Loading...
02/17/2000GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2000 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 February 17, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairwoman, Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairperson Matt Addington, Commissioner Mary Trainor, Commissioner Maryetta Ferre', Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community and Economic Development Director John Lampe, Planner Pat Peterson, CEDD Secretary 7:00 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING * Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Wilson 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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 2 February 17, 2000 ITEM#1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2000 MOTION PCM-2000-04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20, 2000 Motion was made by Commissioner Addington to approve Planning Commission Meeting minutes of January 20, 2000. Seconded by Commissioner Ferre'. MOTION VOTE PCM-2000-04 Motion carried. 4-0-1-0. Commissioner Trainor abstained. ITEM #2 Z-99-02/E-99-11 AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE (TITLE 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE) TO ESTABLISH REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS CITY OF GRAND TERRACE CITY-WIDE Staff report was presented by Planner John Lampe. The concept of an Administrative Conditional Use Permit procedure and Ordinance was presented by staff and discussed with Planning Commission Members at a workshop on October 21, 1999. The Ordinance proposed follows the concepts as presented at that workshop. Mr. Lampe discussed the following points to refresh the recollection of Commission Members: Purpose is to set up a procedure allowing the Community and Economic Development Director to approve certain minor types of CUP applications. Staff does not feel it is fair and proper for applicants with a minor request incur the substantial cost and time delay involved in a full blown CUP process with a public hearing. The intent of the proposed Ordinance is to allow for a more expedited process at reduced cost for minor types of uses, while ensuring there will be no adverse effects on surrounding properties. During research of this proposed ordinance Staff found at least four other jurisdictions which have similar procedures in place. A. The County of San Bernardino allows a project to be approved at the administrative "development review level" if it can meet certain specific criteria. B. The County of Los Angeles has a hearing officer who approves certain administrative CUPs when findings are made, per code, that the uses will PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 3 February 17, 2000 not have adverse effects on the surrounding area. The review process is an ex-parte presentation before a hearing officer, without a public hearing. C. The City of Corona is still working on a proposed draft Ordinance. No public hearing has been scheduled. D. The City of Chula Vista has an administrative CUP process. Mr. Lampe said staff feels the proposed ordinance will benefit future applicants and the City in the following ways: 1. The Commission will be able to focus on issues which will have long term impact on the City, i.e., general plan amendments, zoning amendments and larger project reviews. 2. Increase department efficiency by reducing the number of reports, packets, minutes, public notices and Planning Commission public hearings. 3. The process would be consistent with the City's "development friendly" policy. 4. Allow for an expedited process for minor projects and allow staff to concentrate efforts on larger, more complicated projects which appear before the Planning Commission. 5. Aid small business and the overall economic development of the City. Mr. Lampe reviewed the seven proposed ordinance criteria to allow administrative review and approval of a CUP: a. The use would have to be located in an existing building; b. The use could not exceed 2,000 sq. ft. in size; C. All applicable regulations and standards would have to be met by the proposed use, including off-street parking and signage; d. All potential adverse impacts would be fully mitigated following review by the appropriate agencies such as Fire, Health, Air Quality and Sheriff to insure that this requirement will be met; and e. The proposed use must quality for a "categorical exemption" under the California Environmental quality Act or otherwise be cleared by the responsible environmental agency, i.e., County of San Bernardino Health and/or Hazardous Division. The balance of the ordinance generally follows the standard CUP procedures, except there is no public hearing held. The noticing requirement is similar to that of the administrative site and architectural filing. The adjacent property owners are mailed notice of the proposed CUP use, asking for any comments within two weeks time. Mr. Lampe said the administrative CUP process went through the required environmental review process. An environmental checklist was completed and staff believes it qualifies for a negative declaration. Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve Z-99-02 and E-99-11 recommending the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance adding the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 4 February 17, 2000 administrative CUP process to the City's Zoning Code as Chapter 18.84, and also recommending the City Council approve the negative declaration as the proposed ordinance has been found not to have a significant impact on the environment. Chairwoman Van Gelder thanked staff for the work done on this proposed ordinance. She said it is very clear, concise, readable and understandable. Commissioner Addington said he is in full support of the ordinance. He asked why it was decided the threshold should be 2,000 sq. ft.? Mr. Lampe said staff has historically found 2,000 sq. ft. seems to be the threshold between major and smaller projects. It reflects the size of many of the suites available in Grand Terrace. Commissioner Addington asked staff to provide examples of businesses which have applied and would fall into the category of an administrative CUP if one existed at the time. Mr. Lampe cited the example of a business owner who wished to open an office in the Park Center on Michigan to support her marketing business. In that center, office uses are not an allowed use. Another business in the same center was for the sale of medically prescribed home health care equipment and devices to consumers. Director Materassi said the Park Center is zoned for light manufacturing and retail, however the center is built with office suites so it is very difficult to fill the center with properly zoned uses. Historically the Park Center has had a very high vacancy rate. An administrative CUP process would help the property owner fill vacancies and assist the business owner to get his business up and running quickly. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BARNEY KARGER 11668 BERNARDO WAY GRAND TERRACE, CALIFORNIA 92313 Mr. Karger said the City has hired an executive to run the Community and Economic Development Department. She should be given the reins to run the department. An executive must have free rein to run the department. 7:21 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION PCM-2000-05 Commissioner Addington made a motion to approve Z-99-02 and E-99-11. Seconded by Vice-chairman Wilson. MOTION VOTE PCM-2000-05 Carried. 5-0-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES February 17, 2000 Page 5 ITEM #3 SGN-99-09 AN APPLICATION TO INSTALL NEON ACCENT LIGHTING AT THE TOWN & COUNTRY SHOPPING CENTER E.W. ELECTRIC 22400 BARTON ROAD, GRAND TERRACE Mr. Lampe said applicant needs additional time to revise his original proposal for lighting at the Town & Country Shopping Center. Staff recommended this agenda item be continued to the next Planning Commission Meeting on March 16, 2000. MOTION PCM-2000-06 Chairwoman Van Gelder made a motion to continue SGN-99-09 to the next Planning Commission Meeting on March 16, 2000. Seconded by Vice-chairman VViIson. MOTION VOTE PCM-2000-06 Motion carried. 5-0-0-0. 7:23 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:23 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Director Materassi made a brief presentation regarding Mr. Karger's property at the northwest corner of DeBerry and Mt. Vernon using overhead slides, and discussed these points: What the code allows in the R-3 District • Maximum 15 units per acre Proposed project layout, circulation patterns and access • Planning will review the project from many perspectives, i.e. safety services (fire dept, sheriffs), trash services, potential noise and the impact of landscaping on neighbors, etc. That review will result in the number of allowed units. — General Plan Amendment required to build single-family units. — Per the Strategic Action Plan to update the General Plan, adopted by City Council, density around the City Center needs to be greater. Staff would PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 6 February 17, 2000 like to see applicant submit a proposal fitting into the R-3 zoning. She suggested he investigate a proposal which is not apartments and not single family homes. The development process involves a 30-day review when a formal application is filed. Staff and other affected reviewing agencies such as the County Fire Dept, utilities, etc. do a review and submit written comments. At the end of the 30-day review staff mails to the applicant a list of comments and issues to be resolved for approval of the project. Staff then works with applicant to resolve the issues and prepare for the public hearing before the Planning Commission. In this situation Mr. Karger wants more information before the files a formal application. Director Materassi said it would be inappropriate for the Planning Commission to give Mr. Karger a firm recommendation or concept approval at this meeting because there has been no plan review yet. She recommended the Planning Commission listen to Mr. Karger's ideas and concerns and participate in an open discussion. Director Materassi showed overhead slides to demonstrate different types of housing Mr. Karger may wish to consider for his property: • Townhomes - one house on two floors, usually in clusters with articulation allowing open space to mitigation potential noise factors • Flats - one unit above the other • Combination of flats and townhouses with attached or detached garages • Duplex single family homes with attached garages • Cape Terrace Condos showing walkways, trees, etc. • Cape Terrace Condos showing open, common areas • Mr. Karger addressed the Planning Commission. He said he is in the business of making money. He said he has consulted with real estate people and reviewed his options many times. He related a history of condos in Grand Terrace. He said the Cape Terrace Condos and Azure Hills Condos are well occupied and well maintained despite the fact that approximately 25% are non - owner occupied. He recited some current asking prices for Cape Terrace Condos - under $120,000 for a 1400 sq ft. condo. Mr. Karger said the current construction cost is approximately $70/sq. ft., not including the land, financing or any other charges. The cost of the same 1400 sq. ft. condo would be $98,000 for construction only. The street improvements, swimming pool, landscaping, and everything else required is on top of the cost of the structure. He said if he built 1400 sq. ft. condos he would have to sell them for no more than $120,000 to compete for sales with the Cape Terrace Condos. He distributed a piece of paper to Planning Commissioners with his calculations. Mr. Karger said he is a business man and he wanted the Planning Commission to tell him what he could and could not do with regards to developing his PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 7 February 17, 2000 property on Desoto West of Mt. Vernon. He desires to have his sons build on subject property. He compared the two City Rehab homes recently built at Mirado and Van Buren. He said each of them were built at $77/sq. ft. He itemized related development and sales costs of those two houses and concluded the City is losing over $18,000 per house, not including staff time on the project. Mr. Karger said he can build and sell a 1000 sq. ft. condo for $100,000, however, the comparable condo at Cape Terrace is selling for much less. He referred to publications he brought to the hearing listing condos and townhomes for sale, ranging from $29,000 for a 1-bedroom in Cooley Ranch to $86,000 for 1450 sq. ft. townhome with 2 master suites in Loma Linda. He again reiterated it will cost him $70/sq ft., or $103,000 to build a 1450 sq. ft. condo. The Mt. Vernon Luxury Apartments were designed and built as condos according to Mr. Karger, however they did not sell and had to be converted to apartments. He said it is not financially feasible to build condos or townhomes and convert them to apartments. Mr. Karger said very few condos maintain their value, much less go up in value. He gave two personal experiences where his family purchased condos and could not sell them for the original investment. He said he designed a 35-unit condo project for subject property 15 years ago. He reviewed demographics and determined they would probably not sell so decided not to build them. He asked Director Materassi to clarify if a General Plan Amendment would be necessary for him to build homes on 11 lots, 7,200 sq. ft. each. Director Materassi said the City Attorney needs to be consulted. She said if applicant's proposal is to build on lots smaller than 7,200 sq. ft. a general plan amendment will definitely be required. Mr. Karger said he wants the planning department to tell him what he can build on subject property then he will decide if he can build it and make a profit or if he will let the land stay as it is - a vacant lot. He said it does not matter to him if the City tells him to build 11 homes on 7,200 sq. ft. lots or 17 units on 5,000 sq. ft. lots. His profit is the same. In his opinion the City should redo the entire General Plan. The City is 21 years behind the times. He feels more flexibility needs to be given to the developer, builder and planning department to encourage development in our city. Director Materassi explained she could not verify Mr. Karger's figures relative to the expenses of building the two rehab houses Mr. Karger referred to. She offered to have the Building Director, Virgil Barham, make a presentation to the Planning Commission Members. She explained the purpose of the redevelopment funds received from the state is to rehabilitate older houses in the City. Director Materassi explained the City does not have an architect on staff to lay out plans for developers. The burden is on Mr. Karger, the developer, to hire an architect to develop scenarios and present them to the Planning Department for evaluation upon payment of the project filing fees. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 8 February 17, 2000 planning department is also not a finance expert to determine if this project is financially feasible for Mr. Karger. She urged Mr. Karger to submit a few building scenarios for planning review, to get staffs comments before deciding what to build. Mr. Karger said the City needs someone who can cut through the red tape, analyze situations which may not be just according to code and be able to make the decision to allow what is best for developers as well as the City. Director Materassi told Planning Commissioners they can express their thoughts and comments to Mr. Karger. Chairwoman Van Gelder said the City has gone through great lengths to establish an orderly procedure for project review. Staff goes out of their way to assist applicants to achieve a project mutually beneficial to the City and applicant. She said it is not fair for the Director to be expected to make recommendations for all the exceptions applicants want; it would create chaos. She said she feels staff is doing a very good job. Vice-chairman Wilson said he knows Mr. Karger has the ability to sketch out several different floorplan layout scenarios for single family, condos, attached, detached, and apartments. He asked if staff could then review those layouts and give Mr. Karger feedback. Director Materassi said staff will not do the layouts but can give Mr. Karger feedback to tell him if they conform to code when he submits some layouts. The review would be strictly preliminary because applicant would not have the benefit of comments from the reviewing agencies. It would be only a preliminary planning review. In response to Vice-chairman Wilson's question, Director Materassi said any applicant can conduct his own public forum to gather public opinion on whatever type of project he would like to propose; however, she said it would probably be of the most benefit to him to hold it after staffs 30-day review period of the proposed project. Director Materassi encouraged Mr. Karger to consider all options before setting his mind on any one certain layout. Chairwoman Van Gelder told Mr. Karger she hoped this information was helpful to him and encouraged him to move forward and explore all of the possibilities. She thanked him for attending the meeting and said she hoped he now understands what will be required of him to begin the process. Mr. Karger. • Inaudible - not speaking at microphone Director Materassi encouraged Mr. Karger to consider the different densities from 1 to 12, which he is allowed. He asked him to consider a broader range of opportunities for his development, not just apartments. Mr. Karger.Inaudible - not speaking at microphone Chairwoman Van Gelder asked staff if there were any other items for discussion. Director Materassi answered "no". 8:33 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Page 9 February 17, 2000 NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 16. 2000. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, PatriAa Materassi Fran Van Gelder Community and Economic Development Director Chairperson, Planning Commission 06-13-00:pp w:\planning\minutes\02-17-OO.min