Loading...
11/03/1994GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1994 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 3, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jimmy W. Sims. PRESENT: Jimmy W. Sims, Chairman Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moire Huss, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Jim Winkler, Assistant City Attorney Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Larry Mainez, Planning Technician Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: None. PLEDGE: Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairman 6:35 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION The Planning Technician, Larry Mainez, and the Associate Planner, Maria Muett, presented their reports on the California Chapter of the American Planning Association Conference in San Diego. The Director presented her report on the League of California Cities Conference. Commissioner Garcia commented on the Water Conference she attended on October 20. 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 7:00 P.M. CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1994 Commissioner Addington stated that on page 1 of the minutes, "bach" should be spelled 'back". MOTION PCM-94-50 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1994 Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. ITEM #2 CE-94-28 LARRY HALSTEAD 21894 VIVIENDA G.T. APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR/CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER'S DETERMINATION THAT ILLEGAL USE OF WEDDING RECEPTION BUSINESS OUT OF HOME CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE The Community Development Director presented the staff report. She stated this is an administrative procedure for nuisance abatement at this point, however, a deputy could issue a citation for noise, and criminal procedure could also be triggered, in case the City chooses to. Chairman Sims stated that he would open the public hearing, and that the order of speakers would be the appellant, proponents, then opponents. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:28 P.M. LARRY HALSTEAD 21894 VIVIENDA G.T. Mr. Halstead said this morning he received a knock at the door, and it was the Planning Director and the Building Inspector, unannounced, and he was 2 handed a packet. He said appeals should be contained to the matter presented at the hearing, stating that the 10-5-94 hearing, there was not a single shred of evidence, and none of the items presented in the Commissioner's packets were presented. He said if they look at the Notice of Hearing and the information listed there, the only thing that happened at the hearing was that the Code Enforcement Officer reread that list of possible allegations. He said this past Monday, he received a partial copy of that packet, however, it has been changed, added to and has all kinds of information that he did not have until today. He said if this was court, a judge would throw it out, and he was inclined to ask for a dismissal, stating that the hearing was poorly conducted. He said the investigation was unannounced and this was irresponsible of the Planning Department. He mentioned there are a lot of people here to support him and demanded a continuance, stating that he doesn't want to inconvenience people further, but that it is unfair to hold evidence until hours before the appeal. The Director said there are no requirements to submit evidence, and they had a right to go to the house; it is the Building Inspector and Community Development Director's duty to do what they did. The City Attorney said the appellant's letter establishes that he was using his property for receptions, as well as the Yellow Pages ad. He said whether the complaints were accurate as far as how much noise there was doesn't have to be finalized here. Mr. Halstead gave background of himself and the property. He said the guests park on his side of Vivienda and that they only have one wedding per day. He said that there are strict rules for the D.J.s with regard to the level of noise and placement of the speakers. He mentioned that when he went to the Planning Department regarding driveway approach permits, he spoke to the Associate Planner regarding the reception use, and he was told there might be a problem and they may need a zone change or Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and she asked for a letter from him. He said he delivered this document, and on future, unrelated visits to the Planning Department, this issue was never mentioned. He said that in July he received a courtesy letter. When he had a meeting with the Director, he said that she stated that he is in violation of the Zoning Code, but she felt they could resolve it through a CUP. He said he could refrain from booking future weddings, but he could not destroy the scheduled weddings as the invitations were already out, and the Director said she would not accept a CUP application until any and all building code violations were corrected and open permits finalized. Mr. Halstead described the surrounding properties, stating that there are three neighbors across the street, there is a railroad between the complainant and himself, and five houses down is the Stater Bros. warehouse. He 3 emphasized there is commercial/industrial use all around the property. He stated that they do have one wedding coming up on November 12. Chairman Sims asked the proponents to speak. JERRY GUTHRIE 21769 VIVIENDA G.T. Mr. Guthrie said that the appellant came to his door asking if this use was a problem. He said that it was not, and that Mr. Halstead does beautiful work. He said parking is not a problem, and this use improves the property value of surrounding properties. TERRI LEE HOLCOMB HALSTEAD 21891 VIVIENDA G.T. Ms. Halstead said her house is directly across from Larry's, and Larry's house is on top of a bluff, and it looks out over a very large wash, and he is really part of a park already, and his concept of creating beautiful gardens on that bluff is very inspiring. She said she has never had any problems with the weddings and they are the closest neighbor. She commented that Larry has put his heart and soul into this project, and she is sure there are a lot of things that need to get worked out between him and the City, but she asked the Commission to consider giving him the time to do that, stating that he is very thorough about everything he does. She said this is something that Grand Terrace can be very proud of, stating that weddings are conducted in an orderly manner, he puts signs up on her side of the street stating 'No Parking", and she can get in and out of her driveway. She said she respects that there is a religious ceremony going on, and she is here to support Larry and Yolanda and their project. EUGENE MCMEANS 2025 S. GLENWOOD COLTON Mr. McMeans said he rented the wedding facility from Mr. Halstead, but they will not be using it because the date was changed to a winter wedding. He said they rented it because his daughter had grown up in Grand Terrace and they were looking for a garden wedding. He said there are approximately five streets in and out of the property, so there is plenty of access. He mentioned facilities in Redlands and Loma Linda that have no off-street parking, and 4 JOHN HARRELTON 21891 VIVIENDA AVENUE G.T. Mr. Harrelton said he lives across the street from Larry and Yolanda and thinks that it is great to see people take the initiative to create a beautiful garden. He feels people should be able to have friends over on the weekends to experience the garden retreat, whether it be business or not. He said when the weddings take place, gangs don't come around because there is too much traffic. He said the weddings don't bother him and he lives right across the street, and he thinks it would be a great loss if the community lost this retreat and sanctuary. He said he is sure there is a lot of red tape for Larry to go through, but he is more than willing to work with this, and he has trying to work with these people to accomplish this. He said if he was not legally able to do this, then why was he permitted a continuance to do it? JOE HUDSPETH 22854 DE SOTO G.T. Mr. Hudspeth said on 9-4-94, his nephew rented the subject property for his wedding and reception. He said the rental was for a full day, and the wedding itself was from 6:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., and Larry enforced that everyone must park on the north side of Vivienda or on the dirt parking lot on Grand Terrace Road, and in fact during the reception, he made an announcement that a car was parked on the south side of Vivienda and needed to be moved immediately. He said they had to supply their own alcohol. He mentioned there was a complaint about someone yelling over the P.A. system that they wanted more booze, stating that they had plenty of alcohol and in fact had a keg left over. He mentioned that they supplied the D.J. for the event, and Larry insisted the speakers point toward the south and away from the houses. He then told the D.J. that at 10:30 p.m. the volume must be turned down, which it was. He said there were no incidents, and that Larry is very concerned with the well-being of his neighbors. WILLIAM KAMINSKY 11818 BURNS AVENUE G.T. Mr. Kaminsky said he supplied the Planning Department with a photograph showing 30+ cars. He said the noise has been bothering him, and his former neighbor Troy has called the police out many times and finally moved, stating that he had enough of the neighborhood, and Marjorie Dodson, another neighbor, has complained to him many times. He said the neighbor northwest 6 they are residentially zoned. He said the bride has the opportunity to use the house to change at Mr. Halstead's facility, but the house is not large enough for a wedding. He stated that they would have used businesses in town for the tables, champagne, catering, etc., and this would have helped stimulate business in town. He said with regard to licenses for food, he doesn't believe the City gets a license for the City Birthday Party in December, stating that there seem to be a lot of double standards. He said if he had rented that facility and the City shut it down, he would be after the City since staff was aware of what was going on for some time. He requested the City give Mr. Halstead an extension. YOLANDA de AVILA 21894 VIVIENDA AVENUE G.T. Ms. de Avila said she is here to speak on behalf of Paraiso Gardens. She said they can offer to satisfy one of the most important decisions most people will make in their lifetime, and they receive numerous calls stating how thankful people are that they can get married so close to home. She said all the weddings are non-profit, and every dollar is used to develop the property. She said she needs to go outside of Grand Terrace for many things, such as restaurants, shopping, etc., and in order for Grand Terrace to attract new business, they should be trying to offer something unique to its citizens. She said they are willing to work together with the City to make Paraiso Gardens a landmark to be proud of. She hopes this discouraging process they are going through is not the rule for everyone considering starting a business in the City of Grand Terrace. She said the City should try to encourage positive new business and not send a message that perhaps they should consider moving to another City where they will be willing to work with the citizens to build a unique and rewarding City for all to enjoy. JILL MCMEANS 22283 MINONA G.T. Ms. McMeans said she couldn't believe how beautiful Paraiso Gardens is. She said it is really sad that they can't support a local business, stating that this is a small city and they should have respect for the businesses in the area. She stated that they do a very good job and they should keep it going, and if they can't support local businesses, they won't have anything, and she does not want to see that happen. She said we should help Mr. Halstead to do whatever he needs to do to improve his land rather than try to shut him down and be his enemy. 0 of him, Pamela Harrington, said she could hear the noise from where she is. He said he made a recording from his backyard, and played a portion of it. He said that he and Troy made a complaint in June of 1993. He said the latest these parties go is 2:00 am., but most of them shut down around 12:00 or 12:30 p.m. He said they have typically gone on every weekend since May. He said in late October he flagged down an officer at 6:30 p.m. on a Saturday, and the officer said he was informed that there was a permit issued for this property. The officer stated they had received a complaint in September, and he came out himself, and Mr. Halstead said he had a permit to use the property as such. He said on a subsequent day, Mr. Halstead told him there have been no complaints, and he (Mr. Kaminsky) told Mr. Halstead he and his neighbors were tired of the noise. JIM THOMAS 909 FOUNTAIN STREET HIGHGROVE Mr. Thomas said his children found this facility in the Yellow Pages, and being in the Yellow Pages, he assumed it was a business. He said the facility did not have the necessary restrooms, stairs or accommodations that a business is required to have, and a member of the family who was 75 years of age could not attend because there are no handicapped provisions. He said his wife nearly fell down the steps, which are not equal in length. He mentioned there were bare electrical wires accessible to children, so he felt perhaps this business should be mentioned to the City to see if there were any code violations so it could be brought up to code. 9:40 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Halstead requested a chance to respond. This was granted by Chairman Sims. 9:50 P.M. REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING LARRY HALSTEAD 21894 VIVIENDA G.T. Mr. Halstead said he has a copy of the letter signed by every neighbor they approached, including all the neighbors on Burns Avenue except Mr. Kaminsky and the lady next door. He said with regard to the neighbor Mr. Kaminsky referenced as being against this facility, he went over and talked to her and she stated that if she had a problem, she would come and tell him, and that she has never had a problem. He stated that once when one of the 7 receptions included a mariachi band playing, she positioned herself as close as possible so she could enjoy it. He stated that 100% of the profit goes into the nature sanctuary. He said as far as the previous clients, it was the bride and groom that booked, and they never, ever, book a wedding site unseen, and everything that was moaned and groaned about was there when the people booking the wedding were there. He said this is something that his neighbors approve of and this is something that over 25 businesses located within the city limits benefit from and be willing to speak out in favor of. He said he has a letter from a Sergeant from the Colton Police Department who was recently married there. He asked and pleaded for the Commission not to deny the appeal. He asked for some kind of condition stating that he can continue booking weddings so they can consider being financially able to meet the requirements laid out. 9:55 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Garcia asked if there was a difference between a business versus a commercial use. City Attorney Winkler stated that being that revenue is received and a service is provided, this would, therefore, be a commercial venture, and there is no evidence as to whether or not this is non-profit or not. He stated that whether or not this is used for an altruistic purpose or not is not relevant. Chairman Sims asked if the appellant was responsible for the provision of food and alcohol. The City Attorney said that the question would be whether or not it is zoned for this in the first place, but regardless of whether other entities provided the food or alcohol, the appellant would still be the responsible party. Commissioner Van Gelder said she didn't think anyone would deny that having a natural habitat in our community is worthwhile, and there is nothing nicer than providing a place for a wedding, but she keeps coming back to the original status of the Notice of Violation, using a residential property for a commercial purpose and holding an outdoor festival without obtaining a business license. She asked if these two things determine a nuisance. The City Attorney said that any one alone can be sufficient to determine a nuisance. Commissioner Van Gelder commented that all this extraneous material is really not relevant to what they are talking about tonight. She stated that Mr. Halstead is "putting the cart before the horse" and if he took care of all the 93 licenses, etc. then he could start operating, but the important thing is that he get the CUP and bring everything up to City standards, because the City is responsible, and they are the ones that are going to get the brunt of this if there are any accidents. The City Attorney said the City is on notice that these issues are out there and people are making complaints, and if there is something going on there, the City may be liable in the future, and this is one of the reasons to have permitting processes so these things can be addressed. Discussion took place regarding a possible Hold Harmless Agreement until corrective actions took place. The City Attorney said the City would still be the "deep pocket", plus it doesn't address the other issues such as possible noise. Commissioner Huss asked what would happen if they were an official, non- profit organization with regard to residential zoning. The City Attorney said this would have no relevance. Vice -Chairman Wilson asked if it would be possible for Mr. Halstead to apply for a temporary festival permit with specific, restrictive conditions. The Director said licensing for festivals, usually for one day, goes to City Council, but there has never been a project with a track record of code enforcement to go to City Council for a festival permit. She stated that the policy of the City is not to process any applications unless all existing violations of the code are corrected. Vice -Chairman Wilson said that the applicant has an event coming up and the appellant has made some efforts to shut down his operation, which is what has been requested of him, but it sounded to him like the appellant is between a rock and a hard spot. He asked for clarification regarding the reason why there was a time frame in the enforcement, stating that his understanding was that there was a backlog. The Director agreed. Vice -Chairman Wilson stated that businesses, by their nature, have an obligation to do due process, and if there are specific codes that must be adhered to, a business must research these codes and be knowledgeable of these things. He said the City also needs to look at its time -frames. The Director said they do have a long courtesy process, and they really only get to the hearing if there is no way to set feasible plans. She said it would be hard for the City to allow the weddings to continue because of the Uniform Building Code violations, i.e. exposed wires, and if anything 9 happened, there is a huge liability there. She said even if City Council decided to alter the policy, the property should be up to code in order for an application to be processed. Vice -Chairman Wilson said it seems possible for him to do a one-time event, but he still has to adhere to the things that make his operation safe and legal for that one time. The Director said this is correct, provided the City Council changes their policies. She said allowing him to book weddings may create a liability. Vice -Chairman Wilson said he would be at his own risk if he booked weddings after submitting an application. Commissioner Garcia had questions about licensing. The Director said first of all, it is not a permitted use in that zone, and a Home Occupation Permit does not allow customers to come to the home, so he couldn't even get an HOP. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how a one-time permit could be issued if the business is not up to code. The Director said the basic safety items need to be taken care of first. Chairman Sims felt that by ignoring knowledge of the code violations, we would be putting ourselves in a liability situation. The City Attomey agreed. Chairman Sims asked what would be necessary to approve the appeal. The Community Development Director said they would need to set new corrective actions and provide that they cover the liability of the City. She said if they deny the appeal, it means the project is a nuisance, and if they approve the appeal, they can have the same conditions set by the Hearing Officer, but it is just not a public nuisance. She said the two corrective actions are: 1) that they stop the weddings immediately and 2) they need to submit building permit plans, which they did today. The City Attorney said if the appeal is approved and no other action is taken, staff still has an obligation to seek other ways of enforcing the code, i.e. criminal citations, etc. He said for the Planning Commission to look the other way approve the appeal and set conditions is really something the City Council should be doing. 10 MOTION PCM-94-51 CE-94-28 Commissioner Munson asked if they had the power to continue this item. The City Attorney said they have the raw power to do so, however, this could be seen as looking the other way, and they should look at the possibility of exposing the City to liability. Commissioner Munson said, due to the already scheduled wedding of November 12, he was willing to give the appellant the benefit of the doubt until such date, as long as it does not obligate the City to any heavy liability. He stated that he expected then that the appellant, after November 12, would have to show good faith and bring everything up to code. The Director said there is a great liability in doing this, so the City has proposed that the situation is a Public Nuisance, as there is a use that is not legal and a liability to the City. The City Attorney said if the continuance is for that purpose, then the City has a potential liability. He said he can not say whether this liability is remote or great, but if someone does get hurt, this presents a potential liability. Commissioner Munson asked if our liability would be any greater if the appellant ignores us and has the wedding anyway than if the Commission continued the item. The City Attorney said our liability would be less if they acted today and the appellant ignored it. Chairman Sims asked about approving the appeal with corrective actions to be in place as of November 13, along with a Hold Harmless Agreement. The City Attorney said this would be done with a conscious knowledge of the circumstances and the wedding date, and the Hold Harmless would help, but it may not save the City from liability if the person does not have the money to back up the Hold Harmless. Commissioner Van Gelder said she didn't feel they had any other choice but to deny the appeal. Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to deny the appeal. 11 MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND MOTION PCM-94-52 CE-94-28 Commissioner Garcia asked if they could approve the appeal and set the same corrective actions. The Director said she believed that if they approve the appeal with same corrective actions, then they would be saving some liability for the City. She said, however, they would be going against the Zoning Code. The City Attorney the potential for liability is minimized, but the safest route would be to deny the appeal. Commissioner Huss suggested requiring bonding. The City Attorney said they would still be permitting something to go on when it is not zoned for that. Chairman Sims made a motion to approve the appeal with corrective actions to remain in force. Vice -Chairman Wilson seconded. Commissioner Munson asked what will happen on November 12th. Chairman Sims said the City has the right to send a Deputy to the site. Commissioner Van Gelder said she doesn't see how they can say this is not a nuisance, because of Items 1 and 2 - use of residential property for commercial purposes is not allowed, and holding an outdoor festival without obtaining a business license is not appropriate. Inaudible response. The Director said a nuisance can be declared based on one item. Inaudible conversation. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if those Items 1 and 2 did not come out of the Code. The Director said they did, but it is their raw power to disagree with the Declaration of a Public Nuisance. 12 MOTION VOTE PCM-94-52 Inaudible conversation. Motion carries. 5-2-0-0. Commissioners Addington and Munson voted no. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD DECEMBER 1, 1994. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director 11-03-94:ma c:\wp51\planning\minutes\11-03-94.m 13 Jimmy W. Chairman, by, Commission