Loading...
11/15/2001 clTy GRAND TERM E Community Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 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 November 15, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice Chairperson Matthew Addington, Commissioner Mary Trainor, Commissioner Brian Whitley, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, CEDD Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Michelle-Boustedt, CEDD Secretary _- 7:00 p.m. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • 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. 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • (909) 824-6621 ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. MOTION: PC-31-2001 Chair Van Gelder made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated October 18, 2001. Commissioner Addington seconded the motion MOTION VOTE: PC-31-2001 Motion approved 3-0-2-0. Vice Chair Wilson abstaining Commissioner Trainor abstaining 2. CUP-01-03 A Conditional Use Permit for a wholesale plumbing supply business to occupy an 11,781 square foot building under construction at 22070 Commerce Way in the CM — Commercial Manufacturing zoning district. APPLICANT: Riverside Winnelson Company LOCATION: 22070 Commerce Way, Grand Terrace RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Assistant Planner Cumblidge presented his staff report before the Commission. The building in which the proposed use is to be located was initially reviewed by the Commission in October of 2000. In terms of the initial environmental review, the Planning Commission had adopted a negative declaration. The Conditional Use Permit can be declared categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Notice of Exemption will be prepared. The building is located in the commercial manufacturing district with a General Plan designation of General Commercial. The particular use of Building Supplies and Sales requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. An 11,781 concrete tilt-up industrial type of building with a sales room and warehouse would be used. In October of 2000, it was discussed that the present applicant would be the occupant of the building. Riverside Winnelson Company is a wholesaler of plumbing supplies for the construction. industry, which includes pipes,'pipe fittings, valves, faucets and water heaters. There is no proposal for a large volume of any potentially hazardous materials. All products such as glues for pipes, drain cleaners, etc., typically used by plumbers are in small quantities and 2 are pre-packaged. There will be no bulk storage, handling or re-packaging of potentially hazardous materials. The location will have a total of 11 full and part-time employees, and 2 delivery trucks. The site plan for the building was approved with 21 parking stalls and ample room to park delivery trucks. The hours of operation are from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday and 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Saturdays. It appears that this business will fit well with the other adjoining uses in the Commercial Manufacturing zones such as Superior Pool Products and Essco Wholesale Electric; and should also fit well within the City's Economic Development Strategy. The Commission approved the roll up door facing Commerce Way and conditioned that the door would be used solely for vehicles entering and/or exiting the building and not for backing and maneuvering of trucks to or from Commerce Way or the loading of goods materials to or from trucks parked on Commerce Way. This condition is repeated for the Conditional Use Permit. Another issue dating to the original zone change for this property concerns the proportion of retail sales tax generated by a wholesale business in this zoning district. The Condition of Approval was placed on this site as well as prior approvals for this area stipulates that wholesale uses shall have at least 30% of their volumes of sales taxable. There is a reporting requirement that was included in the 200 applications and has been repeated in the present application presented before the Commission. The Conditional Use Permit application was forwarded to the Fire Department and to the Building and Safety Department, in which the Fire Department responded with standard conditions,of approval. The Building and Safety Department had no comment on the project. At this time, there are no un-resolved issues. Assistant Planner Cumblidge concluded that the Applicant has received a copy of the Staff Report and the Conditions of Approval and has no questions or concerns. The building is very close to completion and the applicant is asking for a Certificate of Occupancy within the near future. Commissioner Addington asked Director Materassi if the application was once again being brought before the Commission because of the roll-up door? Director Materassi replied no, that the use of the building is subject to a Conditional Use Permit and it was not brought for review with the original Site and Architecture Application submitted in October of 2000. The applicant was not ready at that time. Chair Van Gelder opened up the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to speak before the Commission. Jim Coffin CY-Development Company Grand Terrace Mr. Coffin informed the Commission that he was the owner of the property as well as the surrounding properties. Mr. Coffin also owns the building Superior Pool Products currently occupies and reports that their business is doing very well. 3 Mr. Coffin made an effort to get Essco Electric to hire his company to build their building on one of his properties, but the building that they are currently occupying became vacant and Essco decided to move into that building instead. Mr. Coffin has spoken to the owner of Essco Electric in which he said that sales have increased ten-fold since they have relocated to Grand Terrace. Mr. Coffin stated that all licensed contractor such as plumbers or electricians who pay sales tax would far exceed the 30% requirement that has been put into the Conditional Use Permit. Greg Goatcher Riverside Winnelson 12011 Honey Hill Drive Grand Terrace Mr. Goatcher informed the Commission that he was happy to relocate in the City of Grand Terrace and has occupied a building located at the Junction of the 91, 215 and 60 freeways for six years. The Barton Road exit proves to be superior compared to where the business is currently located. Mr. Goatcher thanked the Commission and welcomed any questions that they may have. Chair Van Gelder asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of or against this application. Corinne Robinson Stonewood Construction 22145 DeBerry Street Grand Terrace Ms. Robinson stated that Riverside Winnelson Company was the type of stable business that the City of Grand Terrace needs, and encourages the land owner to bring in more businesses of this nature to support the City's tax structure. Chair Van Gelder closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action. MOTION PC-32-2001 Commissioner Trainor moved to approve the conditions of approval subject to the six conditions of approval as presented before the Commission. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-32-2001 Motion approved 5-0-0-0. 3. Z-01-01, E-01-07 Proposed Ordinance to Revised the Second Family Unit Provisions to Allow a Second, Full-sized, Single Family 4 Residence in the Multi-Family Zones; and E-01-01, a Proposed Negative Declaration that Said Ordinance will not have a Significant Impact on the Environment. i APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace — Department of Community and Economic Development. LOCATION: Citywide RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing on Z-01-01, and E-01-07, hear testimony, close the Public Hearing and recommend that the City Council approve the Proposed Ordinance to Amend the Second Family Unit and to Allow a Second Full Sized Single Family Unit in the Multifamily Residential Zones and approve the proposed Negative Declaration. Planning Associate Lampe reported that the public hearing was for the proposed ordinance to revise the Second Family Unit Ordinance and to allow for a second full-size single-family residence in the city's multi-family zone. The Planning Commission held two workshops to discuss the issues concerning revising the second unit family ordinance, and also allowing for a full size single-family residence in the multi-family zone. At the last workshop that was held on July 19th, the Planning Commission discussed the draft of this proposed ordinance. Most of the discussion centered on whether a public hearing should be required for a second family unit or whether the Staff could perform an administrative review. It was noted that as large room additions are presently reviewed and administratively by Staff, it would also be appropriate to allow for the same kind of review for an attached type second-family unite where the second-family unite is attached or connected to the main residence. However, it was consensus of the Commission that detached type of units, which is where the second family unit is separated from the main residence, then a public hearing before the Commission should and would be required. Accordingly, at the July workshop, the Planning Commission approved the motion including a provision in the Second Family Unit Ordinance that attached second-family units, could be reviewed and approved administratively by Staff, but that detached second-family units should come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Following the workshop input, the Staff did prepare the Ordinance presented at this meeting to follow the guidelines as instructed by the Commission. This particular Ordinance came out of issues that have been discussed at various times before the Planning Commission. The latest was when there was a second unit request on Vivienda. The applicant of that particular project is present at this meeting with some comments on the Ordinance. It is the intention of the City to revise the Second Family Unit Ordinance to comply with State Law. The Staff did prepare the Ordinance based on the comments that have come out of the workshops with the Planning Commission. Specifically, included in the proposed Ordinance, provisions allowing for administrative review for attached type of units and the public hearing process for the detached units. The Ordinance also includes various features such as 5 clarifying definitions as to what is the second family unit versus a full-size single-family residence. In addition to single-family units, the Ordinance allows for a full size second family residence in the R2 and R3 Zones. At the workshop, several of the members of the Planning Commission expressed the opinion that the size of the second family unit be tied to some extend to the size of the property of the lot in question. This particular Ordinance indicates that the detached single-family residence should not exceed 10% of the lot area and an attached unit should not exceed 30% of the living area of the main residence. Staff also included upper and lower limits on the size of the second family unit. An initial study of an environmental review was performed for.the proposed Ordinance; and the Staff is recommending that the Ordinance does qualify for a Negative Declaration. The initial study, and a proposed Negative Declaration are included in the Staff Report. The City Attorney reviewed the proposed Ordinance; and he indicated that the Ordinance is consistent with State Law. The Staff does recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed Ordinance Z-01-01, including the revision of the Second Family Unit Ordinance, and also to allow a second full-size single-family residence in the R2 and R3 Zones and the approval of the Negative Declaration. Chair Van Gelder opened up the Public Hearing and invited the applicant to speak before the Commission. Corinne Robinson Stonewood Construction 22145 DeBerry Street Grand Terrace Ms. Robinson's company builds many of the second family residence here and in many other cities. However, when the second family unit application was filed for the property on Vivienda, she experienced inconsistency in' the Code and would like to address the inconsistencies during the meeting. Ms. Robinson expressed her concern on how this Ordinance is being adopted. In Ms. Robinson's opinion, the provision for living, sleeping, eating and sanitation within the minimum amount of square footage being 400 feet would be virtually impossible. Also, Ms. Robinson is not in favor of the concept of allowing Staff to administratively approved attached units, but not able to approve detached units. Many of her clientele are on limited income and cannot afford the $2000-$3000 application fees as charged by the City; when a project goes to a Public Hearing. Jeffrey McConnell 21758 Walnut Avenue Grand Terrace 6 Mr. McConnell expressed his opinion with regard to the City being too strict with the residents as far as the City Ordinance and Provisions. Mr. McConnell feels that the City should review applications on a case-per-case basis, instead of having all of these rules. Chair Van Gelder closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Addington asked if Staff would give a response to Ms. Robinson's comments regarding the percentage numbers that were discussed at the last workshop. Planning Associate Lampe replied that it is Staffs intent to have some relationship with attached type units between the size of the attached unit and the size of the main residence. The City should not have a fairly small main house and a large second family unit to the rear. The 30% standard comes from the Ordinance prepared by the State of California as guidelines for second family units. It is the State of California's thinking that attached units should be tied to the size of the existing main residence. Our 30% figure came from the State's suggested Guidelines. However, Ms. Robinson does bring up a valid point that a quarter of the houses in the city are relatively small or less than the standard 1,350 square feet. With a minimum of 400 square feet, some of the small residences would not be able to have a second family unit. A clause could be added to the Ordinance indicating tying the 30% standard or the 400 square foot standard, whichever may be smaller. Director Materassi added that this language would allow the smaller homes that are below 1,350 square feet to have an attached second family unit which would meet the 400 square foot minimum standard. If a home were less than 1,200 square feet, the Ordinance would still allow a second family unit to be a minimum of 400 square feet. Commissioner Addington asked if a house were 1,200 square feet, 30% of 1,200 would be approximately 400 square feet. So a residence would have to be smaller than 1,200 square feet not to be able to meet the 400 square foot minimum requirement. In the recommendation to the City Council, has this verbage been included or does this need to be added into the Ordinance? Director Materassi reported that it would have to be added into the Ordinance. Commissioner Wilson had some concerns with regard to having a smaller main residence and wanting to add a second family-unit residence on an assumed 5-acre parcel, and what impact it would make in relation to having an architectural review that provides continuity with the existing design? Would creating a large amount of duplexes violate the City's Code? Director Materassi replied that this was a problem because when a secondary kitchen is installed, and no restrictions are placed on rentals, it could pose as a future code violation problem. If a condition was put in to the Ordinance with regard to inhibiting the concept of a rental, then it may not comply with the State Law. Commissioner Wilson asked if it would be advisable to set an arbitrary limit of a 10,000 square foot lot and above that the 30% clause may not apply to? 7 Director Materassi replied the Ordinance already offers a relation between lot size and second unit size, whereby the second unit may not exceed 10% of the lot size. The 30% clause covers a separate issue, on of size of the second family unit in relation to the main house. It appears that the Ordinance is fine for the typical lot size and house size; however, we may need special provisions for cases with a proposed second family unit in a lot with a very small house (<1,200 sf), and second for cases with a proposed second family unit in a very large lot where even if the second family house is larger than 30% of the original house the impact may not be negative. Commissioner Trainor felt that if the size of the structure is related to the size of the lot, then the 30% restriction might not be needed. Planning Associate Lampe explained the intent of the Second Family Unit Ordinance is to make a reasonable limitation to the size of the unit in order to avoid creation of duplexes. It is the intent of the Staff to adopt a size limit. If a homeowner has a large piece of property, then the Planning Commission could add a clause to review special circumstantial cases. Commissioner Trainor felt that she would be in favor to add special review procedures to allow some cases that do not particularly fit the Ordinance standards. If the concern over allowing larger single family units, (greater than 30%) were because they might become rentals, she did not see any difference in the potential of renting out smaller units versus units larger than the 30% standard. Planning Associate Lampe responded that it was a concern and that the consensus of the last workshop with regard to the Ordinance was that there was a potential for detached type of units creating an impact on the neighborhood, and because of this, the Commission felt that there should be a review process, and the Public Hearing notification of the surrounding property owners. Director Materassi added that the current requirement of both a Site and Architectural Application and the Conditional Use Permit Application were eliminated in the proposed Ordinance. The elimination of this requirement would save an applicant and amount of $1,400. If no Public Hearing is required, then the fees can be reduced to $200 for an Administrative CUP. Commissioner Wilson asked if the State Guideline had addressed the issue of oversized Lots? Planning Associate Lampe replied that the State Guidelines did not state any relation to a particular lot size. Commissioner Addington replied to Commissioner Wilson's question by illustrating an example of using an oversized lot of 'h acre or over 21,000 square feet as an example. If a detached house is allowed for up to 30% a 7,000 square foot residence would be allowed, and does not believe that anyone would want to build a 7,000 square foot house. 8 1 Commissioner Addington added that the conditions contained-in the Ordinance as presented seemed to be in compliance with State Law as well as other local agencies. Chair Van Gelder felt that the Commission seemed too concerned about the size of the second family unit and feels that senior citizens might not want to care for a larger home. Commissioner Trainor expressed that she felt opposite of Chair Van Gelder's opinion regarding the size of senior housing, and felt that there would not be any harm in someone coming before the Planning Commission and having their case reviewed under special circumstances, and further added that senior citizens may want to have independent living quarters from the main residence. Chair Van Gelder replied to Commissioner Trainor by agreeing that some exceptions can be made possible on a necessary case-by-case basis, and should be further reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Staff will always have a prerogative of bringing applications to the Planning Commission should the need arise. Commissioner Wilson gave an example of a 'h acre lot with a 1,750 square foot house, which would be limited to 30% or 525 square feet; which would not be a reasonable sized second family unit.on a '/ acre lot, especially if a large room addition could be built in excess of 30%. Commissioner Whitley wanted to clarify and add additional language to the Ordinance that would state that notwithstanding a 30% limitation, no second family unit shall be less than 400 square feet in size. Also, he asked in reviewing other City Ordinances was 30% a uniform number or does the number vary? Planning Associate Lampe replied that the 30% figure is a uniform and standard figure that other Cities he reviewed had adopted. Commissioner Whitley felt that in case families feel that second family unit restriction are too limiting to their situations, they could build a room addition instead. Commissioner Trainor said that to provide independent quarters for the elderly is better in many cases. Commissioner Addington expressed that at this point and time, he was not comfortable in making a recommendation to the City Council with regard to this Ordinance, and felt that Staff should make revisions to the Ordinance and bring it back for Planning Commission approval. Chair Van Gelder instructed the Commission to be specific and communicate to Staff the revision they are requesting to the Ordinance. Commissioner Wilson wanted to make a suggestion with regard to lot sizes in excess of the zoning of the area to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by Staff. If there were a potential for negative impact upon the adjacent neighbors or the neighborhood, then the Staff could use their discretion to bring the application before the Commission for review. 9 Chair Van Gelder asked if Commissioner Wilson was suggesting including his statement in the revised Ordinance. Commissioner Wilson replied that he wanted to include his suggestion into the Ordinance. MOTION PC-33-2001 Commissioner Wilson make a motion to include the following verbage in the revised Second Family Ordinance as follows: "Staff is to address cases in 'which an attached unit that contains a lot size that is larger than the minimal required zoning, by something like 25% should be reviewed on a case by case basis. If a potential for negative impact is found upon the adjacent neighbors or the neighborhood, Staff will bring the application before the Planning Commission for review." Commissioner Trainor seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-33-2001 Motion approved 5-0-0-0 Commissioner Trainor was satisfied with Staffs recommendation in regard to a Conditional Use Application for a detached single-family residence, and had no further comment. MOTION VOTE: PC-34-2001 Commissioner Whitley made a motion that the percentage of the living area be consistent with the minimum 400 square feet, so that any size of house may be allowed an attached second family unit at the minimum 400 square foot size. Chair Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-34-2001 Motion approved 5-0-0-0 8:07 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information from Commissioners None • Information to Commissioners Director Materassi asked the Commission if they would be able to attend the next meeting scheduled for December 20, 2001. 10 Commissioner Trainor stated that she would not be able to attend the next meeting due to a prior work deadline she would have to meet on that day. Director Materassi updated the Commission with the following: Sav-On did not accept the former Rite Aid site. The real estate representative for the Inland Empire area passed away from a staph infection, therefore, all site considerations were cancelled. Val Clemens, the developer of the site is being contacted to build the wooden fence as promised to the surrounding residents. The housing element update will be brought before the Commission at the December Planning Commission Meeting. The CALED Workshop has been postponed to January 25th. Director Materassi will need further feedback from both the City Council and the Planning Commission on whether or no they can make the workshop. Several potential, new construction projects are proceeding in Grand Terrace: Christ The Redeemer Church will be building a new seminary. Mr. Comstock will be submitting plans to add two multi-purpose buildings for his church on Pico Street just.west of Michigan Street. A new dental office will be added on Britton Way. Dr. Darwin will be submitting plans to remodel his dental office. Swiffcom will be adding a telecommunications tower at the top of Blue Mountain. The latter of two applications will be submitted and done on an -- administrative level. Mr. Keeney's partner is in hopes building a new office building in Grand Terrace in-the near future. Mr. Roberts, who owns a site just north of City Hall, would like to revise his application he submitted for an apartment complex that was submitted 15 years ago, and would like to resubmit the application for an assisted living facility. The CIP format has been changed by the City Council, and will be reviewed during the next- City Council meeting. The RTIP and Measure I has been approved. The plans for the improvement of Vivienda and Barton and Michigan and Barton are ready for the bidding process. The last leg of the Main Street is currently up for bid. Director Materassi introduced the Planning Commission to a new program called "KEEP"- Keep Existing Employers Prosperous. Supervisor Hansberger of the Economic Development Agency in San Bernardino has given the City $50,000 for improvement assistance to local retailers within the City. The projects that may receive assistance from the City may come before the Commission for approval. Staff through an agreement process with the program will handle minor projects, such as new paint. However, minor tenant improvement will go through the normal process of administrative review. All major projects will be brought forward to the Commission. Commissioner Wilson asked the Director what the status was on the Chevron Gas Station. Director Materassi reported that there was a problem with the wood trellises that were included in the design of the gas station, which were closer than 20 feet from the property 11 line. The original solution to the problem was to build two block walls, but the developer has informed that the two block walls will not be able to fit within their budget, and would not look good. Several building officials from various cities were called to ask what has been done to allow the trellises to remain. The findings from the other building officials were to include fire retardant wood and hydrostatic tests to see how long the wood treatment would.remain on the wood during heavy rain periods. Because this may change the design criteria that was approved by the Commission, the applicant may need to come back with another design for the Commission to approve. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SEEION AT 8:20 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 20, 2001 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, Patrizia Materassi, Director Fran Van Gelder; Chairperson Community and Economic Development Planning Commission 12