Loading...
05/18/2006 I Community and Economic Development (AMORNIA Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 (909) 824-6621 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING May 18,2006 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 Mav 18. 2006.at 1:07 mm..by Vice Chair Matthew Addington. PRESENT: Matthew Addington,Vice Chairperson Robert Bidney, Commissioner Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Jo Verhelle, Acting Clerk 7:07 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner McNaboe • Roll Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Jeffery McConnell 21758 Walnut Avenue This past week we had a little sinkhole on Grand Terrace Road 15 feet to the north of the last sinkhole. They seemed to be pointing in each other's directions. It has been repaired to date. Also, there is a house for sale in Grand Terrace, four bedroom, two and a half bath, 60-foot tower, not included. Vice Chair Addington: Thank you. 1 ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 16'2006. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval MOTION PC-11-2006 Commissioner McNaboe made a motion to approve the minutes of March 16, 2006. Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-11-2006 Approved 3-2-0 With Commissioner Comstock and Chair Wilson being absent. 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 6 , 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval MOTION PC-12-2006 Commissioner Bidney made a motion to approve the minutes of April 6, 2006 Commissioner McNaboe seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-12-2006 Approved 3-2-0 With Commissioner Comstock and Chair Wilson being absent. 3. Z-06-01; TTM-06-01 Zone Change No. 06-01, Tenative Track Map No. &E-06-03 06-01- (TTM 18071 and Environmental Review Case No. 06-03 to change the existing R1-20 to R-10 on a 8.2 acre pacel to subdivide the property into 20 lots. This meeting is continued from the April 20, 2006. And at the April 20 meeting the public participation was closed at that meeting. Staff Planner Lampe: This matter was continued from the meeting of April the 20t'. Again this evening 2 i' we're considering the change of zoning from the existing R1-20 zoning on the subject site to an R1-10 zoning designation and to subdivide the site into a new —under the new zoning designation of R1-10, low density single family residence. The applicant's engineer was asked to provide some exhibits to outline some of the matters that were discussed at the last meeting. In the staff report that was given to members of the Commission for this project, Exhibit 10 was a copy of the tentative map which was approved in the early `90s, Track Map 14076. This was the subdivision that was approved under the existing R1-10 — excuse me—R1- 20 zoning, for a total of 15 lots. This is lot 15 at this location. You will notice there was a dedicated street running along the western property line in this location. We have a cul- de-sac with access provided to some of the lots by means of private driveways. This is a lot study that the applicant's engineer did showing the layout of a hypothetical subdivision under the existing R1-20 zoning. Again showing 15 lots. The main street running up the aqueduct. Again, it shows that even under the existing R1-20 zoning, the number of lots backing up to the westerly property line would be about the same as what is proposed under the map that is before you, and also the pad elevations of these lots is pretty much dictated by the elevation of the aqueduct. You can't really dig below the elevations that are established by the location of the California Aqueduct which actually runs along the westerly side and comes to the middle of the property. This would be a subdivision that would result if a zoning change were not involved. This is a profile that was done for Bryce Court. It's a small cul-de-sac at the north- westerly part of the subject site. This is a six percent grade drawn at the scale of vertical and horizontal of one-to-one; so it's an actual showing of the amount of grade for six percent street. Interesting to note that the grade of this street will actually be slightly less than Pico Street which is slightly more than six percent at this location. This was drawn to give a demonstration, a graphic demonstration of just what a six percent grade is like. Lastly, we'd like to point out to the Commission that the proposed cul-de-sacs at this location Bryce Court here is going to be a private street. We're suggestion that this matter is recommended to the City Council by the Commission this evening , that you would want to add the following additions to the Resolution of Approval for the tentative map, and that is the two private cul-de-sac streets approaching Brice Court and Jadin Court be maintained by either a maintenance district or by a homeowners association. Vice Chair Addington: Thank you very much. Just a reminder to the audience, this is an item that was continued from our previous Planning Commission meeting. The public hearing portion of it was closed. At this point, this is a Planning Commission discussion regarding three items that were- -that the Commission had questions on last time. 3 One was to address or look at 20,000 square-foot lots. Another one was to look at an original application from approximately ten years ago. The third one was to address the information regarding the cul-de-sacs. Looking at this, do any of the Commissioners, have any questions of staff or of the applicant regarding the 20,000 square-foot lot layout? I would like to point out as I look at this, I didn't see much difference between the layout and what is proposed here other than the number of lots. The same slopes would hold in all cases. On the issue for the original approval of the tract, could we have this slide back up, please. On this one we have a proposed street backing up to existing residence. I would like my Commissioner's opinion on streets backing up to the rear of the lot where the public street could easily overlook into the backyards and into the rear of the house and the rear bedrooms. I personally am not in favor of that type of layout. Any questions or comments from any Commissioners here? Commissioner Bidney: I would concur with your thinking on that. Vice Chair Addington: Darcy? Commissioner McNaboe: I think that the road along the back of the houses poses a few problems; one of them being traffic noise as well as the danger of the vehicles traffic through there. Vice Chair Addington: And the additional street lighting with the glare going into the backyards and the house windows. The third item that we had discussed at the last meeting was the cul-de-sacs and the steepness of the grades and the potential for vehicles rolling down. Looking at the original layout stat, the small cul-de-sac that is east-west, do we know approximately what those grades were? Director Koonts: Actually, without really looking at it, because I can't read this very well, under this scenario, as you'll notice, there is a grade difference here. There is a slope all the way along there, and so this is actually depressed a little bit, not a lot but some; so the grade on this probably is less than what we're dealing with, with the other cul-de-sac. Vice Chair Addington: I was just wondering if that shore portion was like six percent also? Director Koontz: It's probably a little less. It could be about the same because you've got the driveways crossing here, (indicating) so the grade aren't changing here. So this is at the existing grade with the same grade of the cul-de-sac that you have now, and then it drops down, no, its not going to be much better. - Vice Chair Addington: Well, that's what I was thinking in looking at this. We still have approximately six percent grade no matter which site layout we go with. And the other 4 thing pointed out by staff is although six percent may sound steep, Pico Street is actually steeper than the proposed cul-de-sac. Fellow commissioners, do you have any other questions for staff on the three items that we asked for a continuance of from the last meeting or any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Bidney: This is a tough piece of property. Vice Chair Addington: Yes, it is. It's hillside development. Commissioner Bidney: I can't visualize all of the retaining walls and all of the things that are needed to make this a successful subdivision. Whether I'm getting too old or don't have enough perception, I don't know, but in the overall picture, if it was done right, the lots would be terraced and everything would look all right, but I'm just not sure that can happen. Vice Chair Addington: Well, you brought up a very good point, and I shared your concerns during the first meeting, and during the first meeting that we had on this, I asked the applicant to prepare for us Exhibits A2, A3, A4, Exhibit 5, 6, and 7 showing the sloping, the terracing and the walls that would be required to make this work, and to make this work, some walls are required and obviously terracing is required. And in my opinion, the applicant has demonstrated to us that this subdivision would work as it's proposed to us. j Commissioner Bidney: Well, I'm sure that, you know, he's an engineer, and that would suffice all the details that we need structurally, and if it is done properly, and I've looked at those exhibits, the yards are fairly short compared to the sloping, the backyards and the side yards. The slopes begin to takeoff right at the five-foot level and at the five-foot distance and one thing and another. Vice Chair Addington: That tends to be typical of hillside building. Commissioner Bidney: That's typical with hillsides, and I live on Hampton Court which is a pretty steep grade itself. Vice Chair Addington: As I recall, Hampton Court is close to nine percent. Commissioner Bidney: Right. Walking uphill is pretty tough. Coming down is pretty greasy. But I think the engineer has showed a good presentation, and if it's done, staff and the Building Department will just have to stay on it, and it will be a good-looking project because it really won't be the same houses on the same street with the same roofs with the same front elevations. So I think it would be a very good asset. Vice Chair Addington: Thank you. Darcy, do you have any questions? 5 Commissioner McNaboe: Well, in looking at Exhibit 11, which is the tentative tract for 20,000 square foot lots, was that done only to show that there would be the same number of houses backing up to Kingfisher? Vice Chair Addington: No. That request came from Mr. Roberts. Commissioner Bidney: Mark Roberts, wasn't it? Vice Chair Addington: Last month someone from the audience came up with a request that, you know, what would this site look like if we did not change the zoning from R1- 20 to R1-10? And so this is — definitely addresses that concern. But you did point out that, you know, should we go to R1-20 lots, we still have the same number of lots along the west property line in both scenarios. Commissioner McNaboe: Well, I'm weighing the benefit of changing the zoning or adding five additional house into what looks to me would be a difficult fit in that area. Knowing what that area looks like across on Blue Mountain where you have the nice houses and the spacing and the open area and knowing that this was zoned as it was to keep with that open space, I'm wondering what makes it worthwhile to change the zoning. Vice Chair Addington: If you'll look at a lot of the homes surrounding this to the north and to the west, you know, the new zoning would be in conformance with the existing zoning out there. Commissioner McNaboe: On Kingfisher? Vice Chair Addington: Yes, and the tract to the north, and I don't remember that street name off of the top of my head. Can we have a motion to entertain then,please? MOTION PC-13-2006: Commissioner Bidney made a motion that we approve Z- 06-01 and Tentative Tract Map TTM-06-01 and E-06-03. Vice Chair Addington: I would like to second that motion, and add to that that for the two cul-de-sac streets that we condition those to be private streets maintained either with the maintenance district or a homeowners association. Commissioner Bidney: I concur. Vice Chair Addington: Any discussion? Commissioner McNaboe: No. Commissioner Bidney: I noticed that on the next item on the agenda Item 7, I'd like to include this into my motion, if I could, and that is on page three of three Item No. 7 where there was something done with the title policy so that the people buying these 6 properties, if they don't come back to us and sell lots, that there would be knowledge by the title company that there is big California aqueduct going down through the street just like they have it on number seven. Director Koontz: That's a required disclosure. Commissioner Bidney: Is that a requirement? Director Koontz: Yes, absolutely. Vice Chair Addington: I thought there was already a condition. That's one of our conditions? Director Koontz: I believe it is,but even if it isn't, it is a required disclosure. Commissioner Bidney: Then I leave my motion to stand with your amendment. Vice Chair Addington: Thank you. May we have a vote please. MOTION VOTE PC-13-2006 Approved 2-1-2 Motion carries with Commissioner McNaboe voting no, and Commissioners Comstock and - Chair Wilson being absent. Vice Chair Addington: With this motion, then staff, as we understand it, what we did was recommend to the City Council to the City Council the adoption of this ordinance changing the existing zoning and the approval of this tentative map, and that this will go to City Council for final approval. Director Koontz: That's correct. Vice Chair Addington: Thank you. With that, I would like to move on to item number four. 4. SA-06-04/E-06-05 To construct three single family residences which will contain 2,280 square feet of living area and which will be two-stories in height. APPLICANT: Roberto Fernandez LOCATION: The site of the three homes is to the west and north of 23173 Vista Grande Way (Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Parcel Map No. 16945) RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and approve SA-06-04 to construct three, 7 "^ two-story single family residences and approve E-06-05 as a Class 3, Categorical Exemption, in that this project qualifies to be in a class of projects which is exempt from CEQA review. Vice Chair Addington: May we have a staff report. Planner Lampe: Mr. Chairman and the rest of the Commission, the applicant of this proceeding is proposing to construct three single family homes on Parcels 1, 2, and 3 of Parcel Map No. 16945. This on the overhead before you is a copy of the original Parcel Map 16945 heard by this Commission December of 2004 recommended to the City Council which approved the parcel map of February 2005. The final parcel map has to be approved before the map is recorded is still in plan check and is being reviewed for compliance with the City on the conditions of approval of the map. This parcel map has not yet been recorded. The subject site itself in this evening's public hearing covers about two acres of the original 3.4 acres of original parcel maps. Basically it's to the north and west of the house that is located at 23173 Vista Grande Way. You may remember December of last year that the owner of that house came before the Commission for extensive remodel of the existing home with large additions to the front and the back of the house. The Commission did recommend that it go forward. I believe permits have been given for the expansion of that house. The Surrounding areas have developed into a large-lot development of mostly custom- built homes. There are still a few vacant parcels in the immediate area. The subject's site is located in R1-20 zone with an agricultural overlay. The proposed construction of the three single family homes, we are considering this evening is consistent with the City's Zoning Code. The Section 186302.03 of the Zone Code does require a site and architectural review for the construction of the single family resident; therefore, the reason for the public hearing this evening. This is the site plan, Exhibit 1, in the package that went to the members of the Commission, a blue line drawing. It shows the grading of the parcel map on the site and it also shows the foot prints of the three homes, two on Vista Grande and one on Grand Terrace Road at this location. Parcel one, parcel two, and parcel three, and this is the house that was subject to the extensive remodel late last year. Each of the proposed houses will have two stories and a two-car garage. The two homes on Vista Grande will actually have a three-car garage, but the third car garage, will be separated by a breeze way in this location or a portico. The amount of square footage in Parcel 1 is a little over 30,000 square feet. The pad itself is smaller than that. I would just guesstimate something like 12,500 square feet located in the front part of the parcel. Proposed front yard set-back for this home will be measured at about 36 feet to the ultimate right-a-way on Vista Grande Road. You may remember that ten feet of 8 dedication is required to widen off Vista Grande for the ultimate work for this location. In front of this home will be a large driveway which is essentially serving as a two-car garage. Parcel 2 is almost identical. It's containing a home with the same layout; however, Parcel 2 is elevations of the same will be different from the elevation of Parcel 1. This pad is slightly smaller than Parcel l's pad about 11,000 square feet in size. The home on Parcel 2 will set back about 42 feet from Vista Grande. Again there will be a large driveway on the front serving the three-car garage. Parcel 3 on Grand Terrace Road is a smaller parcel it contains about 22,500 square feet. The proposed pad located in this location measures about 8,000 square feet. Running through this back of the property easterly of Parcel 3 is the 100-foot wide easement of the California Aqueduct, and they're saying out of that, the grading of the project and the actual development of the project pretty much limits the size of the pad. Because of that, they've eliminated the breeze way of this house, and it's changed the front elevation accordingly. The overall floor plan of the living area is the same, virtually the same as the other two houses on Vista Grande. It's the same number of bedrooms and the layout, therefore, the actual living area. The Third house on Parcel 3 will set back about 35 feet from again the ultimate right-of- way of Grand Terrace Road where the street is widened out. There will also be a large driveway in the front to serve the three-car garage. The proposed grading again is taken from the grading plan that has been submitted for the plan check of the parcel map. It's going through plan check as part of the parcel— final parcel map approval process. This grading plan points out pad sizes manufactured slopes, and driveway grades. In addition to that, the applicant I think did anticipate some questions from the Commission regarding NPDES requirements and have submitted a rather detailed letter and the supplemental studies regarding the NPDES requirements and how this is gong to comply with the City's NPDES requirements. The floor plan for the house on Parcel 1 and 2 that is on Vista Grande, the first floor will contain a living room, dinning room, kitchen, kitchen pantry and half bath. The second floor will contain a master bedroom, a master bath, two bedrooms, a loft area, and a second full-size bath. The floor plan for Parcel 3, again it's the same layout. You'll perhaps notice that the breeze way from the garage has been eliminated because of the size of the pad. The front elevation of the home that is going to go on Parcel 1, it reflects the early California style which was the architectural theme of this project. That style is reflected in the window shutters and architectural elements on the portions of the garage and the front entry of the home, antique lighting fixtures, wood accents on the garage doors and around the attic and the roof tile and the use of earth tone colors. The house on Parcel 3 is slightly different from the one on Parcel 1. Some of it more detailed California style architectural features and somewhat modified by this slightly more traditional look, but, again, it does have the California style in the architecture of the home. The front elevation on Parcel 3 is the house that is going to go on Grand 9 Terrace Road. Again, this is very similar to the architectural elements of the house that's going up on Parcel 1. The point is that all three houses will have a different front elevation and all will look slightly different but have overall similar architecture value. In the package that was submitted to the Commission — we don't have overheads of the preliminary landscape plans of this project. Those were labeled Exhibits 7, 8, and 9, showing front landscaping provided by the developer including box trees, irrigation system. The developer including box trees, irrigation system. The developer will also have to supply the required number of street trees under Section 1228060 of the Municipal Code. There will be a condition that is suggesting that they do submit landscaping-irrigation plans to the City, and those plans will have to show all of the required landscaping,including the trees. The colored materials for, I believe the applicant has brought this evening, has made some changes on one and is submitted, and we'll be passing that out in a minute, and the Commission can look at it to see the colors of the materials to be used for this project, but basically my understanding will be earth-tone colors, stucco'd exteriors and roof trim and roof tiles, again keeping with the California style architecture. This project is before you this evening to construct three two-story single family residences. It is deemed to be categorically exempt from the California Environment Quality Act as a Class 3 category exemption which does allow for the construction in urbanized areas up to three single family residences. The staff this evening is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the three single family homes, two-stories in height as called for by the Resolution of Approval and the Recommended Conditions of Approval and supported by the required findings. Thank you, Mr. Chair Vice Chair Addington: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Before we open this up for public hearing, are there any questions of staff? Commissioner Bidney: Yes, I think I have a question. This property, I guess according to the — originally the parcel map was done by Addington was the previous owner. The owner of the property passed away and her niece inherited it. A parcel map was put on it. Then we —Mr. Hernandez bought the property, came back to us to remodel and remodel the building, and we approved that, and now I understand that the parcel map is in the plan check, and we still don't have a parcel map recorded. Is this correct? Planner Lampe: Yes Vice Chair Addington: For clarification purposes, the Mr. Addington that prepared the tentative map... Commissioner Bidney: That's not you. Vice Chair Addington: That's not me. �. Commissioner Bidney: That's your father. 10 Vice Chair Addington: That's true. Commissioner Bidney: Which is totally proper. Director Koontz: I believe what you're getting at is that we're looking at a project that does not have recorded lots at this time? Commissioner Bidney: That's correct. Director Koontz: They could not break ground on these parcels until the lots are recorded. Commissioner Bidney: Can we postpone this until... Director Koontz: I don't see a need for it. They couldn't issue building permits anyway until they have recorded the lots, and Building & Safety will make absolute certainty of that. Vice Chair Addington: I've got a question. Is it City policy not to issue building permits until the lots record or not to issue Certificates of Occupancy until the lots record? Director Koontz: Good question. I wish Rich was here,but he's on vacation. Vice Chair Addington: Because every City does it different, but most Cities will hold off on the c of o. Director Koontz: The issue will be probably be the grading permit to do the grading on the site, and I'll check with Rich, but I really don't know think that he'd be willing to issue, you know, foundation permits with knowing that he's got an unrecorded lot. Because lots tend to move around a little bit until final mapping, and if they move too much, then you've got set-back problems. Vice Chair Addington: Do we know who is preparing the parcel map? Director Koontz: I'm sure we do. I don't remember. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. It's not an issue. Commissioner Bidney: I think it's somebody in Ontario. It's in here. I think I read it. My concern is that we keep giving authority to do things, and we don't get anything accomplished. It is our policy that the City of Grand Terrace that we do not issue a building permit until a bond is established for the improvements. Director Koontz: Are we talking about.... 11 Commissioner Bidney: Or do we go ahead and give them a permit and let them go? Vice Chair Addington: You're looking at two different issues. We've got a parcel map which has street improvements on it. All the public improvements have to be bonded or installed. Commissioner Bidney: I understand that. Has a bond been put up? Director Koontz: That's a final engineering thing. It's Public Works. If the map isn't ready to record, the bond hasn't been established. Commissioner Bidney: Because it's not done yet; so it's not ready to record. Director Koontz: Right but that doesn't really apply to what we're doing here. I mean, he has to have a recordable lot before he can build a house on it. Getting this entitlement doesn't mean he can build this house today. He can't build the house until he has a recorded lot. He can have an approved entitlement to build the house, but he can't build it until he's got a recorded lot. This is not uncommon to go through this type of process. Commissioner Bidney: I know it's not uncommon, but we're getting — to me, we're a little ahead of ourselves. If we go ahead and approve this, the City Council does approve it, and then he can go ahead and get the permit and bond for the improvements. Is this the procedure? Director Koontz: He still had to put the improvements up. I'd like to point out another issue. There is another map down at the northeast corner of Grand Terrace Road and Barton Road, those three lots.... Commissioner Bidney: Yeah, I understand that. Director Koontz: You approved in one motion the tract map and the second architectural review. Commissioner Bidney: And it's still sitting there. Director Koontz: They're working on the grading. They've been working on it for quite sometime, I don't know that.... Commissioner Bidney: "Working on it"... Director Koontz: But at the time you approved the tentative map, and you didn't have recorded lots, and you approved the second architectural review at the same time. Commissioner Bidney: We approved the tentative map. ( Director Koontz: And the second architecture... 12 Commissioner Bidney: But he hasn't come in for a building permit for a request to build houses yet either. Director Koontz: Yes Commissioner Bidney: That can sit there forever. Vice Chair Addington: Well, do you understand this process, Gary, after this approval is done tonight, then the applicant has to go ahead and prepare his architectural plans; submit those to Building & Safely; go through the planning review process, one, two, three checks, depending on what Rich requires... Director Koontz: Right Vice Chair Addington: So it's not like we approve this tonight, and he can pull permits tomorrow. Director Koontz: Right Vice Chair Addington: He is still several months away from being able to pull permits? Director Koontz: Yes Vice Chair Addington: Thank you. Commissioner Bidney: But at the time that he pulls the permits, are we going to request that he bonds for the improvements? That's the normal procedure. Vice Chair Addington: Which improvements do you want to be bonded for? Commissioner Bidney: Well, the normal street improvements, the curb and gutter and the dedication and the lights, et cetera. Director Koontz: That's part of the condition of the parcel map. He can't build the houses until he has recorded lots; so those are all—the bonds will already be in place. Vice Chair Addington: If you remember the history on this. Commissioner Bidney: Yes. Vice Chair Addington: We went through and we approved this parcel map, the street improvements, the curb and gutter, sidewalk. The applicant Mr. Addington requested that we remove that condition. We refused. Commissioner Bidney: Right. I understand that. 13 Vice Chair Addington: Mr. Addington appealed this to the City Council. The City Council refused. So that condition stands per the parcel map. Right now we're just doing a second architectural review of the houses. So before this parcel map can be record and have legal lots, either improvement have to be constructed or a bond has to be posted to construct those improvements. Commissioner Bidney: I'm trying to figure out when that bond is going to be posted. Is it before they issue a building permit? Director Koontz: Yes Director Addington: Okay. According to Gary, they can't pull a building permit until either bond is posted or the map is recorded. Commissioner Bidney: Right. Okay. I understand that now. Vice Chair Addington: Now, is that, Gary, City ordinance policy, or is that written in our conditions here that we have overlooked here real quick? Director Koontz: That's City policy for the Building & Safely Department. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. Do you have any questions of staff before we do a public hearing. Commissioner McNaboe: No Vice Chair Addington: All right. At this time we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing, and we'd like to invite the applicants to speak first or the applicant's representative. Director Koontz: Before we get into that, on Public Works Conditions of Approval under Public Works Condition No. 6, it says that "Prior to issuance," basically Public Works says, "shall comply with all conditions of approval at the time of parcel map, and the parcel map requires bonding and installation of improvements." Vice Chair Addington: Okay, thank you. Would you please give your name and address for the record,please. Tony Diaz 100 North Euclid Upland, 91786 In general, we build this house a couple of times, and it's a really nice product. Obviously, you can see the elevation, and the third garage is to give it a little bit wider ( look. If there are any specific questions I can answer, I'd be glad to. 14 Vice Chair Addington: I do have a question for you. Looking at the rendering along what would be in the color picture presented up front along the right side of the house, it appears that a balcony extends over the right side. Do you plan on extending that balcony along the side of the house as an architectural feature? Tony Diaz: No, sir. It is basically— I don't think I got your question. A balcony being able to walk outside? Vice Chair Addington: Looking at the renderings here, both the black and white renderings here, and what you presented in color, in the front of the house to the right side, it appears to be a railing and a balcony. Tony Diaz: It's just architectural style. It's not functional. Vice Chair Addington: Right. Are you planning on extending that architectural feature along the side of the house? Tony Diaz: No, sir. Vice Chair Addington: Are there any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Bidney: No. Commissiner McNaboe: No. Vice Chair Addington: How is the first house that you have permitted going along? Tony Diaz: We actually should be starting here pretty soon. We're doing a couple of salt tests around the property. It's a little soft, so we want to make sure that we're building on firm soil, but we should be starting soon. So it's going to really make the whole area look a lot nicer. Vice Chair Addington: All right thank you. At this point we'd like to invite anyone else in the audience to speak on this item during this public hearing. Seeing as no one else would like to address the Planning Commission in the public hearing phase, we'll close the public hearing and bring this back to the Commission and staff for discussion. The question for my fellow Commissioners, looking at the elevations for what would be either an Attachment 9, the right elevation, or Attachment 10, the left elevation, any thoughts of an additional architectural feature out there or just leave the plans as is? Commissioner Bidney: I think it should be dressed up a little bit with an architectural feature. 15 Commissioner McNaboe: Are you talking about the side of the house? It is pretty plain. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. Are there any other discussions or questions for staff? Commissioner McNaboe: I have a question about the vegetative swale that they talked about. Who generally makes sure that this is maintained properly? Planner Lampe: Are you talking about the landscaping that is going in the front yard? Commissioner McNaboe: Well, it talks about a vegetative swale in the water run-off, and in the information that we were given in our packet, it goes into detail about maintaining them and how they're ineffective if they're not maintained. How is it that the City ensures that those types of things are maintained on a private property? Director Koontz: Again, that's really a Building & Safety issue, and unfortunately Mr. Shields can't be here tonight. Once it's conditioned, if it becomes an issue, it becomes a Code Enforcement issue. Once the house is sold, there are CC & R's on there, and those will include something that states "these swales are there for a reason, you must maintain them," and if not maintained, the Code Enforcement has the ability to go out there and cite them for it. Other than that, it's very difficult to do so. Commissioner McNaboe: Is there guidance for maintenance for the people who are responsible for doing that? Director Koontz: The County permit, the water quality permit, yes, does have a variety of best management practices and maintenance procedures, and those should be included in the CC&R's. So if you'd like to include a condition just to be safe that "the CC&R's of this project shall include, you know, maintenance procedures for this soil quality as well,"please do. Commissioner McNaboe: Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Addington: If there are no further questions, the Chair will entertain a motion. MOTION PC-14-2006 Commissioner Bidney makes a motion on SA-06-04 and E- 06-05 for single family residence, for three single family residences. Period. Vice Chair Addington: I will go ahead and second that motion. And I'd like to follow up that along the right or left side of the house, as mentioned in Attachment 9 and 10 earlier, that we have an architectural feature provided either a dressing around the windows or some other architectural feature chosen by the architect. In addition, I'd like to add a condition that through the CC&R's, all NPDES complaint soils by the water retention areas will be maintained by the homeowner or whatever language, legal language, is { appropriate. Does the first concur with the additional motions? 16 Commissioner Bidney: I concure Vice Chair Addington: Please vote. MOTION VOTE PC-14-2006 Approved 3-0-0 Motion carries with Commissioner Comstock and Chair Wilson being absent. Vice Chair Addington: With that, we'll go ahead and adjourn the Site and Architecture Review Board/Planning Commission Meeting, and we'll go ahead and convene the Public Workshop Session. ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS Director Koontz: The only thing tonight we'd like to point out is that we actually have a court reporter here tonight. We've been dealing with the issues of minutes and getting them accurate _ and all of that and the City Manager has decided to experiment with having a formal court reporter prepare the minutes for us instead of trying to do it in-house. So we're trying it out. We'll see how it goes and take it from there. Other than that, we have nothing else. Vice Chair Addington: Okay • INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Vice Chair Addington: I've noticed we have a double left-turn lane on Mt. Vernon now. Director Koontz: That was part of the Conditions of Approval for Sav-On. Vice Chair Addington: Oh, it's nice to see Sav-On has finally opened up after what, seven years? Director Koontz: Yes, it is. Vice Chair Addington: A lot of friends and neighbors keep asking me on Miguel's. Any news I can share with them on Miguel's? Director Koontz: We're waiting. Vice Chair Addington: They moved through all the processes? 17 - , Director Koontz: There are a couple of very minor final issues that are dragging out. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. Everyone that I know of is anxious for that one. Any other information from the Commissioners? Commissioner McNaboe: No Vice Chair Addington: With that we'll go ahead and adjourn the Public Workshop Session. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on June 15th. Thank you very much. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 7:55 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON DUNE 15.2006 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, A 1 Gary L.6ontz, PlalWing Director atthe dgton, Vice Chairman Planning Commission 18