05/17/2001 - GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
MAY 17, 2001
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 May 17, 2001, at 7:05
p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder.
PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson
Matthew Addington, Commissioner
Mary Trainor, Commissioner
Brian Whitley, Commissioner
Patrizia Materassi, Director of Community and Economic Development
Michelle Boustedt, CEDD Secretary
ABSENT: Doug Wilson, Vice-Chairperson
7:05 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Call to Order
" 0 Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Trainor
• Roll Call
• Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by
the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make
written request to be agendized to the Community Development Director.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE
• This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item, which is not on the
agenda for this meeting.
ITEMS:
1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
January 18, 2001.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
1
MOTION
PC-10-2001 Chair Van Gelder made a motion to continue approval. of these minutes to
the next Planning Commissioner Meeting.
Commissioner Addington seconded the motion.
MOTION
VOTE
PC-10-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Wilson absent.
2. CUP-90-06117 Extend the time limit for K & M Raceway to continue its
operation (Renewal of CUP-90-06)
APPLICANT: K & M Raceway c/o Tyson Voll
LOCATION: 22474 Barton Road "A"
RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public
hearing and approve the resolution calling for the approval of
CUP-90-06R7 subject to the conditions of approval.
Planning Associate Lampe reported that the applicant had not arrived. Mr. Lampe had spoken
with him the day before, and was assured by the applicant that he would be present. With that,
Mr. Lampe requested the Commission set this item aside until the applicant arrives.
Director Materassi suggested that the Commission could adjourn the Public Hearing and move on
to the workshop.
Chair Van Gelder adjourned the Planning Commission meeting and moved to the Public
Workshop Session.
7:10 P.M. ADJOURNED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
7:10 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
• Information to Commissioners
Workshop Item 1 Second Family Ordinance Discussion by Director Materassi and Associate
Planner Lampe for the Commission's review and comment.
2
it
Planning Associate Lampe gave his report with regard to a request that was given by a local
developer to construct a two bedroom, 1,000 square foot second family unit on Vivienda on the
west side of the freeway. In the staff report that was presented to the Planning Commission, the
staff pointed out some inconsistencies with State Law in the Zoning Code with respect to the
Second Family Unit Ordinance. The City recently adopted a Housing Element that had included
some language that it was the intent of staff to amend the existing City Code with respect to
Second Family Units who have complied with the requirements of State Law. The purpose of this
staff report is to bring to the Commission's attention what is necessary to bring about consistency
between the City's existing second unit ordinance and State Law.
Staff is requesting that the Commission give guidance in the preparation of an Ordinance
Amendment, which would be reviewed by the City Attorney and then brought back to the
Planning Commission for another workshop before it is presented at a Public Hearing.
Planning Associate Lampe reported on another issue that was raised with regard to a property on
Vivienda where the developer talked about allowing second detached units in the R2 and R3
Zone, as a matter of right, provided the living area was 1,350 square feet. This is another issue
that is related to the entire question of the Second Unit Ordinance, which staff would like to
discuss as well.
In the existing Single Family Ordinance the City restricts the occupancy of the second family unit
to residents who are at least 60 years of age or older. It also limits the size of the second units to
no more than 640 square feet, or 25% of the living area of the main residence, whichever is less.
The Single Family Ordinance also stipulates that the applicant for the second unit must be an
owner/occupant and cannot be a tenant. The State Law requires that every City adopt a Second
Family Ordinance in conformance with the government code. Whereas, a City does not adopt a
Second Family Ordinance, if someone were to approach the City and desires to construct a
second unit, the Government Code then sets forth the development standards that apply for such
instances. If a situation such as this occurs, the detached unit can be as large as 1,200 square
feet or if it is attached to the back of the house, it can be as large as 30% of the living area of the
main residence.
One of the existing conditions of the City's codes is the restriction of occupancy to one or two
adults at least 60 years of age or older. This particular condition appears to be inconsistent with
the State Law. The Code makes no provision for age restriction for occupancy of a single-family
residence. The State Law indicates that the intent of the Legislature was to provide single-family
second units for all family members besides the elderly. The Staff has had some input from the
City Attorney who also feels that this restriction,, based on recent court decisions, cannot stand
the scrutiny of legal review and will have to be modified.
There is an additional provision in the existing Code that limits existing single family second units
at 640 square feet and no more than 25% of the main living area of the house, whichever is
lesser. The State Law does provide some latitude when the local jurisdiction does develop it's
own local Ordinance, it can set the maximum size of the second family unit. It is Staffs opinion
that this particular permission of the existing City Code is consistent with the State Law. There
are cities that do not have a second family unit ordinance and where an application is made the
3
second unit can be as large as 1,200 square feet. Most of the existing Code appears to fall within
the parameters of what is allowed by State Law with the exception of the age restrictions.
Mr. Lampe reported that there were some issues that were included in the staff report that the
Commission may want to discuss during the workshop. Staff feels that the age restriction of the
existing Code must be modified to make it comply with the State Law.
Chair Van Gelder asked for the relation between the size of a lot, and the size of a residence in
relation to the size of a second residence. If a large house is on a small lot, can there still be a
large second residence on the lot.
Mr. Lampe reported that the existing Code states the second unit can not exceed 640 square feet
or 25% of the living area of the residence. It makes no connection with the size of the parcel in
question.
Chair Van Gelder moved to the strike Letter A in the Draft Ordinance: "Sixty Years of age or
older"
Commissioner Trainor had a question with regard to Letter"A". Because the State does not allow
an age restriction, can there be a limit of the occupants to adulthood, as it now reads that a single
Mother and child can live in the unit.
Director Materassi agreed with Commissioner Trainor that two persons may live in the unit, not
necessarily two adults; it may be a single adult with a child.
Planning Associate Lampe pointed out that the intent of the staff is to get the opinion of the
Commission to draft an ordinance to submit to the City Attorney for review to make sure that what
ever is proposed will confirm with what ever court decision that have been made about second
family units.
Director Materassi asked the Chair if the sentence should say "at least one adult"?
Commissioner Trainor commented that with the assumption in the ordinance is that the people in
the second dwelling are related to the people in the first dwelling. If in fact the second unit is for
family use, then there may be a possibility that a couple of teenagers may live in the second unit.
But if the second unit is for rental use, there may need to be a restriction of at least one adult.
Director Materassi asked if the Commission wishes, the second family unit may be used as a
house for family members such as teenagers.
Chair Van Gelder asked if the Commission had any questions with regard to Item B of the Draft
Ordinance.
Commissioner Addington commented that in Item B according to State Law, where there is no
local second family ordinance, the second unit shall not exceed 30% of the existing living area
and it cannot exceed 1,200 square feet. If one only has 1,500 square foot home, then under
4
ZD
State Law they would be limited to a 500 square foot unit and the 1,200 square foot measure
does not apply. Are there any homes in the City of Grand Terrace that are that big to have a
1,200 square foot unit?
Director Materassi replied that the 1,200 square foot measure applies when the house is
detached. The 30% of the existing living area measure applies when the unit is attached.
Commissioner Addington asked what the average square footage of a home in Grand Terrace
was, and why not limit the square footage into a percentage for either attached or detached units.
Director Materassi replied that the average square footage in the newer areas was 1,700 to 1,800
square feet.
Commissioner Adddington replied that 30% of 1,800 would be about 600 square feet.
Commissioner Trainor wanted to know what the square footage of the smallest house in Grand
Terrace was.
Director Materassi replied 1,350 square feet if approved by the city. .
Commissioner Addington replied that it would still give a 400 square foot second family unit,
which is still considered to be big.
Director Materassi reported that based on input that she has received from citizens is that Citzens
want to have flexibility. For instance, 640 square feet is considered very small. Citizens want at
least 720-1,200 square feet.
Commissioner Addington replied that the people would still be limited to zoning, all set-backs and
the way some of the houses are situated on the lots, a second family unit as large as mentioned
could not fit.
Director Materassi asked Commissioner Addington if he wanted the verbage changed to a
percentage instead of a square footage as a unit of measure for the second family unit.
Commissioner Addington replied it would not be his wish to have a lot with nothing but buildings.
Director Materassi suggested that instead of referring to the house size, the lot size could be
used instead.
Commissioner Trainor agreed that lot size sounds better than using the first residence size.
Commissioner Trainor also wanted to know if the Commission should state a minimum size as
well.
Planning Associate Lampe replied that the State Law actually suggests that the units be at least
as large as what would be considered to be an efficiency type of unit.
5
Commissioner Wilson commented that one stated purpose of a second family unit is for a
housekeeper who may rent the second unit.
Director Materassi had a question to the Chair with regard to doing the applications at a Staff
level. Currently, second family units require site and architecture and a conditional use permit in
different sections of our codes, so applicants will come to the counter for design review and
compatibility of uses review. Planning Associate Lampe is recommending a conditional use
permit. Director Materassi stated that she would like to do an administrative conditional use
permit, that way it would reduce the price for the applicants. If it were to come to the
Commission, the cost is higher and it would be a two-month process instead of a month and a
half. The Commission would not review the applications, just the staff.
Commissioner Addington commented,that he would prefer the site and architectural review come
before the Commission, this way the neighbors would have an opportunity to provide input on
what the unit may look like to keep consistency with architecture of the neighborhood.
Director Materassi commented that when the administrative review is done, all surrounding
neighbors are noticed.
Commissioner Trainor commented that she would not mind if the application did not come to the
Commission, as long as the ordinance is written with strong guidelines.
Commissioner Addington commented that he liked the fact that the deed restrictions are
recorded.
Commissioner Trainor brought up the issue of whether the applications should be a matter that
would routinely go as administrative review and not come before the Commission.
Chair Van Gelder suggested that the Conditional Use Permit be done by staff instead of coming
before of the Commission.
Commissioner Trainor agreed with Chair Van Gelder in so far as her suggestion, as long as the
ordinance is well written. Any appeals would come before the Commission.
Commissioner Whitley agreed with Commissioner Trainor's suggestion. If a unit were an
attachment, then it would appear to be more of an add-on type of unit. Whereas, some concerns
would be raised for a detached unit. If the applications for attached units could be handled in an
administrative manner, then it would be beneficial for everyone.
Director Materassi wanted the Commission to know that although some cities do allow it, the
current City Code does not allow second family units in an R2 or R3 District. Most cities do allow
it. Rancho Cucamonga is the only City that does not allow a second family unit.
Commissioner Addington wanted to know what the square footage of the Lots in the R2 and R3
Zones.
6
22
Director Materassi replied that for R2 is 10,000 square feet, and for R3 is 12,000 square feet.
Some Lots will have to be consolidated to develop as R2 and R3 Zones.
Commissioner Addington wanted to know the current sizes of the homes in the lots were.
Director Materassi replied that she did not have an exact number, but the houses in those zones
are not very big. They are older homes, at about 1,400 to 1,500 square feet.
Commissioner Addington expressed his concern with the verbage that is being used with regard
to minimum living area of 1,350 square foot units, which can be bigger than the houses that are
currently located in those zones.
Director Materassi informed Commissioner Addington that it is the City's standard for a second
full size unit minimum of 1,350 square feet.
Commissioner Addington expressed that a condition should be added that the land could not be
sub-divided and the second full unit sold off.
Director Materassi informed Commissioner Addington that she would check with the City Attorney
to see if she could add that requirement to the code.
Commissioner Trainor asked if it would be important to have a second unit not to exceed the
square footage of the first unit.
r
Director Materassi explained that when a unit is called a "granny flat", it is state regulated. The
other, which is called a full sized second family unit, has no regulations required by the State.
Director Materassi had a question to the Commission with regard to houses being set back on a
lot. Director Materassi wanted to know the concern of the Commission with the regard to the
issue of location of a second family unit built in front of the first residence.
Chair Van Gelder expressed that if the first or second residence, whichever may be in the front of
the lot looks appealing, it really shouldn't matter.
Commissioner Whitley expressed his concern with second family units being on the front part of
the lot, regardless of how far set back the first family unit was. A smaller unit in the front of the
house is going to give an appearance of a smaller residence. It may not look that nice.
Commissioner Addington asked if any of the lots in the R1 zone would have a large enough front
yard to put a second family unit in the front. Most of the zoning codes have a twenty-foot setback,
with a smaller front yard and a larger back yard.
Director Materassi did not have that information, but volunteered to bring that information to the
next meeting.
Chair Van Gelder asked to bring forth the second workshop item.
7
2
' Workshop Item 2 Citywide CIP Discussion Presented by Assistant City Manager Donlevy and
Director Materassi for the Commission's review and comment.
Director Materassi informed the Commission that this was the first time that the staff has
prepared a Citywide Capital Improvement Program, (CIP). Existing City Programs include the
Measure I Program, The General Plan Circulation Element, and have worked with SANBAG for
request of State or Federal Funds. It is the Staff intention to put all the Programs into an
"umbrella" Program that lists all projects and categorizes them by priority. Craig Neustaedter is
here to give the Commission what his recommendations are in so far as priority of projects. John
Donlevy, the Assistant City Manager is here to present a draft of the CIP, and is requesting input
from the Commission on his design of the program and priorities.
Craig Neustaedter
TEP
In 1998, a Circulation Element Study was performed for the City and finalized. The element
includes the ultimate circulation system with respect to major roadways that are called arterials.
In 1999, the City adopted a Circulation Impact Fee to be charged to new development, as it
occurs to fund street improvements, as listed in the Circulation Element. Staff would like to
consolidate the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) under the leadership of the Assistant City
Manager, John Donlevy.
Mr. Neustaedter handed out his recommendations in terms of prioritization of the improvements
that are to be funded from the development impact fees, which includes eight signals, and
thirteen arterial segments in need of construction in order to complete the Circulation Element of
the General Plan. Mr. Neaustaedter's findings were based upon traffic volumes and levels of
service conditions on the roadways to determine when they would be deficient from a traffic-
engineering standpoint.
It is to Mr. Neustaedter's opinion that the highest priority project would be the 1-215 over crossing,
and suggests a time period of 1 year to 18 months. However, Mr. Neaustaedter feels that it
would not be appropriate at this stage to recommend actual implementation or construction of the
project because of the extraordinary cost that the City could not bare alone. The appropriate
time to try to accomplish the over-crossing is when Caltrans does the widening of the 1-215
freeway.
In addition, a signal prioritization was done. Part of the Fee Program, we are to prioritize the
eight locations that will require signalization. A portion of the fees collected from the City will be
used to fund the construction of traffic signals. The findings were based on collision history and
traffic volumes. The end result of the analysis comes down to one location that is in critical need
for signalization, which is Mt. Vernon at DeBerry. It is a very high pedestrian volume location with
a collision history of multiple traffic collisions involving pedestrians. Among the remaining seven
locations that require signalization would be intersection of Barton Road at Honey Hills. It is Mr.
Neustaedter's suggestion that the City consolidates this project with Barton Road at Grand
Terrace Road. There is an off-set between the two intersections at Barton Road, and have
8
Z{
- sufficient right-of-way in order to eliminate that off-set which in itself presents a hazardous
condition. The City Staff is currently working on a design project to eliminate the offset and
realign Grand Terrace Road with Honey Hills.
Mr. Neustaedter is currently working on two separate Grant Applications to get funding for
construction of a traffic signal at Mt. Vernon and DeBerry.
All of the material provided to the Commission has been presented. The Assistant City Manager
has used this information to develop the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Neustaedter turned
the presentation over to Assistant City Manager John Donlevy.
John Donlevy
Assistant City Manager
City of Grand Terrace
Assistant City Manager John Donlevy gave an overall report of the proposed Citywide
Consolidated Capital Improvement Program by giving a description of what improvements have
been made. Namely, the recent street resurfacing along with traffic signal improvements and
various other improvements throughout the City. Assistant City Manager Donlevy also reported
about future projects, such as bike lanes and traffic calming and all other projects to be included
in the Consolidated Capital Improvement Program. A second CIP Workshop is scheduled for the
next meeting.
Chair Van Gelder asked Mr. Donlevy to address the issue of traffic calming for the City.
Assistant City Manager Donlevy replied that there was a handbook that was issued in February of
2001. With the Spring Mountain Development going into plan, traffic calming will become an
issue for the City. The City will ask the Developers to fund various types of traffic calming in our
neighborhoods. One of the key disputes that the City has with the traffic engineer for Spring
Mountain is the amount of traffic that will hit Barton Road and Mt. Vernon. The solution for the
intersections will be signalization.
Commissioner Addington had a question with regard to the signal prioritization handout sheet
from Mr. Neusteadter. Commissioner Addington expressed his concern, as a resident of the City,
adding eight more traffic signals seems to be too much for this City.
Assistant City Manager Donlevy replied to Commissioner Addington's concerns by stating that
the document handed out is to be considered a long term document, and should be considered
for the future as far as signalization.
Chair Van Gelder asked Director Materassi if she wanted to speak with regard to the CIP
Program.
Director Materassi replied that because there is so much to absorb, and it is so late, that it would
be best for her to speak with regard to the program at the next meeting. Director Materassi
mentioned that a fee-tracking document that may need to come back to the Planning Commission
9
2S_
and may be implemented to keep track of all the projects that have and will be paid by the
Circulation Impact Fees that were approved last year. In terms of recommendation to the
Council, Director Materassi would like to bring forth to the Commission some categories of
projects so projects can be looked at from an Economic Development, Planning and Traffic
perspectives.
Information from Commissioners
Commissioner Addington thanked Secretary Boustedt for putting the meeting packets in new
binders.
Chair Van Gelder asked on the status of the Rite Aid site.
Director Materassi replied that the property owner had agreed to clean the lot up. The property
will be leveled out and berms will be put on the Arliss and Mt. Vernon sides, that way it will deter
any cars from going into the lot. The property owner has been given six months. If there is no
tenant within that time, the City will install a wooden fence at the owner's expense.
Commissioner Addington asked if Walgreen's had ever been approached for the lot.
Director Materassi replied that they had been approached at the same time that Rite Aid and Sav-
on were requesting information. The property owner is currently dealing with Sav-On, but the
company is currently looking at other properties as well.
Chair Van Gelder asked what the expected date for occupancy of the Chevron Station.
Director Materassi replied that she was not sure. The drawings are currently being worked on
and should be going into plan check fairly soon. It is a possibility that Chevron may be in the
space within four to six months. Demolitions and inspections will need to be done prior to
occupancy.
Director Materassi wanted to let the Commission know that the Chevron Station requested a beer
and wine license for the convenience store. Chevron had decided not to apply for the license but
then changed their minds, and would like to process an application for a CUP Amendment. The
issue of this application will be brought back to the Commission to change the Conditions of
Approval to regulate the sale of beer and wine license. Staff will review other cities regulations
where gas stations sell liquor.
9:05 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
Chair Van Gelder asked that the Planning Commission Meeting be reconvened, since the
applicant is present.
9:05 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
10
2,
2. CUP-90-06117 Extend the time limit for K & M Raceway to continue its
operation (Renewal of CUP-90-06)
APPLICANT: K & M Raceway c/o Tyson Voll
LOCATION: 22474 Barton Road "A"
RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public
hearing and approve the resolution calling for the approval of
CUP-90-06R7 subject to the conditions of approval.
Planning Associate Lampe reported that the operator, Tyson Voll, of K & M Raceway at 22474 A
Barton Road would like to renew the approval of K & M Raceway. It is a business where model
cars race over a dirt track. The City originally approved the raceway in 1990. It has been
extended and renewed a number of times, and was previously approved as a temporary type
use, with two-year extensions over the years. Mr. Voll submitted a letter requesting that the City
renew the permit for K & M Raceway in which the letter has been included in the staff report. The
letter states that the business has not caused any problems to the City and the surrounding
neighbors. The hearing was advertised in the Grand Terrace City Newspaper as required by
ordinance, and notices were sent out to 25 property owners. No calls or letters were received
regarding this particular use. The Sheriffs department was contacted in which they advised that
the raceway has not presented any particular problems with the community.
The days and hours of operation of the raceway and other conditions will remain the same as
originally approved in earlier approvals with no changes proposed. In 1990, the original approval
required landscaping to the site along Burton Way. The landscaping was originally put in when
the raceway was constructed. Over the years, the landscape has become negligible and the staff
is suggesting that one of the conditions of approval be that landscaping be replanted in that area.
The overall appearance of the use of structures needs to be improved, mainly repainted and
rebuilt. The applicant has had a chance to review the overall conditions and report to the Planning
Commission that he in agreement to abide by the conditions to refurbish and re-landscape the
subject use.
Other improvement recommended by staff is that the paving in the parking lot be repaired where
necessary. Chain link fencing on Burton Way be reset and repaired where necessary and in a
weed free condition.
The staff is prepared to make a recommendation that the use be continued again for another two
years to expire in May 2003. Staff cannot recommend a longer period due to the present
condition of the site. However, a condition has been drawn up for the applicant if the property is
re-furbished, and re-landscaped, Staff is suggesting that at the end of the-two year period, upon
review of the Commission should the property be improved, additional three years may be
granted to applicant for the use of the property.
i
11
z�
It has been noted that the use of this property was on a temporary basis. However, at the end of
five-year period, fifteen years will have lapsed. Staff feels that it would be time for a permanent
\- use of the property. Should the use of this property go beyond the five-year period, the project
should be made to come forth the development standards of the Barton Road Specific Plan, for
the modifications should be sought by the operator of the raceway.
It is Staffs recommendation that at the close of the Public Hearing, the Commission approve the
application subject to the conditions of approval.
Director Materassi informed the Commission that the original approval was based on a temporary
use permit, such as the Christmas tree lots, etc. Because the applicant followed all safety, noise,
and operational conditions, the Commission continued to renew the application. If the
Commission decides that the applicant will be approved for five years, then Staff and Commission
need to work on bringing the site up to code or to process an amendment to the Barton Road
Specific Plan.
Commissioner Addington had a question with regard to the hours of operation. Was the applicant
referring to the track, or the track and the hobby shop?
Planning Associate Lampe replied that it was to his understanding that it is for the full operation of
use, .including the track and hobby shop.
Chair Van Gelder opened the public hearing for the applicant to address the Commission
Tyson Voll
124 South Normandy Court
Anaheim
Mr. Voll apologized for his tardiness for the meeting. Mr. Voll reported that he purchased the
business three years ago, and has run the business as a family oriented business.
Chair Van Gelder asked Mr. Voll if there were any problems with the number of persons at the
site. Mainly, full capacity of 100 persons.
Mr. Voll replied that the most people he has ever had at a race was 97 persons. The average
number would be about 37 persons.
Commissioner Addington asked if the hours of operation for the raceway were the same as the
hobby shop.
Mr. Voll replied that the track has not been opened on Wednesday's since December due to his
full time position at a radio control car manufacturing company.
Commissioner Addington asked Mr. Voll if he ever ran the hobby shop outside of the racetrack
hours.
12
- Mr. Voll replied that he has not.
Chair Van Gelder asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to address the Commission with
regard to the racetrack.
Don Smith
12029 Mount Vernon Avenue
Grand Terrace
Mr. Smith reported that this was the first time that he received any notification of a hearing with
regard to the racetrack. If he had received notification, he would have come to the hearings to
address the Commission with some objections.
Mr. Smith objects to the loud noises of the racetrack. The noise continues on Friday and
Saturday nights until 11:00 P.M. and sometimes until midnight. The races also take place on
Sunday afternoons. Mr. Smith reports that due to the noise of the track, they are unable to hear
the television when the doors and windows are shut. The volume is sometimes reduced for a
short period of time, then increases. As evening progresses, the announcers become more
excited shouting loudly on a public address system. Mr. Smith has complained directly to the
announcers, but says it does no good.
Mr. Smith claims that he had written a letter to the City claiming that they did not object to the
activities for children, but the noise level needs to be monitored. Mr. Smith is opposing the
project or recommends no noise amplification on the site.
Mr. Bob Haney
28116 Eucalyptus
Highland
Mr. Haney reported that he is currently negotiating with the property owner to take over the
racetrack business. Mr-Haney will work to make some changes and will work with Mr. Smith who
opposes the project to keep the noise level down.
Mr. Haney proposed that the fence around the track would be changed to a wooden fence and to
plant vegetation to cushion the noise level. The public address system would be relocated to
become user friendly to the community.
Director Materassi reported that the City received one complaint for noise and had requested the
racetrack to move the public address system towards the racetrack. With that, the City never
received any more complaints. Another condition has been added with regard to complaints.
Planning Associate Lampe reported with regard to two conditions that were added relating to
noise in a residential area, and the noise level should not exceed 55 dba's of ambient noise levels
which ever is higher. Staff is happy to work with the new business owner to resolve the issue for
the residential properties surrounding the project. There is also another condition that if two
13
formal complaints are received by two separate citizens, the permit would be re-evaluated by the
City and a noise study would need to be performed and paid for by the applicant. Both conditions
are current and on the staff report.
Director Materassi reported that the ambient noise level must not be exceeded. The noise level
shall be below 55 dba's or below the ambient noise levels which ever is higher. Otherwise a noise
study will have to be performed. This condition has always been required of this project since the
beginning.
Mr. Haney asked the Commission for permission to open the hobby store by itself on a full-time
basis.
Chair Van Gelder replied that because the issue of the hobby store was not part of the
application, the issue could be addressed at another meeting.
Chair Van Gelder asked if planting shrubs would help to alleviate the noise.
Director Materassi replied that it may help a little, but ultimately, a sound wall would help the
most. If the speakers were lowered, it would be most helpful.
Chair Van Gelder brought the application back to the Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Addington had a question with regard to condition number six. Ten minutes prior
to the designated closing time, by 10:30 p.m. should be removed. Because the track closes at 8
- p.m. and 5 p.m. on Sundays.
Chair Van Gelder had a question with regard to closing time. What if a race runs long passed the
closing time.
Director Materassi replied that the applicant would need to plan the race to where it will end
before 10:30 p.m., according of the City noise ordinance.
Commissioner Addington stated that the conditions are set forth, and if complaints should come
in, the City will deal with them accordingly. But most importantly of all, the complaints have to
come to the City first and foremost.
Director Materassi explained that the noise complaints are forwarded to the Sheriffs Department,
in which they will investigate.
Commissioner Trainor expressed her concerns with the houses immediately across the street on
Mount Vernon, which are the closest residences to the racetrack. There really isn't a great
populous to hear from, so it is likely that there will only be two or three people who will complain.
It will not seem like a lot of volume, but those are the people who will be directly affected by the
noise. With that, Commissioner Trainor feels that there should be some language put forth to
guard the quiet hours as far as morning and evening hours to keep the environment quiet.
14
30
Director Materassi informed the Commission that the noise level study is never done prior to the
issuance of a permit, but rather after complaints have been received because of the cost:
$3,500.00.
Chair Van Gelder asked if the applicant can lower the public address speakers at this point, and
why the applicant had the public address speakers set up so high.
Tyson Voll replied to Chair Van Gelder stating that he had no problem with moving the speakers
to a lower level. He currently has the speakers set up at the top of the building pointed downward
towards the track.
Chair Van Gelder asked Mr. Voll if it would be satisfactory to place the speakers at the same level
where the spectators are.
Tyson Voll replied that he had never had the speakers set up in that fashion, but was willing to
move them and try. Mr. Voll notified the Commission that he has two types of races that he runs;
they are gas powered and electric powered. Being that the gas-powered vehicles are noisier, he
runs them first. When the last set of races are held at night, the gas-powered vehicles are run
first. Mr. Voll also turns the public address system down during the evening hours.
Chair Van Gelder asked Mr. Voll if he was the announcer during the races.
Tyson Voll replied that he was the announcer, and runs the shop himself.
Mr. Smith asked the Chair if he may speak to the Commission once more.
Chair Van Gelder invited Mr. Smith to speak at his request.
Mr. Smith thanked Chair Van Gelder for the opportunity. He wanted to clarify that he has heard a
woman announcer as well as another man doing the announcing during the races. The problem
that they have is that the announcers get very excited and get louder as though the Grand Prix or
Indianapolis 500 is racing. He stressed the importance of having quiet in the residential area in
which it is zoned for.
Chair Van Gelder moved to add a condition designating a lower place for the sound system.
Commissioner Trainor suggested that the public address system be moved below the fencing.
Commissioner Addington suggested to add verbage that the speakers be moved to an elevation
below seven feet or less and shall be directed towards the west, and not pointing towards
residences at Mount Vernon. If the public address speakers are mounted on the building like the
applicant says they are, then they are pointed out towards Mount Vernon.
MOTION PC-11-2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Addington that the speakers be
lowered to an elevation of seven feet or less when in operation, and
the speakers will be directed towards the west.
15
31
`M Motion seconded by Commissioner Trainor.
MOTION
VOTE
PC-1 1-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1 with Commissioner Wilson absent
MOTION PC-12-2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Addington to modify Condition six
to remove the words, "by 10:30 P.M."
Motion seconded by Chair Van Gelder
MOTION
VOTE
PC-1 2-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1 with Commissioner Wilson absent
MOTION PC-13-2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Addington to approve CUP-90-
06R7, along with the amending conditions.
Motion seconded by Chair Van Gelder
MOTION
VOTE
PC-1 3-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1 with Commissioner Wilson absent.
Commissioner Addington stated that he would not be at the next Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for June 21, 2001.
9:33 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 21, 2001.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
Pathzia Materassi Fran Van Gelder
Director of Community Chairperson, Planning Commission
and Economic Development
16
32