Loading...
07/19/2001 c►TY 0 �RAMc TERR CE Community Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 19, 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 July 19, 2001, at 7:10 p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Commissioner Brian Whitley, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Director of Community and Economic Development John Lampe, Associate Planner - Michelle Boustedt, CEDD Secretary ABSENT: Doug Wilson, Vice-Chairperson Mary Trainor, Commissioner 7:1.0 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Addington • 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. 1 22795 Barton Road• Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • (909) 824-662 ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-19-2001 Commissioner Whitley made a motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated June 21, 2001. Chair Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-1 9-2001 Motion approved 2-0-1-2. Commissioner Addington abstained Commissioner Wilson absent Commissioner Trainor absent 2. CIRCULATION FEE Circulation Fee CIP with Exhibits for the Commission's CIP review and approval. APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace— Department of Community and Economic Development yJ LOCATION: City-wide RECOMMENDATION: Approval Director Materassi presented her report for the Circulation Fee CIP and gave the Commission a summary and exhibit maps of all projects included in the existing Circulation Fee Ordinance Number 190. Once the projects are prioritized, all fees collected will be placed in a special account to aid in paying for these projects. The Circulation Fee funds will only pay for a portion of the projects, so it will be up to the City Council to review the CIP Program on an annual basis to determine what other sources of funding could be combined with the Circulation Fee funds to implement projects. Additional projects could not be added to the Circulation Fee Program this year, unless the Ordinance is amended. If there are any projects to be added, such as traffic calming to enclose neighborhoods to traffic, another study would have to be completed and the Ordinance would have to be revised. Director Materassi reported that the main purpose of this Circulation Fee CIP is to have developers assist in paying for the traffic impacts that they cause. It is the intention of the City to mitigate the impacts of traffic, but not necessarily facilitate the traffic to come through the City. 2 The prioritization process began from the Circulation Element that was approved three years ago. The Circulation Element includes calculations of the existing traffic conditions and what the traffic " conditions will be like in twenty years. Craig Neausteadter, the City Traffic Engineer, submitted a report containing projects that need to be done and when they would need to be done to maintain service levels (LOS) "C". There are two categories of projects: arterials and traffic signals. A more detailed study was done with regard to collision data and traffic counts to prioritize traffic signals. The three top intersections were evaluated for traffic signal warrants, in which the traffic counts were calculated per hour throughout the day. If an intersection reaches 70 cars per hour in all hours of the day, that intersection will meet Caltrans traffic signal warrant. DeBerry and Mt. Vernon met the Caltrans traffic signal warrant. A grant application was submitted for the intersection of DeBerry and Mt.Vernon, and looks like it may be funded, but the final decision will go to the SANBAG Board. The traffic fees allocated for this intersection could be saved for the next project in line. The prioritization of projects does not reflect a Circulation Fee cash flow estimate because it is unknown what the annual cash-flow estimate will be. Within three to four years, it can be determined as to the amount of funds will be received, and a more realistic plan can be designed. The prioritization of projects as discussed at the last meeting also followed our economic development strategies to focus on major commercial corridors access and on the area adjacent to the freeway, including our CM & M areas. Circulation in those areas is fundamental for development of tax producing businesses and employment to support our retail base. �= Director Materassi further added that the Circulation Fee CIP is,only one plan in the Citywide Consolidated CIP. Other plans include Measure I Plan, the Bicycle Lane Master Plan, and the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, (RTIP). Projects such as the Barton Road median or traffic calming, or any other projects that the Council or the Commission feels that should be included in the Capital Improvement Plan can be included in this program. These projects, however, do not have to be included in the Circulation Fee CIP. The Circulation Fee CIP is a plan to prioritize projects that will be partially paid by the Fee that the developers will pay for according to city adopted Ordinance Number 190. One additional project that was recommended by Traffic Engineer Wes Pringle, who was hired for the Spring Mountain Ranch Specific Plan, was a Grade Separation at Main Street or Center Street. All traffic would be split to Main Street and Center Street on to the freeway. This grade separation could be included in the Capital Improvement Plan as a whole, or into the Circulation Fee CIP. The developers in the industrial areas of the City could contribute to implementation of traffic mitigations on Main Street, in which they can assist in paying the fees for the grade separation. Director Materassi suggested that the Commission recommend adding the grade separation at Main Street into the Capital Improvement Plan. Director Materassi concluded her report by asking Chair Van Gelder to recommend any projects that she and the Commission felt needed to be added into the Program, and for comments regarding prioritization of projects. t 3 Chair Van Gelder advised that the two Mt. Vernon Projects (Mt. Vernon Avenue north of Barton Road & Mt. Vernon Avenue between Raven Way and Pico Street) should be moved to the very end of the priority list in hopes to discourage the Spring Mountain Specific Plan traffic into Grand Terrace. Director Materassi agreed with Chair Van Gelder's request and added that the City could request the developers of the Spring Mountain Ranch Specific Plan to participate with the process and payment of mitigation measures. The developer's would see that there is no priority for the Mt. Vernon street projects and may request to have the projects put into top priority. For that, we may ask the developers to participate in implementation of mitigation measures. Commissioner Addington asked a question with regard to the time frames for the two Mt. Vernon Avenue Projects, and if the projects were to be moved to the end of the list, what would the City be accomplishing? Director Materassi replied that she agrees with Chair Van Gelder, and that it would serve as a message to the developers of the Spring Mountain Ranch Specific Plan that when the City pursues working with Riverside on the grade separation or any programs for mitigation fees, as developers review the City's CIP. If the developers of Spring Mountain Ranch want the Mt. Vernon Avenue projects moved up in priority, it will be up to them to finance the improvements. Commissioner Addington asked if staff knew the completion of Spring Mountain? Director Materassi informed Commissioner Addington that at last review, the developers were fast tracking the project, however, there is no time frame. Associate Planner Lampe responded that once the traffic engineer completes the review of additional traffic study, the first public hearings on the first two tracts of Spring Mountain Ranch will be held sometime within the next few months. Commissioner Addington commented that if the project were that big, by the time it is reviewed by engineering and construction and sells, it would be about the Year 2004, to 2005. Director Materassi responded to Commissioner Addington's comment by agreeing with him, but added that the developers would be looking at the City's CIP. If any mitigation measures will be required, the City would need to get their commitment before the developers sell the land. Chair Van Gelder added that she would be in favor of the grade separation as a top priority on the list. Commissioner Addington asked if Mt. Vernon Avenue was going to be upgraded to a secondary highway, what is the current status of Mt. Vernon Avenue, and will the City require additional right of way for Mt. Vernon? Director Materassi replied that Mt. Vernon is currently a four-lane street, but is not up to standard, and it will require additional right of way on a few portions of it. 4 Commissioner Addington asked that when the exhibit list was put together, how were the post 2006 projects order of priority determined? Director Materassi explained that the forecast of traffic volumes from the Circulation Element were used to determine the order of the projects, as well as the information given to staff by the Traffic Engineer regarding traffic warrants studies; besides, the economic strategies discussed at the last meeting, which prioritized main commercial corridors and the area adjacent to the freeway. Commissioner Addington concurred with Chair Van Gelder that certain projects need to be moved and should be put into a form of a motion. Commissioner Whitley asked if the grade separation was a recommendation to add it in to the Program, or is it currently on the Ordinance? Director Materassi replied that the Commission may amend the Fee Ordinance to include the grade separation. The grade separation is not currently in the Ordinance. Commissioner Whitley moved to include the three changes to the Circulation Fee CIP to include the addition of the grade separation, to move the two capacity enhancing Mt. Vernon projects further down the priority list. Commissioner Addington seconded the motion. Director Materassi asked the Commission what their feelings were with regard to including the Barton Road Median Project into the Program in general. Chair Van Gelder concurred that she would like to include the Barton Road Project into the Program. Commissioner Addington concurred with Chair Van Gelder. Commissioner Whitley abstained to the Barton Road Median Project because he was not involved in past discussions with the issue of the Median Project. MOTION VOTE PC-20-2001 Motion approved 3-0-0-2. Commissioner Trainor absent Commissioner Wilson absent 3. 2ND FAMILY UNIT Review and comment on draft Ordinance for Second ORDINANCE Family Units in City's Residential Zones and Second, Full Sized Single Family in the Multifamily Zones. Instruct staff to set this matter for a public hearing once the environmental assessment of the proposed Ordinance is completed. 5 APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace — Department of Community and Economic Development LOCATION: City-wide RECOMMENDATION: Approval Planning Associate Lampe gave his report in regard to the Second Family Unit Ordinance. Planning Associate Lampe reported that at the May 17th workshop of the second family unit matter, there was a consensus on the part of the Commission to hold a second workshop to discuss a draft ordinance to modify the provisions of the City's zoning code. The staff prepared a new draft based on the original draft that was submitted at the May 17th workshop together with comments that were made by members of the Planning Commission. In most instances, staff attempted to follow a majority point of view on the part of the members of the Commission. The new ordinance includes added definitions to the zoning code to make a clear distinction as to what is called a second family unit and a full sized single-family detached dwelling. The City Attorney did review the draft ordinance and did not find any legal difficulties with the language in the draft. In addition, the draft ordinance proposes modifications to the existing Second Family Unit Provisions in the Zoning Code by allowing second family units in all of the residential zones of both single family and multi-family with the issuance of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit. Administrative Conditional Use Permits were added to the City's Zoning Code by Ordinance 192 J last year. A full Conditional Use Permit requiring a public hearing before the Commission would only be required if the proposed second family unit does not meet certain approval criteria listed in the proposed ordinance. Also included in the ordinance is a proposal based on comments by the Planning Commission at the May 17, 2001 workshop that a full-sized second family residential detached unit be allowed in the R-2 and R-3 zones, with an appropriate review which would take place as a Site and Architectural Review. On the issue of occupancy, staff deviated from the comments made by the Commission in not requiring at least one adult to occupy the unit if it were to be rented out. This would be a difficult requirement to enforce; and it is a reasonable assumption that if a unit were rented out, there would be a financially responsible person living in the unit, which would most likely be an adult. The Commission also mentioned in the May 17th workshop that size of the parcel should be considered. A new provision has been added in the proposed ordinance that a detached second family unit shall not exceed 10% of the lot in question. Also, an attached unit to the main residence shall not exceed 30% of the main residence living area, but in no instance more than 10% of the size of the unit. 6 The proposed ordinance states that conventional metal-sided mobile homes cannot be used as a second family unit. If a manufactured home is proposed as a second family unit it must meet the design criteria of the zoning code and must be on permanent foundation, also required by the City code. The language for the approval criteria has also been expanded so that the second family unit must be integrated to what is called the house envelope where the unit must be architecturally compatible to the main residence, and the roofline will not look like an add on. The second family unit must be clearly subordinate in size, location, appearance, and access to the main residence. If the proposed second family unit does not meet the criteria, a public hearing would have to be scheduled before the planning commission with notification of all property owners within 300 feet of the site. The final part of the draft was to change the provisions in the R-2 and R-3 zone adding language that a second, full sized family unit would be allowed in either a R-2 or R-3 lot provided that the lot has no more that one existing single-family residence, and meets the minimum required area of the zone. Planning Associate Lampe concluded his report by informing the Commission that copies of the draft were sent to various contractors within the community. The contractors were requested to review the draft and provide any comments or concerns that they may have. One party who has commented about the existing code at earlier meetings is out of town at this time. Director Materassi added that the builder whom Planning Associate Lampe had mentioned was out of town had expressed that their second family units should be allowed in multi-family zoned lots. Most nearby city home ordinances, do allow an additional second family unit in multi-family lots with the exception of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. It is staffs suggestion that the Commission allow an additional second family unit to be built on a large multi-family lot. Commissioner Addington expressed his concerns with regard to the administrative approval criteria; and he felt that the applicants should still be required to come before the Commission or the Review Board for a site and architectural review. Director Materassi confirmed that when the issue of administrative review was discussed at the May 17th workshop, Chair Van Gelder, Commissioner Trainor, and Commissioner Wilson were in favor of an administrative review. Commissioner Whitley had mentioned that if the single-family units were attached, he would accept an administrative review but if the single-family unit were detached, he felt that it should come to the Commission for approval. Chair Van Gelder expressed the opinion that since it may be difficult for applicants to pay a large amount of money to process the applications, she would be comfortable with an administrative review. Commissioner Whitley had a question with regard to an applicant wanting to add on to their residence to add an extended family room or an additional bedroom on a residence; is this process done administratively? 7 Director Materassi replied that it is done through an administrative process if the proposed addition is below 65% of the floor area of the main residence. Anything above 65% of the floor area comes before the Commission and requires a public hearing. Commissioner Whitley indicated that if a room addition up to 65% of the living area is processed administratively, then he did not feel that it should be a problem to do the same for a granny flat type add-on. If the structure is detached, then he expressed the belief that the application should come before the Planning Commission. MOTION PC-21-2001 Commissioner Whitley made a motion to include into the 2"d Family Ordinance that attached single-family units be reviewed and approved administratively, and that detached single-family units be required to come before the Planning Commission for review and approval. Chair Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-21-2001 Motion approved 3-0-0-2. Commissioner Trainor absent Commissioner Wilson absent MOTION PC-22-2001 Chair Van Gelder made a motion to approve for the 2"d Family Unit Ordinance as presented with the one addition that was approved. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-22-2001 Motion approved 2-1-0-2. Commissioner Addington voting no Commissioner Trainor absent Commissioner Wilson absent 8:12 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Information to Commissioners Chair Van Gelder wanted to know if there was a residential flood light ordinance in effect. Director Materassi reported that there are no flood light specifics in the zoning code, but there are certain guidelines for code enforcement, which may be of assistance in the residential flood light issue. The Code Enforcement Officer is currently working on this issue due to recent complaints that have been received. Commissioner Addington asked if the Arco Station's new building had a setback, and if so, are the applicants adhering to it. 8 Director Materassi responded that there is no setback in the commercial area. The property owner bought a large beverage cooler and requested the setback to be at maximum. The applicant is compensating by installing mature landscaping around the site. Director Materassi reported that the applicant is within the code and the property line. The applicant has also dedicated the right-of-way for street dedication.of Michigan Street for future improvements. Commissioner Addington asked about the status of the Chevron Station. Director Materassi replied that the applicant's have not applied for a demolition permit yet, and staff is waiting for the applicant to submit working drawings for the site. Commissioner Addington wanted to know the status of the Rite-Aid site. Director Materassi reported that she had received a call from the Broker, George Flower and informed her that he is in the process of closing a deal with Sav-On. • Information from Commissioners Director Materassi reported that a grant for the traffic signal at DeBerry and Mt. Vernon has been recommended for approval. 8:15 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 16, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, 24' 'V Patrizia Materassi 'Fran Van Gelder Director of Community Chairperson, Planning Commission and Economic Development 9