chair Wilson: We have two more Requests to Speak forms. We will do those, and then we will close for the sake of expedience the Public Hearing and continue this item. Rita Schwark? Rita Schwark: I live at 21952, I live across the street. As far as the traffic, we are not exaggerating. We get semi-trucks, and we get the school busses that speed because it's such a wide road at one point then it narrows down. There's only one way for the water to drain, and that's west, directly off of everybody on the west side of Grand Terrace Road. Everybody gets their front yard flooded, there's no curb and gutter. There's nothing. The water just comes in. I don't know where he would drain this water to. He's only got one street going out to the street, and it's got to go out to my property and to the neighbors property. The parking: Of course you're going to have parking on the street, because you're going to have visitors, and you're going to have whoever comes to visit. A six-foot driveway does not make sense at this point. I am asking for attractive beautiful homes. The pool area is going to be used maybe five-to-six months out of the year. These children...you can't get all the children that are going to be there in that play area, where they do now in the street with bicycles and skateboards. As far as the common area, you can't cram all those kids in one area. The exit from Grand Terrace Road onto Barton Road is atrocious. Trying to get out of there at rush hour or any time of the day now is very terrible. We deserve attractive homes, and have enough trailer parks on the west side already. Patricia Farley: I live at 12513 Michigan Street. It does my heart good to hear the concerns expressed by the Commission members and the staff. Thank you. I think one of the most alarming things to me about this project was that the person who wants to develop a major part of Barton Road here is the same person that wants to take somebody's long time home. How would you feel if they took your long time home and they put up something like that. It's not attractive. You're going to have major problems with driveways like that. I'm sorry that he bought the property and wanted something else. It sure would be nice if the piece of land...maybe naive here. Are we doing what we can get away with to make money or couldn't we have a different specific plan? I don't know. But, I am very disappointed and I certainly hope that when we have development, even small things in Grand Terrace, that it's going to be an improvement on the area...that it's going to be pleasant for the people living there and safe for them as well as the people that live around them. I've got to say that, ultimately, it is utterly intolerable to not respect people's personal homes. Thank you. Commissioner Comstock: I have a couple of questions of staff. I know that we have an extra deputy in town. I live off of Michigan and I have seen that the deputy has been patrolling Michigan pretty regularly and are handing out traffic tickets to those who want to exceed the speed limit. I was wondering if we might be able to put a bug in the deputy's ear about maybe 18 posting something up on Grand Terrace Road somewhere and try to reduce the excessive speeding that's happening around there, especially for the kids that are playing on the street. Director Koontz: We can speak to the Lieutenant about that. Also, there are some comments tonight about speed bumps. In order to get speed bumps, there has to be a request from the general public to the Community Services Department, and they can handle it accordingly. Commissioner Comstock: Second question, in the packet, I think I remembered reading something about this being designated as senior housing, is that not the case? Director Koontz: No. Chair Wilson: We will now hear a motion. Vice Chair Addington: Alright, I would like to make a motion for continuance. Chair Wilson: I will second that motion. Vice Chair Addington: With the following conditions: As part of the regulatory requirements, provide us a WQMP, and staff you know I like to take a peak at those. Address all of the offsite drainage issues, and I would like to be assured that we are not going to cause any upstream flooding on the adjacent properties. Comply with all 44 items in the December 20th staff letter that have not been resolved. I do have an issue with the green color board. I would like to see an - alternate to the green color board, and I would like to see how the retaining wall is going to be handled on the south side of the project. If the residents are very concerned about the speed out there, I would like, at the driveway, to see a site line analysis at the entrance of the project and have that reviewed by our City Traffic Engineer. I would also like the applicant's professionals comply with State Business Professions Code and sign and seal all documents that are presented to the Planning Commission for review. Chair Wilson: The second concurs. Do we have further discussion? Please vote: Michelle Boustedt: Motion carries all ayes. Chair Wilson: We will continue the item. Thank you all. I think we all owe it to ourselves to review the previous approval, and we will revisit this item. Thank you Applicant for your words. MOTION PC-03-2006: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to continue Item No. 3: SP-05-03, SA-05-21, SA-05-22, Tentative Tract Map 05-04 (County No. 17861) and E-05-03 to construct 18 single family, detached modular homes on 2.55 acres,with the aforementioned conditions. Chair Wilson seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-03-2006: Approved 4-0-0-0 19 ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING �y COMMISSION MEETING 8:25 DM CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Associate Planner John Lampe: At one of the recent Planning Commission Meetings, as far as the Public Comment; there were some concerns raised over the status of Schwertfeger's Trucking Company. We would like to give you a quick overview of where we see that project at this point. I'm sure some members of the Commission know that Mr. Schwertfeger actually came in with some of his proposals to develop his property way back in 1998; even precedes my service with the City. In 2001,there was a Public Hearing before the Commission during which a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review were approved to develop the property. The staff had been working with Mr. Schwertfeger for about three years encouraging him to come forward with his application, trying to get him to improve his property including the cleanup of the property. During that January hearing in 2001, the Commission did approve his applications. Included in that 2001 approval was a 12,000 sq. ft. industrial building. Over the intervening years, I'm sure the members of the Commission remember, there were about three additional hearings to give him more time to complete the project. The issues came down to the point where he had done a lot of the improvements to the property including paving the interior, and providing for the drainage, and doing other things to the site to improve it according to the Conditions of u Approval including putting in street improvements. However, I'm sure you noticed, if you drive by there, there was an issue regarding the telephone pole as to who was going to incur the cost of moving that pole. There was some discussion between Mr. Schwertfeger and the City about who was going to be responsible for doing that. Just recently, there has been sort of a resolution of that issue in that he has been given the go ahead to complete his project including the completion of the construction of the 12,000 sq. ft. building. The staff feels that when this building is constructed, some of the issues that were raised such as noise in the neighborhood would be somewhat meliorated by having some of the activities now taking place outside and taking place inside that building. He has been told that he is going to have to comply with all of the conditions that were imposed originally by the Commission including putting in the landscaping. I think that was an issue that was raised by Ms. Austin. So, he's been put on notice that he has to comply with all those conditions if his building is going to be finaled. So, we feel that some progress has been made on that site, and some of the things that are going to take place there will resolve some of the concerns of the neighbors and some of the issues that were raised by Ms. Austin. Chair Wilson: Thank you. One of the items that has been raised since then to discussion has to do with a water well that is in the vicinity, and a concern about a possible infiltration by that use of obviously any kind of circumstance as far as water well contamination so on as an item for the State. But we, as local government, can review something like that and objectively look at the use and determine if we're going to aggravate a situation needlessly by our zoning. So, I have a question regarding the intensity of the use. It's been maybe a little slow in completing those tasks, but are we 20 getting in trouble here so far as possible contamination of a water well site? I know there are some specifics in relation to that. Ms. Austin: Are you referring to the Riverside Highland Water Well just north... Chair Wilson: Correct. Director Koontz: We're in constant communication with the water company representatives, and we've talked about this property because they have some street improvements in front of their well, also. To date, they have not raised this as an issue. If there was an issue, I can guarantee you that Rich Haubert would raise them. He is very good at that. In addition to that, he is required to comply with the Water Quality Management Plan requirements as an industrial project. Chair Wilson: I see one of our Public is here, and I'm sure she'd like to speak. This isn't actually a public testimony on it, but let me just bring up this concept. He, Mr. Schwertfeger, is responsible for adhering to the law, regardless. So, anything that he does with his use that is not in accordance with either our Conditional Use Permit or of the law et al, can endanger his use of the property for permit status. So, bringing this out as a fact that it is our responsibility as the government agency to make sure that those things are in accordance with the law, at this juncture though, I do believe that he has an approval on his property to use it in accordance with a strict accordance with those documents that he was approved for under his Conditional Use Permit.. Not at this time. If we could talk about it later would be better as this is not a public hearing. We can talk i after the meeting. Thank you. Commissioner Comstock: Just along that same line, perhaps it would be good to get in the public record, maybe some instructions to our staff to have discussions with Mr. Schwertfeger regarding that well, and then he must contact each of his employees and make sure that they know that any contamination of that well through dumping of oil or draining of diesel or whatever it might be that might accidentally happen. That's a really serious issue, and he could be held liable. Maybe, the next time we see him, for Plan Check or whatever, we could make sure that he gets a written notification of the importance of instructing his employees regarding keeping that site clean. Chair Wilson: We can definitely put him on notice. Plus, if you like, we can contact Riverside Highland Water Company and specifically ask questions concerning that well and the concerns over it. Yes. What I would like, actually, is for the Community Development Department to contact him, have him come in for a few minutes and let's just talk about compatibility and so on. He's surrounded by a bunch of folks who have been there for a long time. I want to make sure everybody is a good neighbor, and I think it's important. I know he wants to do the same thing. So, I think it's important for us to address any of the concerns the Public has brought fourth. Director Koontz: Are you asking that we schedule some sort of a hearing or workshop and not a hearing? Chair Wilson: Not a hearing or a workshop,but just a meeting. 21 Commissioner Comstock: With Staff or with the Commission? Chair Wilson: With Staff. Chair Wilson: Question on this. You'd mentioned the acronym WQMP. Since he had submitted initially a long time ago, did he ever submit a WQMP on this project? Director Koontz: I haven't seen a WQMP package, however, I did inspect the site and we did notice that he's come into compliance with some WQMP requirements and he has put in a retention basin at the rear portion of his property. We also noticed that if we move forward with the project and allow the construction of the building that would limit the flows to that area and they would be able to clean the property up a little bit better than they have it now. But as far as the WQMP, I have not seen it. Chair Wilson: So,this is a project that has been in the works for a very long time. Director Koontz: He has filed a Notice of Intent from the swift, a long time ago; and that was before the WQMPs were in effect. Chair Wilson: So,he's being a good neighbor in that respect. Rich Shields: By building the building, we are going to be taking a lot of these activities that are being performed outside in violation of the best management practices for NPDES. It's going to be moved to the inside of the building, and we won't have those situations to be remedied. So, that's going to take into effect a lot of the pollution that may go into the design catch basis. Director Koontz: Quite sometime ago, I actually got into the Water Quality Board website to tracked down his permit. So, I saw it. It's there. Chair Wilson: And it's still in effect? He's been paying it on an annual basis? Director Koontz: We can check on that. We're assuming he has, but if you want, we can definitely verify it. Chair Wilson: If I remember right, it doesn't go bad. They just keep mounting up the fees. So, surely they will find you if you don't pay on time. • Information from Commissioners Commissioner Comstock: I was not able to attend the last City Council Meeting regarding the ham radio. I don't know and I have not been informed of what was determined. Director Koontz: There is an agreement between attorneys from both sides that the applicant has requested the opportunity to basically withdraw his appeal and bring it back before the Planning Commission for a redesign. We haven't seen anything, and we haven't heard anything. No one has talked to us. We don't know what we're going to see this time, but it's coming back to you sometime. 22 Chair Wilson: I do have a question in relation to that then. What is keeping us from administering an enforcement action on that item? Director Koontz: It's still in the hearing process. Until it goes through the entire hearing process... We've talked to Code Enforcement about that at length, and because he's got an application, it's still an active application. We can't have him tear it down. The minute there is a final action by the City Council, if it had gone through the appeal process and they had denied it, the next day we could have gone out there with Code Enforcements and taken it down. Commissioner Comstock: Now that he's in this process, does he have a time limit or can he just drag this out as long as he wants? Director Koontz: The Council directed it to go back to the Commission,period. They did not say that it had to be back to us within 30 days or anything else. It just said appeal has been withdrawn, and they sent it back. Chair Wilson: It seems to me, at this point, it's actually out of the jurisdiction of the City Council. If they wanted to direct an enforcement action against it, they would have done that. Director Koontz: If we do not see something in the foreseeable future, we will probably take something back to the Council and say, we haven't seen anything yet, what do you guys want to do,because right now it's still in their ball park. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:37 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 16,2006 Respectfully Submitted, ApproveAy, 0-,5e�� Gary Koontz, Planiing Director Doug i son, Chairman Planning Commission l 23