Loading...
04/17/2003 r_1Ty 0 GRAND TERR CE Community and Economic Development ` Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING April 17, 2003 The reaular meetinq of the Grand Terrace Planninq Commission was called to, order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace,, California, on April 17. 2003. at 7:02 p.m., by Chairperson Doug Wilson PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairman Brian Whitley, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Jeff Gollihar, Planning Technician Jo Verhelle, City Manager's Secretary ABSENT: Matthew Addington, Vice Chairman 7:02 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Comstock • 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 Director of Community and Economic Development. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE - - A 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 (909) 824-6621 ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of ^` March 20, 2063 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION: PC-11-2003 Commissioner Bidney made a motion to. approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated March 20, 2003. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion MOTION VOTE: Approved 4-0-1-0. PC-11-2003 Commissioner Addington absent. 2. SA-03-03 E-03-02 Applications for Site and Architectural and Environmental Review to construct a new 4,426 square foot single-family home on a .93 acre lot located in the R1-20 Zone with an agricultural overlay. APPLICANT: Timothy & Denise Reese LOCATION: 11665 Bernardo Way: Southeast corner of Bernardo Way and Grand Terrace Road. RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing, and approve SA-03-03 and E-03- 02, with conditions. Planning Technician Gollihar presented his staff report by first making a correction of the address as 11665 Bernardo Way. Bernardo Way is a private road for four single family homes just off of Grand Terrace Road. The site has a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential, and a zoning designation of R1-20 with a minimum of 20,000 square feet for the lot with an agricultural overlay. A minimum of 1,350 square foot home is required in this area. The proposed home will consist of 4,445 square feet, with 3,222 consisting of living area with the remainder being a three-car attached garage. Also proposed is a 1,500 detached four-car garage. The site plan shows that the residence will be built on the southerly most corner of the property. The detached garage will be built in the front portion of the property. The floor plan consists of a single story residence with three bathrooms, a laundry 2 room with a half bath, three bedrooms, dining room, kitchen, family room, game room, and study along with the aforementioned garages. The elevation shows a single-story California Ranch Style home with a large foyer area in the front exterior r of the residence. The landscape plan shows an adequate amount of landscaping with the addition of one extra street tree that is required on Grand Terrace Road,. A landscaping plan will be needed to be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of occupancy. The preliminary grading and drainage plan shows that the lot was created in 1974 and was graded shortly thereafter. Some modification in the grading needed to be done as well as the Building and Safety Department requirement of a soils test. The Staff finds that this application complies with the municipal code and meets all of the findings in the zoning code regarding a new residence. Planning Technician Gollihar concluded his staff report. Chair Wilson invited the applicant to come before the Commission to speak. Tim Reese '11665 Bernardo Way Mr. Reese reported that a lot of thought was put into the planning of the home, and feels that the home fits the area and will add to the City of Grand Terrace., Commissioner Whitley commented that the home will be a very nice addition to the community. MOTION: Commissioner Comstock moved to approve SA-03-03, and E-03-02 as presented. Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion MOTION VOTE Approved 4-0-1-0. PC-12-2003 Vice Chair Addington absent 3. E-03-01 Public Hearing for the proposed Negative Declaration for the future development of Petta Park. APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: 4.2 acre vacant parcel located southerly of Grand Terrace Road generally between Mt. Vernon on the west and City's Senior Center on the east. 3 RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing and approve the proposed Negative Declaration for the future development of Petta Park. Associate Planner Lampe reported that the City of Grand Terrace has requested the Planning Commission to approve the environmental documentation in the form of a Negative Declaration for the future development of Petta Park. The approved Negative Declaration will be included in the application that the City is making to the State under the California Department of Parks and Recreation Land and Water Conservation Fund for a Grant to develop the park. A portion of this application is to submit the approved environmental documentation for the project. On April 10, 2003, the City Council authorized Staff to seek a $250,000 Grant for Petta Park from the State of California, as indicated. The deadline for this application is May 1, 2003. The park site is a vacant-4.2 acre parcel located on the south side of Grand Terrace Road, east of Mt. Vernon Avenue and west of Terrace View Elementary School and the Senior Center. The site measures about 800 feet in an east/west dimension and an average depth of 3,00 feet. The property is level with a downhill slope to the northwest -of the location. The surrounding area is developed as single-family residential to the immediate south and west of the subject site. To the north are vacant parcels. A workshop was held by the Planning Commission with regard to the park in which a conceptual master plan was submitted. The new park will be located immediately adjacent to the Senior Center. The existing parking lot which serves for the Senior Center will be retained and will also serve the park. Various kinds of gardens will be;developed in the park, with a strong focus on senior citizen activities. The gardens will consist of a Zen Garden, topiary garden, rose garden, sensory garden, community Christmas tree garden, raised bed community garden, art and sculptural garden, English garden, remembrance garden, and a contemplative garden. Additional public facilities will be included along with trash receptacles and a gazebo. The City is proposing that park security will be provided by wrought iron gates and chain link fencing together with security lighting, alarm systems and laser sensors. Once the development plan is prepared, there will be another Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. Included in the Staff report were minutes from the meeting held in February including comments on the potential impact of the view to the homes located to the south of 4 the subject site. Some homes are presently, impacted due to the existing vegetation in the area. A study was performed with regard to some of the factors that will influence the views from the homes, namely the height of the fencing and the number of stories for each home. The State Clearinghouse had no comment with regard to the Negative Declaration. All other agencies agreed that a Negative Declaration would be a proper way to proceed. Based on the Environmental Study, the Staff has concluded that the development of Petta Park does qualify for a Negative Declaration; and that there was no substantial evidence that the proposed development of the park will have a significant impact on the environment. With that, Planning Associate Lampe concluded his report. Seeing that there were no comments from the Public, Chair Wilson turned the application over to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Bidney had a concern with flying dust on the vacant property across the street and would there be any way to install some type of ground cover to keep the dust down. Planning Director Koontz replied that a portion of this area belongs to the City of Grand Terrace. A Block Grant has been approved for street improvements; the - street plans to install curb and gutter will be put out to bid to improve the area at Grand Terrace Road. There may be a possibility to include some type of ground cover to improve the dust problem. MOTION PC-13-2003: Chair Wilson made a motion to approve E-03-01. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-13-2003: Approved 4-0-1-0. Vice Chair Addington Absent. 4. APPEAL OF SA-02-14 Appeal of Community Development Director's decision to approve SA-02-14 to construct an R.V. garage. APPELLANT: Tom Taylor of 22810 Raven Way APPLICANT: Quality Sheds, Inc. OWNER: Robert Abacherli 5 LOCATION: 12715 Blue Mountain Court (site of proposed R.V. Garage). RECOMMENDATION: Sustain the Community Development Director's decision in the approval of SA-02-14 to construct an R.V. Garage at 12715 Blue Mountain Court. Associate Planner Lampe reported that this is an appeal to the Community Development Director's approval to the construction of a 1,152 square foot RV Garage in the southwest corner of the property of 12715 Blue Mountain Court. The appeal is for the proposed location of the RV Garage, and not on the appearance of- the design of the building. The structure will be located at a minimum of 43 feet from the westerly property line. Access to the RV Garage will be taken by means of the driveway which presently serves the garage on the southwest side of the property. A new driveway will be constructed off of the existing driveway to provide access to the front of the RV Garage. The property owner intends to store his boat and is in need of additional clearance to. get the boat into the proposed structure. The rear of the building will be located at a minimum of ten feet from the southerly property line. The applicant has been working with the City Staff to try to come up with a location % that would be more agreeable with the concerns of the neighbors. When the original application was filed, the building was located in the extreme southwest corner of the property. As a compromise, a revised plan was submitted showing that the building has been moved farther to the east. The underlying issue is that the applicant is limited as to how far easterly the building can be located because of the topography of the ground area and the underlying solid rock. In order to minimize the impact of the view from the properties to the south, the construction site will be lowered to insure that the overall height will not exceed 17 '/ feet above the level of the driveway. The proposed elevations show that the building is to be constructed to look like the existing residence, which is stucco exterior with a tile roof. Mr. Taylor, who resides to the immediate south of the subject site, has made an appeal for the application. Some photographs were submitted by the appellant showing modifications to show what his perception as to how this building will look from his rear yard and how the impact of his view can be minimized. Mr. Taylor believes that the RV Garage at the originally proposed location will impact his view as seen from his back yard. Associate Planner Lampe reported that poles were put up to show the highest and lowest points of the proposed garage in order to get a feel of the extent of the height of the structure. 6 A photograph which was taken at the rear yard of the Appellant was presented to the Commission showing the center pole being 17 'h feet above the driveway. It was the thought of staff that a compromise had been reached in terms of the topography of the lot along with the fact that solid granite that is located towards the rear of the property which is difficult to grade down. Associate Planner Lampe concluded that it is Staffs recommendation to the Commission that they sustain the Community Development Director's approval of the request by approving the application for the RV Garage as was presented and approved by the Director. Chair Wilson invited the Appellant to come before the Commission. Tom Taylor J 22810 Raven Way Mr. Taylor reported that he has lived at his address since March of 1999. There was a $10,000 premium when he purchased the residence because of the unobstructed view, as opposed to the same house on the southerly side of the street. Mr. Taylor had concerns when he was informed of the applicant's proposal to build his residence two years ago, but was happy to find that the home was built as a single-story residence. Mr. Taylor is not opposed to the appearance of the building, but rather the obstruction of his view, thus the location of the building. The Community Development Director entered Mr. Taylor's backyard to view the aforementioned poles to measure the height of the.proposed garage, but only half of the width. Further observation proves that the poles only represented two dimensions (height and width) and not the depth of the building. Mr. Taylor is in agreement that the building has been proposed to be moved east 27 feet but finds it hard to believe that moving the building further east would be difficult if not impossible due to the topography of the property. Chair Wilson asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Bidney asked if the property was zoned for horses, and if the properties have sewer lines or septic tanks. Associate Planner Lampe replied that there is an Agricultural Overlay on the site that does permit horses and that the residences on the streets are all on septic tanks. Chair Wilson invited other members of the public for comment. Jack Roy 12715 Blue Mountain Court 7 Mr. Roy reported that the building would not be 19 feet wide, but rather 15 feet wide with an overhang of about 18 feet. If the building is moved to the east, it will push the building much closer to the residence which will make it impossible to back the boat into the garage. Mr. Roy also added that if the building had to be moved east, it would also have to be moved further north. It would be very difficult to access the garage from the existing driveway. There will be considerable grading costs that will be incurred if the building is moved further east. Commissioner Whitley asked if there was another compromise or proposal that would show the property line. Donna Abacherli 12715 Blue Mountain Court Mrs. Abacherli reported that the packet she presented to the Commission includes a picture of the residence along with the southerly side showing the representing poles. Mrs. Abacherli feels that the pictures that were presented by Mr. Taylor did not depict the proposed building accurately. -If the building were placed where Mr. Taylor's photos proposed the-building to be placed, they,would not be able to back the boat into the proposed garage. _. Tom Taylor 22810 Raven Way Mr. Taylor responded that the photo presented with the poles showing that the building is height of about 15-feet, and the overhang assuming that it is 9 feet, and if the building is at edge to edge and roof to roof, it would measure 18 to 19 feet. His concern is with regard to the visibility of his back yard with the stark white wall and the size of the building. If the building were installed in a more easterly position, his view would be less obstructed. Chair Wilson asked the Community Development Director to pinpoint the specific action that the Staff is requesting of the Commission. Planning Director Koontz replied that the Commission has the right to ,uphold the original recommendation for approval to leave the building exactly as originally presented and approved, or move the building where the Commission deems appropriate. Planning Director Koontz reported that he and Planning Associate Lampe spent a great deal of time on both properties discussing the issue and looking at the view from each property. The constraints mentioned by the applicant did appear to be apparent should the building be moved further east of the property. 8 Commissioner Comstock asked a question with regard to the difference in elevation in looking at the grading plan in moving the garage further east. Associate Planner Lampe replied that it appears to be that the elevation would be about two .feet higher than the proposed location. This would consist of more grading and removal of dirt. Commissioner Comstock had a question with regard to the position of the building. If the building were to turn more toward the street, would it be feasible. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the applicant could answer this question more accurately than he could. Jack Roy 12715 Blue Mountain Court The main issue with moving the building east is that the property would have to be graded further, about six feet. As the property needed to be graded an additional six feet, there would be no room for the building. If the building would propose to be turned, the building is wider than it is deeper, so it would start to infringe on the residence. Planning Director Koontz added that there is a two to one slope rising around the area. So grading would push the slope further from the building site. Commissioner Whitley asked if the building were turned slightly, would it narrow the view. Mr. Roy felt that Mr. Taylor would probably better answer the question. Planning Director Koontz replied that this could lead to a turning radius issue for Mr. Abacherli's boat. Chair Wilson asked how large the overall lot is. Associate Planner Lampe responded that the lot is an acre in size. Tom Taylor 22810 Raven Way Mr. Taylor reported that he has never had a boat that big. But the current location of the parking of the boat is parallel with the edge of the existing residence. If maneuvering of the boat into the roll-up is the issue, it isl currently done by the applicant at the present time. Bob Abacherli 12715 Blue Mountain Court 9 Mr. Abacherli claims that the picture submitted by Mr. Taylor is not a picture of the true driveway. Mr. Abacherli says the way he parks his boat tends to be difficult, and drives up where the current garage is to back it in. Mr. Abacherli explained that the reason why he wanted the garage in the first place was to keep the boat from being exposed. If the building is built further to the east it will be difficult to access the existing garage. Chair Wilson brought the item back to the Commission for comments Commissioner Comstock wanted clarification on to what the Commission was to vote on. Planning Director Koontz replied the Commission can agree with Staff, or the Appellant. Or if the Commission so wishes, they may deny the project all together. MOTION PC-14-2003: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve SA-02-14 to uphold Staffs recommendation. MOTION VOTE PC-14-2003: Motion fails due to a lack of a second. MOTION PC-14-2003: Chair Wilson made a motion to approve Mr. Taylor's proposal. MOTION VOTE PC-14-2003: Motion fails due to a lack of a second. Associate Planner Lampe notified the Commission.that there was a third alternative that Mr. Taylor had with regard to a compromise for the application. Commissioner Comstock asked Mr. Taylor how much of a compromise was he willing to accommodate. Tom Taylor 22810 Raven Way Mr. Taylor replied that in looking at the existing posts and visualizing the center of the building, the,center of the building of the compromise location that he has presented would shift the building to east about 12-15 feet. Planning Director Koontz replied. that if the applicant did not build the building, he would have the legal right to plant trees along the area; measuring anywhere up to 30 feet, in which the Planning Department would not be able to do anything about it. Commissioner Whitley asked Staff if the property were to move about ten feet to the east, it would put the edge of the garage right in line with the center pole? 10 Planning Director Koontz replied that it would improve the situation; but the Appellant will still see a stark white wall. Commissioner Whitley asked what the scale of the grading plan was and where would it put the garage on the plan? Planning Director Koontz reported that the grading plan that was distributed to the Commission is the original grading plan that was submitted when the residence was first proposed. Associate Planner Lampe answered that the dimensions of the structure would measure 32 foot by 36 foot. Moving the structure to the east by about ten feet would require for the building to be rotated. Commissioner Comstock asked how wide the existing driveway was. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the width of the driveway was 30 feet wide. MOTION PC-15-2003: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to accept the compromises as presented by the Staff. Motion seconded by Commissioner Bidney MOTION VOTE PC-1 5-2003: 3-1-1-0 Chair Wilson voting No Vice Chair Addington absent For clarification purposes the above vote was to uphold the recommendation of Staff. 8:20 P.M. ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Planning Director Koontz reported that the Staff has come up with a general direction for Mr. Karger to move forward on his proposed project. If the Commission so wishes to provide additional input for Mr. Karger's project, it would be a great help to Staff. Planning Director Koontz also reported the redevelopment of the Richard Rollins Park should be completed by the September of 2003. The park should be re-opened by the end of 2003. • Information from Commissioners 11 Chair Wilson congratulated Planning Director Koontz for the Grant Application for Petta Park. Chair Wilson reported that there are apparent water leaks at the intersection of Observation Drive and Palm Avenue. One leak is located in the middle of Palm Avenue; as well as the front of Chair Wilson's residence. Planning Director Koontz replied that he will be talking to Riverside Highland Water Company about the situation. Commissioner Comstock commented on the trees that have been planted on Mt. Vernon Avenue, and wondered if any future irrigation systems will be utilized, rather than a City Employee with a water truck. Planning Director Koontz replied that the City has been talking with Riverside Highland Water Company about the installation of a meter, which would prove to be costly. The City is currently working on funds for a meter in the near future. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 8:30 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON MAY 18. 2003 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, Gary Kc&tz, Pla6ifng Director Doug Wilson, Chairperson Planning Commission tLampe, Associate Planner 12