Loading...
02/06/1992GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1992 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 6, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ron Wright, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: None. PLEDGE: Ron Wright, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Chairman Buchanan stated that the first item for the workshop is the Planning Commission Meeting time. He said that it makes a lot of sense to not tamper with the meeting schedule and use the one deadline per month, and use the second meeting when necessary. He felt this covered the concern expressed about making the meetings too long. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that this was fine with her. The Planning Director said the Design Review Process handout shows the two-step review process and all of the deadlines as they are right now. She said that with the current proposal, staff is recommending to keep the two meetings and have only one deadline per month. (Refer to staff report - P.C. Meeting Times.) Chairman Buchanan said that for an example, for tonight's meeting, February 6, 1992, the deadline was January 8, 1992. He asked if they would be deleting the January 22, 1992 deadline, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. He stated that the maximum conceivable impact would be a two -week delay. The Planning Director stated that the process being used right now follows the permit Streamline Act, and this allows all the Planning Departments to use 30 days for the design review process, and staff is using the full 30 days to allow all the plans to go to all the agencies and let the applicant know all the problems with the project up front. She said it probably wouldn't even make a two -week difference. Chairman Buchanan asked if the Planning Director wanted a consensus for adoption of Option #3, or if she wanted an actual vote. The Planning Director said that it would be nice to have a motion of the Planning Commission; City Council action is not required. Commissioner Munson said he hears more negatives than positives about City processes, as people feel they can not get things done and it takes too long, so he is going to vote against this, as he feels they should still have the two deadlines. He said staff can use their judgement as to whether or not they process at this time, but if the citizen wants it done, it is his right. The Planning Director pointed out that, this proposal, together with the next report, which brings out the proposal for staff to do a lot of minor projects at staff level, the deletion of one deadline may create a one -week delay on a project, and if it is approved at staff level, this wouldn't happen. She said that the only projects that may have a slight disadvantage are the very small ones, but even so, staff will route their plans to Fire and Engineering and need to give them time to review the plans, and if the projects are approved at staff level, they wouldn't even have that impact. Commissioner Sims asked who they are really trying to serve - are they trying to make it convenient for staff or are they trying to achieve a mission as to why this body is here? He felt very strongly about removing the things that provide access for the public to this body. He felt they should leave this subject alone. He said that in the case of staff taking over minor projects, when he signed up for this job, he was willing to participate and help to guide Planning and what is happening with the City, as he is very interested in this. He said that he takes offense at trying to minimize this. The Planning Director stated that she would like to present the second item before they discuss it in detail. She said that most of the complaints staff 2 receives at the counter are from the people who have minor projects and have G to go to a public hearing. She said that this city is the only one that does this in the surrounding area. She said that in the cities she has worked in, none send minor projects to the Architectural Commission, so they have much less complaints from citizens, as the process to review minor projects is more expeditious, and ours is not since a public hearing is required. She said this would serve the public in terms of the public feeling they are getting a more fair and shorter process. She said that not only would this decrease complaints, but it would also decrease significantly the work load for staff, and they would have more time to give attention to the larger projects. Chairman Buchanan said they are discussing this in a workshop context, and they have not even taken a roll call yet. He asked if voting should be done after the Planning Commission Meeting is convened. The Planning Director said that right now, she is just looking for a consensus - type of vote, and then they can bring it to the Planning Commission Meeting for a formal motion. Commissioner Van Gelder said she has a friend who is a developer, and he went to a Planning Commission Meeting of a nearby city, not with a major project, but not as minor as they are discussing either. She said one of the Assistant Planners was assigned to his project, and when then met, to everything the developer mentioned, the Planner would say, "I have a problem with that". The developer then said that he thought the Planning Commission was supposed to approve or disapprove these plans, and why would he have to sit with this Assistant Planner if it is really up to the commission. She wondered if there would be people who would prefer coming to the Commission than to staff. The Planning Director said that the types of projects she is proposing to review at staff level are very minor, but if the applicant doesn't agree with staffs conditions, they would automatically be scheduled for public hearing with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sims said he didn't feel the Commission was only here to look at the big projects. The Planning Director said it is really up to the Commission. She said this was just something that made sense for her and for the applicant's that come to the counter, but she is open. She said she included the list of activities that she is doing, so they can see the other portions of work she has, and they are very busy. 3 Vice -Chairman Hargrave said that they have people who are willing to extend themselves for more meetings, and this is fantastic that they are willing to take the time and effort. He said that he likes Option #3, and maybe it is because he sits in meetings all day long. He said that the City is in Phase 3 of development, which is rehab of the infrastructure. He said that streamlining is a good idea, as this would speed up the process for the applicants. He said that the Commission as well as the applicant have the right to ask for an item to be agendized. Chairman Buchanan said there are some diverging view points. He said the first item, the number of Planning Commission Meetings per month, is very closely related to the second issue of whether or not staff will be picking up some of the more minor items. He said if they are going to continue requiring the public hearings, even on some of the minor projects, then Commissioner Munson's point is very valid, that the elimination of one of the deadlines is going to result in some delay. He said, however, if staff is handling them at a staff level, the elimination of the other deadline will have a negligible impact. He felt that having minor projects handled at a staff level is to the benefit of the applicant and the public, as there is a variable to depend more on certain guidelines and procedures and less on the opinions of a public hearing body. He said that if the applicant has a disagreement with staff, they have the recourse to come to the Planning Commission. He said that most agencies handle a lot more serious items on staff level than is being proposed here. He said that the County of Riverside will do an entire commercial plot plan approval at staff level, and it does not go to Planning Commission unless someone objects to it. He didn't think anyone would feel they are being forced out of the ability to have the Planning Commission hear their project, because if they don't get what they want at staff level, they do have the right to bring it to the Commission. He said that if he were putting up an 11' patio cover, he would be annoyed that he had to have a public hearing on the project. He stated that he would like to have some kind of consensus on Option #3. Commissioner Munson asked if staff had discussed this subject with the City Manager. The Planning Director said that the City Manager supports this proposal, as it would streamline the process and decrease the complaints from applicants on the minor projects. She said there is also a concern that the Planning Director is taking a risk. Chairman Buchanan said it was time to adjourn the workshop session, to be taken up after the Planning Commission items. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:05 P.M. �f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Commissioner Van Gelder said she read both the Sun and U.S.A. Today newspapers, which encouraged people to avoid the high cost of cable television by putting in satellite antennas. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1992 MOTION PCM-92-03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1992 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve the January 16, 1992 minutes. Commissioner Munson second. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that, on page 1 of the minutes, under the i second paragraph, where they were talking about the Towne and Country Center and the parking issue, the point she was trying to make was that it is very difficult to exit. She said on page 2, the first full paragraph, this was also reverting back to the Towne and Country Center. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-03 Motion carries. 5-0-0-2. Commissioners Hawkinson and Wright abstained. ITEM #2 BRSPA-92-01 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BARTON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AREA G.T. AN AMENDMENT TO THE BARTON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW ONE YEAR OF AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR EXISTING BUSINESS SIGNS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN 5 The Planning Director presented the staff report. Chairman Buchanan stated that in the ordinance, under the portion with the numbered paragraphs, #2 says, "the following paragraph on amortization of signs will be added", but the following paragraph was not included. The Planning Director stated that staff would insert the language. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked who a "new tenant" is defined as. The Planning Director stated that a new tenant is anyone who would come in to the City for new sign guidelines from the time of this meeting during this one-year period, or a tenant who puts in a nonconforming sign. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked, if this ordinance went into effect on March 31, 1993, if it would not cover any new tenants who opened up their business on or after March 31, 1992. The Planning Director stated this was correct. Chairman Buchanan asked about the possibility of an enforcement gap. He said the flaw in the current language of the Barton Road Specific Plan is that it provided only for compliance on new projects, as it had no retroactive application. He said that anybody from the adoption of the Barton Road Specific Plan that comes in from that happened forward has had to comply with the new sign ordinances, and we have enforcement capability if they deviate at this time. He said that with this ordinance, they are looking at giving a one-year period for pre-existing, nonconforming signs to be brought into compliance with those same guidelines. The Planning Director stated that this is correct, however, the whole program includes giving a one-year period also for the ones that are existing, but there is no need to do any amendments for that as the City has the power to do so, and the City Council approved this in concept. She said that, however, to carry this out, they needed to add amortization for the ones installed prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan, as they did not have that authority. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the projects that have come in since the Barton Road Specific Plan was adopted are required to be in compliance at this point. The Planning Director stated that this is correct, but they are proposing to give all of these businesses the one-year grace period to come in compliance, and the ones that are not conforming right now that have been installed prior C 6 to and since the Barton Road Specific Plan will also have one year. She said that all new business signs installed from now on wouldn't be given any time period and need to comply immediately with the Specific Plan. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if this prevents code enforcement relative to the signage irrespective of how bad the signage is. He said that if he wanted to flaunt this moratorium, conceptually he could, as he would be covered by the moratorium. The Planning Director said that it would be covered by the one-year period, however, with the exception that every new tenant sign needs to conform. She said, for example, if Gina's decides to keep their neon signs, they would be allowed to stay, but they would be given priority once the year grace period is over. She said, however, that for every sign staff receives complaints on, code enforcement is started. Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated that the Planning Director said that any new signs put up by old tenants would be covered, and asked if this was correct. The Planning Director said that this may be a small area she didn't cover. She said that if there is a complaint on a new sign, staff enforces it; if a new sign is put in and staff notices it is not conforming, staff enforces it. She said she was proposing that, if the complaint is on an existing or older sign, they wouldn't enforce it at this point but would give it priority once the code enforcement would start. She said this could be changed if Commissioners prefer to cover cases such as Gina's, which staff is actually enforcing at this time. Commissioner Wright asked if the sign inventory that was in progress has been completed. The Planning Director said the only thing completed was the window survey. She said that once the packet is distributed, staff will have several calls, and staff will start the detailed inventory at that time. She said Stater Bros. and Union Bank have already made contact with staff. Commissioner Wright said it may be appropriate, since some people may take advantage before the ordinance is passed, that staff take photographs of the existing buildings as they are now. Chairman Buchanan said it seems that the ordinance provides for a one-year amortization period for those signs that were in place on or before the day of adoption of the Barton Road Specific Plan. He said it makes a vague reference to revision of non -conforming sign program which is encouraged to take place within the one-year grace period. He said it makes no specific reference except in the "Whereas" section as to an educational approach to code enforcement involving the one-year extension for post -Barton Road Specific Plan, pre -amendment non -conforming signs. He said it seems these signs were put up in violation of an existing ordinance, and he understands staff's approach to this is intended to be softer rather than harsher. He said that if staff, Commission or Council decides to, rather than crack down, encourage them to comply and will defer enforcement, this is a matter of grace. He said this is an enforcement policy decision they are talking about for those "gap period" violators. He said the signs that were already up when the Barton Road Specific Plan was adopted and are not conforming with the new requirements really aren't in violation of the Barton Road Specific Plan. The Planning Director said they are legal, non -conforming signs, except that they also need to follow the code. Chairman Buchanan said this amendment will make these signs illegal in one year. He said that the people who put in signs after the adoption of the Barton Road Specific Plan that were non -conforming violated an existing ordinance and are subject to immediate enforcement if this were the City's attitude. The Planning Director said she did not include them in the ordinance as they don't need any changes to enforce those signs, but the City Council approved giving even those people one year, except the new tenants. Chairman Buchanan said that this soft approach is a matter of grace on the part of the City, as they do not have to give them the year. He said that the pre-existing signs have to have an amortization period, but the people who violated an existing ordinance are not entitled to this one-year period, therefore, the City could modify this policy to say that on the people who are trying to compound these violations or have violations that have a negative impact on the community, they will take enforcement steps, notwithstanding their general policy of a one-year latitude. He said the ordinance they are considering does not deal with the gap period people at all. The Planning Director said she tried to use the ordinance to highlight for the City Council on which instances this wouldn't be valid. She said that if she did this for some cases, perhaps she should do this for all cases. She said that she indicated that new signs will not be subject to this and it would be good if sign programs come earlier, so that by the time enforcement takes place, they already have their signs revised. She said that with regard to existing tenants taking advantage of this, for example, Gina's, they wouldn't have any means to enforce this, so she feels if there are complaints, even on older �* tenant signs, perhaps they should be able to enforce them. Commissioner Sims asked if it her intent for the businesses to actually come forth. The Planning Director stated that this is correct, and they have been doing this during the week already. She said many want to comply and some feel it will be too expensive, but most want to know what is wrong with their signs and what is not. She said that then, after the one-year period, staff would probably have less people to deal with. She said that the Chamber of Commerce agrees with this proposal. Chairman Buchanan said he hates to see them foreclose out the possibility of enforcing serious problems, as in a lot of these projects, he thinks it is a fair interpretation that compliance with the Sign Ordinance is a condition of Conditional Use Permits that have been granted or other things. He said that while they may not do code enforcement specifically on sign removal, if someone got really bad they could hold a revocation hearing on their Conditional Use Permit or some other way of enforcement. He said he would hate to see a situation where they have inadvertently tied their hands where something proposes a very serious situation. He said he would also hate to see them set themselves up for people putting up as many signs as possible prior to March 31, when the ordinance will go into effect. The Planning Director said they need to address this, and maybe instead of just addressing new tenants, perhaps they can say any new signs in the City on any businesses. She said that as soon as they have one complaint, as long as it is a new sign, whether it is a new or old tenant, staff can do code enforcement. Commissioner Sims asked if the City still has the option to enforce the current Sign Ordinance, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. The Planning Director said that City Council has approved this concept of having the one-year amortization period for all existing signs, including the ones installed prior to the Barton Road Specific Plan and even after the Barton Road Specific Plan. She said they could add a note saying that every complaint received on a new sign, not just on a new tenant, will be enforced. She said the only thing they are restricting their ability to do is to do code enforcement on an old, existing sign. 7:36 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING C. 9 JOHN OEHL FLOWERS BY WONNE 22473 BARTON G.T. Mr. Oehl said that he was notified by a letter from the landlord, Viking Properties, which owns the Stater Bros. center, and most of the information he has received has come from the discussion here tonight. He felt there may be a lack of communication on the part of the Planning Commission with the business community, for instance, regarding the packet that the Planning Director discussed, it might be prudent to disseminate this to the business community prior to the adoption of any ordinance that has to do with it, if the intent is an educational as opposed to an enforcement process. He said the existing signage seems to be the absolute difference from the proposed signage. He felt most signs have illuminated background with opaque lettering, and the ordinance is just the opposite. He brought up the loophole in the ordinance that people could put up 50 or 60 new signs that they new they would have to tear down in one year, which didn't make a lot of sense. He felt this may be inventing an issue that doesn't really exist. He felt that enforcement must be uniform, and that the one-year moratorium should apply to everyone. He suggested that the Planning Commission be forthcoming with information to the business community prior to the adoption of ordinances so the business community could provide input. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Mr. Oehl lived in Grand Terrace. Mr. Oehl said he is not at the time, but has lived here for nine years. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he was a member of the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Oehl said he was a member for nine years, until he resigned last year. Commissioner Hargrave said the Chamber said they discussed this with all their members, and since he is not a member, he was left out. Mr. Oehl said he hears the Chamber is an intermediary in this process. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he has seen the three articles Planning has had in the Chamber newsletter, to which Mr. Oehl responded in the negative. Commissioner Hargrave asked how he suggests they communicate with them. Mr. Oehl said they are going to send out a packet, and this should be sent to 10 every business owner who pays business license fees to this City. Commissioner Hargrave said the public hearings are open to all citizens, but the commission can not force people to come to meetings. Mr. Oehl said that a 2" X 5" card posted on a bulletin board somewhere is not necessarily a public notice. ROY KAMINSKI AGENT FOR JAEGER DEVELOPMENT G.T. PROFESSIONAL PLAZA 22365 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Kaminski said, as a property owner, he was informed of this meeting, however, he is not sure that they received all the communication regarding the ordinance and enforcement. He expressed concern as they had just built a monument sign in the last eight months, and there are legal signs that may not be conforming at this point. He said he would like to reaffirm that the ordinance and the enforcement process is mainstreamed to the owners and tenants along Barton Road. Chairman Buchanan asked staff to describe the required noticing process for a proposed amendment to the Specific Plan. The Planning Director said the requirement is to send only to the property owners in the area and 300' around it. She said they thought about sending to the tenants, however, this is something in favor of the tenants, so they didn't think it was really necessary. She said the packets will be distributed personally by the Chamber of Commerce and staff once the tenants are asked to do anything. She said they were not ready with the packet yet, they were just asking for the City Council and Planning Commission to have the one- year amortization period for the businesses first. She said perhaps they should have sent it to the tenants, also, and gone further than doing just what the law requires. Chairman Buchanan said perhaps it is favorable to tenants that have non- conforming signs upon which enforcement could be immediately taken. He said that they are adding an enforcement mechanism, delayed for one year, for those pre-existing signs that were legal then but are now non -conforming. Chairman Buchanan said inherently, the communication process is not perfect. He said there are mailing requirements to the property owners of a notice of a hearing, although the notices do not contain nearly the detail that the package does. He said there are also publication and posting requirements, 1 but it doesn't get the detailed information into everybody's hands that may be interested. Mr. Kaminski said he wanted to make sure that, if they do have a sign permit, then generally they should be in conformance at this point, although it was only six to eight months ago. Chairman Buchanan stated that, in this kind of forum, they can not deal specifically with particular items, but he would assume if they received a sign permit since the adoption of the Barton Road Specific Plan, then staff would have checked that to see if was in conformance with the Barton Road Specific Plan, and if they got approval and built it according to the approved permits, they should be on fairly safe ground. He said the people who should be most concerned would be the people who have invested in expensive signage before the adoption of the Barton Road Specific Plan that is not in conformance with the Barton Road Specific Plan requirements. He said he thinks that staff was pretty careful knowing that the Barton Road Specific Plan was in the process. The Associate Planner said that, at this time, staff had a Planning Intern who physically went to each business location to give notices and an information letter regarding the Barton Road Specific Plan. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if this gentleman's signage was reviewed by staff. The Planning Director said it is in compliance and is a very good sign. Chairman Buchanan said he assumes that during this one-year amortization period, people who have signs that are not strictly in compliance and that can not be brought into compliance would have a review process for applying for approval of the signs. He said the code provides some latitude for non- complying signs for minor variations, and there is the ability to get some additional leeway by coming before this body. The Planning Director said staff was contacted by Union Bank, with the temperature and time sign, and they were concerned as this is a pole sign, which is not allowed anymore. She said they would need to have a larger base and maybe reduce the height. She told the bank that the Planning Commission has the authority to approve minor deviations from the sign regulations. Commissioner Hawkinson said City Council designated some signs within the City as historical. 0 12 Chairman Buchanan said the fact that even though there may be some requirement to bring signage into compliance, they have various options, including applying for approval as it exists. JACK R. BOOKER SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH 11785 MT. VERNON AVENUE G.T. Mr. Booker asked if this body is considering the Seventh Day Adventist Church as a business. Chairman Buchanan said, at this point in time, they are not considering any specific operation, whether residential or commercial, and it wouldn't be proper for them to make any kind of determination on a specific project. He said that staff may be able to respond on how the municipal code deals with these facilities. The Planning Director said they have some waiving of certain fees, but the regulations still need to be followed. f-- Chairman Buchanan said there is not a separate category for a church or religious establishment. The Planning Director said this is true, but the Specific Plan addresses professional uses and office uses, but they do not have a section that addresses churches, and this would need to be determined. Chairman Buchanan asked in what section the church is located. The Planning Director said it is the Administrative Commercial area, and under Public Facility with regard to the land use. Mr. Booker said that it seems they are not really clear as to whether they are considered a business or not, yet the church does not feel it is a business. Chairman Buchanan suggested calling staff tomorrow. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said they are not talking about exemptions from the Sign Ordinance. JOHN SIMONS ONE HOUR PHOTO 13 22485 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Simons said that he agrees that there should be a direct communication with the business owners as they are the ones that have to pay for the signs, not the landlords. He said he wasn't aware of the meeting at all, and just heard about it through some other business owners. He said he is not even aware of what the ordinance is. Chairman Buchanan said the proposed ordinance says that if there is signage within the Barton Road Specific Plan that existed before the Specific Plan was implemented, business owners would have one year from the adoption of this amendment to bring the signage into conformance and get it approved within the Specific Plan guidelines, and after that one-year period is up, the City could enforce those guidelines and require removal of non -conforming signs at that point in time. Mr. Simons asked when the Barton Road Specific Plan was implemented. The Associate Planner said it was in February of 1990. She said that when business licenses are applied for, the applicant signs the business license, and on the bottom, there is a direct question to be signed that the applicant has read the Sign Ordinance, and if they haven't, they are directed to come to Planning. She said that some of the business licenses are conditioned that they have to submit a sign. The Planning Director said the person giving testimony has signed the business license so he is aware. Mr. Simons said he was told that most of the businesses are going to the channel letters, and if he does, he will be the only one in the shopping center. Chairman Buchanan said one of the awkward aspects about changing the look of signage is that it has to start somewhere, and someone will be the first one to put in a certain style. He said that one of the ideas of the one-year amortization period is that during this period, businesses will start harmonizing their signs to the guidelines of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Sims asked Mr. Simons, when he leased his area, if the landlord disclosed to him the requirements of the Barton Road Specific Plan. Mr. Simons responded he was told nothing whatsoever. Commissioner Sims felt the owners should have some responsibility to disclose 14 this information. Mr. Simons said that the landlady had told him that the box was there and all he had to do was get a sign made, and he looked around and got a sign made exactly like the surrounding businesses. The Planning Director said staff is in contact with the manager and owner of the center and is encouraging them to do an upgrade of the center, and if they do this, they are encouraging them to change to channel letters, as Stater Bros. and Sprouse have conforming channel letters, and all the other small shops have can signs, which are non -conforming. She said that as soon as the representative comes back from vacation for Viking Properties, staff will be talking to her. She said that Mr. Simons was made aware of the Sign Ordinance when his business was issued, and after he came to staff, he was informed that his sign needed to have an opaque panel so the letters were the only thing to shine at night, as the can may not shine at night. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said Mr. Simons should read the tenant agreement, and the landlords have a responsibility to him on certain of these issues. He said that he needs to negotiate some of these things with the landlord. Mr. Simons said he spent $500 for the sign and was then told he had to have the opaque background. He said he used to own One Hour Photo in Loma Linda, and when they were trying to conform all of their signs, the City took on 50% of the cost. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he wishes they had the money to do this as it is a good idea. The Planning Director said there is another problem with the Stater Bros. shopping center, as they had a sign program which is not in conformance anymore, so Viking Properties may say they were following their program. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said, if he were a tenant at this property, he would have his attorney right a cordial letter to the landlord that they need to talk to the tenant about addressing this problem. Commissioner Van Gelder said she didn't particularly agree, as the business people are told when they come in to get their business license, and how many times do they have to be told? She said they should take it upon themselves. Chairman Buchanan said if they are talking about situations where tenants come in and are negotiating a lease with a landlord and the landlord describes C 15 to them what they require for signage and they comply with that, and then the tenant finds out that this is not what the City requires, the landlord and the tenant are going to have a dispute. He said, especially in commercial leases, the liabilities of the landlord and the tenant are subject to the contractual language, so depending upon the agreements, there are a lot of possible results that could arise from a dispute. He said that most leases require that the tenant be in compliance with all the municipal requirements. MICHAEL JOO HO CHUN MUSSO'S ITALIAN DELI 22421 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Ho Chun said he got a letter from his landlord, who said that there are numerous windows signs which reflect poorly on the rest of the center. He said he came in late, so he didn't hear a lot of the discussion, but asked what kind of complaints came in about the signs. Chairman Buchanan said they have not discussed any particular complaints. He said staff has suggested that those signs that receive complaints would be listed for the earlier code enforcement efforts after this one-year period is up. Mr. Ho Chun asked for an explanation on the signs that are considered numerous signs. The Planning Director said she sent a letter to the property manager, Viking Investments, asking her to come to a meeting with the Planning Department to talk about the center, and she mentioned to her that she has been receiving several complaints on the signs in her center from residents, Planning Commissioners and City Council members. She said that she explained some of the complaints and told her there were other issues they needed to talk about. She said she did not explain anything to her about the one-year amortization proposal. She said that apparently, the property manager understood that this was a code enforcement letter, which was not the intent, and the property manager transferred that letter to the tenants and told them to comply right away. She said that the tenants that were there from before, even if this new process is implemented, will not be required to do anything before the one-year period, including this particular tenant. She said that this tenant has several window signs that are excessive, covering almost 100% of the window area, and she mentioned this to be one of the complaints that she received. She said she needs to contact the property manager again, but has already sent two letters explaining that this is not a code enforcement letter, she just wants to talk to her. 16 Chairman Buchanan stressed that this is not an appropriate forum for discussing particular signs, complaints or buildings, as they are discussing the concept of this amendment which will apply to the entire Barton Road Specific Plan. He said that if any of the tenants have particular concerns about whether or not their signs comply, they need to talk to staff and the landlord or property manager, to make sure they are meeting both entity's requirements. Mr. Ho Chun said he wants to know what the complaint is. Chairman Buchanan said he would need to talk to staff. FOZOUNI RED BARON PIZZA 22413 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Fozouni said he thinks this plan can be continued for the new signs, but not the old signs. He said the old signs should stay because, at one time, they were legal. Chairman Buchanan asked if he was suggesting that the signs that were legal before the adoption of the Barton Road Specific Plan should be left alone, to which Mr. Fozouni agreed. HAROLD LUKE GRAND TERRACE URGENT CARE CENTER 22182 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Luke said that quite a few businesses have not received the mailings and therefore, may not be attending this important meeting. He suggested inviting business owners for more discussion. He asked why they have to change all of their signs to an opaque background, when most of the signage is the other way around. He said that he does not how this particular Sign Ordinance is made and would like to know if there is a way to have more discussion about this, as a lot of people object to it. He said he does not have a problem conforming himself, but he sees the majority of people seem to have the lighted background. The Planning Director said this issue of the canned signs was an issue discussed when the Specific Plan was approved two years ago. She said she didn't even touch that issue now. She stated that legal noticing procedures were followed, and there was a resident and tenant committee that 17 participated on the Specific Plan approval, and at that time it was decided that the signs on the Specific Plan were encouraged to be channel letters, and cans would be allowed only with opaque panels. She said that canned signs are almost discouraged with the exception of the ones that have opaque panels. She said apparently, these tenants didn't know this until now, but this is not really the discussion for this public hearing tonight. Chairman Buchanan said it does have some impact on it as some business owners feel that the pre-existing, legal signs that are now non -conforming should not be amortized and made to be brought up to compliance because this is what the vast majority of the businesses have in place and it doesn't make sense to go out and completely swap this notion. The Planning Director said this tenant came after the Specific Plan was approved, and according to the Associate Planner, they didn't come in for a sign permit, so they didn't have a chance to comply with the code. She said it may be good to re -notice and request a continuance of the City Council Meeting, that way more tenants could be involved. She said that in terms of the amortization, there are very few signs that were installed prior to the Specific Plan, and if they don't enforce those signs, they may never get the conformity for the Specific Plan. Commissioner Sims said there hasn't been a dissemination of what the goals are, and why they went through all the passion of creating the Specific Plan to begin with. He said that the people here tonight are showing evidence that they haven't been informed of what the goals are. He said they need to get the word out to the community. LANG CHIEM 1$ HONG KONG FAST FOOD 22411 BARTON ROAD G.T. Ms. Chiem said she wonders why she hasn't heard anyone talking about this proposal, and asked if they were supposed to know before they put their signs up. She said this costs money, and the business is not running well right now anyway. She said that they haven't heard from the landlord either. Chairman Buchanan said she is here tonight and this hasn't happened yet, as this is the first public consideration of this plan, so to a certain extent the system worked as it got a fairly decent group of people here. She said that the Specific Plan was adopted in February of 1990, but they only found out just now. 18 The Associate Planner said that a representative of the 1$ Hong Kong Fast Food restaurant came in and worked with staff quite diligently, went through the sign process and got it approved, however, what they put up doesn't reflect what he submitted on the plan. She said that the whole sign lights up instead of having an opaque background. Chairman Buchanan asked how people find out about the sign requirements other than through a building permit, business license or sign permit process. He said the City doesn't go out unless somebody violates the law and they go out to enforce it, and the City doesn't go out and look for people to try and anticipate their needs and explain it to them, as this is not the normal process. He said that the public is expected to come in and comply with the laws and regulations that are in place. He said that, through the Chamber of Commerce, the City is attempting now to contact business owners and let people know what is expected of them and work with them in that kind of process. He said that some people are not within that Chamber of Commerce loop and sometimes get left out of that process, but apparently Ms. Chiem's business did go through that process, and somehow the sign didn't go up the way it came through on paper. Ms. Chiem said she doesn't know what she should do right now as things are getting tight. Chairman Buchanan said that the proposal states that she would have a year to get this corrected. Chairman Buchanan said, before he closes the public hearing, he would like to discuss the possibility of additional noticing. The Planning Director said instead of taking this to City Council next week, she would request the City Council to continue this item so staff can re -notice, and then staff would send a notice to all of the tenants. Commissioner Munson said he has a feeling the people here have individual problems they want to discuss, and even if they were to continue the meeting, they would get another group of people wanting to discuss an individual problem, and they are not hear tonight to take care of an individual problem, but rather a larger problem. He saw no reason to continue the public hearing. He said if this goes into effect, they will see these people again. He said he thinks the colors are fashion trends. He said he has been through this sign issue three times already, and a lot of signs have been grandfathered into the City of Grand Terrace and will probably never be changed. He said he will not vote for this moratorium, knowing full well that some of these people will be back to talk about their individual sign, and he would rather listen at 19 that time than have another continuance. The Planning Director said, with the exception of the church and one other business, all of the other people here tonight are part of the Stater Bros. center, and apparently she created this by asking the property manager to come and talk to staff. She said she was not sending a code enforcement letter, but it was interpreted this way, and the property manager sent code enforcement to her tenants. Chairman Hargrave said they do not want to imply to the tenants at that center that they do not have to make the changes, and he told them not to interpret anything the commission is saying as meaning their landlord does not have the right to enforce certain regulations that may exist in their lease, as the commission is not involved at that level. He said a lot of this may be resolvable with staff working with the tenants and the landlord of the center. He felt the management of that center has a great stake in putting together a new sign program to benefit their tenants. 8:41 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-92-04 BRSPA-92-01 Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the commission. Commissioner Wright echoed a notice to tenants as well as the property owners as it is very apparent that there are landlords out there who don't take it upon themselves to notice their tenants of certain City activities. He felt comfortable acting on this tonight knowing that the plan is to propose to City Council to delay the item one meeting so the notices can go out. Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve BRSPA-92-01. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Chairman Buchanan said that Item 2 does not contain the necessary language. MOTION TABLED MOTION PCM-92-05 BRSPA-92-01 Chairman Buchanan made a motion for the addition of the amending 20 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-05 MOTION PCM-92-06 BRSPA-92-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-06 language in paragraph 2. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Hawkinson made a motion to add as a condition that they recommend that business license holders within the Barton Road Specific Plan be notified of the proposed of the amendment. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. The Planning Director asked if they would like to make the amendment for complaints on the "new signs" instead of "new tenants" under Item 4 of the ordinance. Chairman Buchanan said he thinks she is talking about Paragraph 5, where it says, "new tenant signs are not subject to the one-year grace period", which should read, "new signs", so they just need to delete the word "tenant". The Planning Director said the original discussion of Commissioner Hargrave regarding Gina's, for example, if they would like to pursue code enforcement on an old tenant, they should be able to. She said she thought she had a clause which was not allowing them to do it. Chairman Buchanan said this is the educational policy the City Council approved, not this particular ordinance. He said there is a valid question as to whether or not Paragraph 5 is talking about new tenant signs or just new signs, and whether or not they need to indicate what means "new" - after what day. Commissioner Hargrave felt Paragraph 5 should read, "new (strike tenant) signs are not subject to the one-year grace period as of the date the one-year 21 MOTION PCM-92-07 BRSPA-92-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-07 moratorium starts. Chairman Buchanan suggested new signs installed after February 6, 1992 must be installed as per the current sign code, as this will eliminate people anticipating this and painting windows or hanging up plastic banners, assuming they can not be touched as they have a year. Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion to amend Paragraph 5 to read, "New signs are not subject to the one-year grace period. New signs installed after February 6, 1992, need to be installed as per current sign code, otherwise immediate enforcement will take place". Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Wright said he doesn't think anyone will invest a lot of money in a new tenant sign knowing in one year it would be pulled down, but he contemplates the people putting up large window signs, knowing this ordinance wouldn't become operational until March 31. He said they would need some mechanism of determining if it was a new or old sign, but if this date is put in, they won't have that opportunity. He said they are not debating the issues of the Barton Road Specific Plan signage, and if there is some difference in opinion on the Specific Plan signage, these issues should be addressed to City Council, and if there is a sufficient debate or a certain consensus in the community and if Council wishes to change it, they will, but what they are looking at tonight is just implementing it. He said that with regard to the one-year moratorium, those that were in existence prior to the Specific Plan should be given the year to come into compliance, but those that have come into the community since then, at least they have the soft year to bring them in. Vice -Chairman Hargrave brought up the issue of administrative fees being assessed for people who did not come into compliance after a year. He suggested administrative fees of up to 40% of the cost of the removal to be added to the actual cost. Chairman Buchanan said before they discuss the fee issue, they need to vote on the motion. 22 MOTION PCM-92-08 BRSPA-92-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-08 Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion to add as a condition to the ordinance that administrative fees of up to 40% of the cost shall be added to the cost of removal of the sign. Commissioner Sims second. Chairman Buchanan said the language should be drafted by the City Attorney, as there are legal restrictions. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he would go along with this. The Planning Director clarified that they are proposing 40% of the overhead cost of staff to be charged to the applicant. Vice -Chairman Hargrave added if it comes to removal of the sign by the City for non-compliance. The Planning Director said staff talked to the City Attorney, who said that the one-year is required, as the amortization period needs to be a time sufficient for the tenant to recuperate the cost of the sign. Chairman Buchanan said that in the event that the City is forced to undertake code enforcement, as a penalty as part of the code enforcement, there will be an administrative charge. He said that if the City forcibly removed someone's sign and bills them for the cost of doing this, Commissioner Hargrave is recommending that 40% of this cost be added as an overhead expense as part of the assessment. He said the motion is a recommendation that the City Attorney advise the City Council as to the language and format. Motion carries. 5-2-0-0. Commissioners Munson and Sims voting no. Chairman Buchanan brought back the first motion, to include the changes that have been made. Commissioners Sims and Van Gelder concurred. 23 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-04 Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:56 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 9:09 P.M. ITEM #3 SA-91-21 ALLEN AND NANCY HASSARD 12694 MIRADO G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RECREATION ROOM - 1,200 SQ. FT.) The Associate Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Buchanan said, with respect to the Engineer's January, 1992 letter, he is not sure he understands exactly what they are being told. He asked if staff is not in a position legally to recommend Requirements #2 and #6 of this letter because they were not expressed as recommendations in a timely fashion, but this does not preclude the Planning Commission, as a result of deliberation and public testimony, from imposing these as requirements. The Planning Director said only with the consent of the applicant. She said the application was already complete, and the second time the plans went to the City Engineer was the time for him to tell staff if all of the corrections required were sufficient, and he added two other conditions. He said at this time, they had already scheduled the project for public hearing, so the application was considered complete. She said they can not ask for new items after the application is complete. Chairman Buchanan said he can understand this on a staff level, but certainly the Planning Commission can impose conditions on a project without the applicant's expressed approval. The Associate Planner said this is correct, but from staffs perspective, they can not add any conditions, however, the Planning Commission can always amend and add conditions. 24 Chairman Buchanan clarified that, for that reason, any reference to those two items does not appear in the proposed recommendations, to which the Planning Director agreed. He said he recalled in the past the City Engineer indicating that certain items, such as street frontage improvement or offers of dedication, are not necessarily items that he has to express as conditions of approval, as they are required by code. He asked if this was not the case here. The Planning Director said she would have to check. Chairman Buchanan said they frequently come across recommended conditions of approval, that in reality, they have no discretion over as they are really code requirements. He said that the City Engineer always said, "comply with the U.B.C.", and the fact that this is not a recommended requirement doesn't mean it is not required. The Planning Director said she believes there is a requirement that City improvements be done with any residential development, however, the extent of those improvements are up to the discretion of the City Engineer. She said that these items are requirements of the code, however, the extent of the improvements is what is up to the City Engineer's discretion. Chairman Buchanan said, by not expressing that discretion, at a minimum, they would probably be bound by the minimal, code -required improvements unless they elected to add something greater. He said that Recommendation 8, regarding the maximum party or dancing/dining occupancy being no greater than 80 people, he has never seen this before as a recommendation and asked if this is coming out of the fire code. The Planning Director said this is coming out of the Uniform Building Code, and it is general, for dancing and eating areas. She said it is not in the residential code. She said this project is in the residential area but is being used for dancing and eating, so she is recommending this condition. Chairman Buchanan said he wouldn't want to inadvertently infer they would like to see 80 people partying and dancing there. He asked if the Planning Director would have a problem if they reduced this number to a more subjectively reasonable level. The Planning Director said this would be fine. Commissioner Van Gelder said if they reduce the size of the structure, they will also reduce the number of occupants. 25 Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he didn't understand Condition 9, with regard to a Variance application being required. He asked what staff s reason is for a Variance to be applicable. The Planning Director said if they want to use it as a habitable room. Chairman Buchanan said that if they approve it at 1,200 sq. ft., if they want to convert it to a habitable room, not only will they need a Conditional Use Permit, but they will need a Variance, as it is too big. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the other sites in the area are this large. The Associate Planner said this is one of the largest. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he would like staff to tell them the size of the lots adjacent to the subject property. The Associate Planner said they are moderately smaller. The Planning Director said they could refer to the Zoning Map, which may show the sizes of the lots. The Associate Planner indicated the properties on the General Plan Land Use Map. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said the lots seem to get significantly smaller. He was considered about the number of structures and their square footage. The Associate Planner said the applicant is at approximately 25% lot coverage. Commissioner Sims asked how the additional structure is going to be detrimental to that lot. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said they are using up most of this 19,000 sq. ft. in buildings. He said that the other adjoining properties have single family dwellings on them and are not of this size, especially the lots to the south. The Planning Director said they are covering 25% of the lot, and they are allowed to cover 50% with buildings. She said the recreation room is located in an area that is not visible from the street, and the Gage Canal is on one side. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said it will be visible when the lots to the south are F developed. The Associate Planner said there are no vacant parcels to be developed. She said there are some larger lots to the east and to the west, and as you look south, about one block down, there are the minimum lot sizes of 7,200 sq. ft. The Planning Director said the recreation room is not visible, as the rear of the yard is adjacent to a canal, and it is at the very corner of the rear yard of the other lots. She said they took this into consideration. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked where the property line is relative to the Gage Canal. The Associate Planner said it is approximately 20'. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked the distance between the open concrete drain, which is the County's easement, and their property line. Ms. Hassard said it is on their property. Commissioner Sims asked if there was any concern about water entering into the concrete channel. The Planning Director said staff asked the City Engineer, who said it would not be a concern, as a simple grading plan would suffice. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the drainage continues south, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. NANCY HASSARD 12694 MIKADO AVENUE G.T. Ms. Hassard said they have brick work right behind their house, and they have the concrete area with the pool, and originally, their intent was to add this directly onto the house, but they would lose a lot of amenities by doing this. She said the side lot, which was originally lawn, didn't provide much use, so they thought this would be a preferable spot. She said they want a place to work out and put a ping-pong table and pool table, for family use more than anything else. She stated that they would like to utilize as much of the lot as possible, which was how they came up with 1,690 sq. ft., and when they first went to the Planning Commission, this was when the Planning Director was 27 trying to get everything pre -approved. She said they had plans drawn up and found out staff wanted it scaled down, and they felt the minimum would be 1,200 sq. ft., as this would give them enough area to set up what they wanted and still allow some open area to put in a wet bar area, table and weight machine. She said they have the double bathrooms with a little shower, which is partly for use from the pool for the grandchildren. She said that the lots to the south are long and narrow and are at least 1/2 acre, and their houses sit quite far away. She said the house right next door on Franklin is the only one affected, and they own that house. She said most of their neighbors are in favor as they would like to come over to play ping-pong or pool. She stated that the natural grading goes toward the canal, which runs adjacent to two sides of their property. Commissioner Sims asked if they are constructing a 120 sq. ft. shed and a patio roof. Ms. Hassard said these are both existing structures. Commissioner Sims mentioned the wall to be removed. Ms. Hassard said there is a small wall to be removed in order to extend the decking out over the existing concrete decking around the pool. Commissioner Sims asked how far the recreation room is from the fence. He said he is concerned about fire access. Ms. Hassard said there is a large, double -gate which will be directly accessible to the recreation building. She said the gates can swing open. Commissioners Sims asked if there is a minimum distance a building must be from a fence line. The Planning Director said it is indicated on the plan as a 6' strip from the wall to the chain link fence. The Associate Planner said Fire needs 5', and with regard to the setback, they meet this requirement. Ms. Hassard said they had to pay $3,500 to Edison to have some overhead tension lines moved to put in a power pole in the far comer of the lot, as when the area was originally developed, they came from one comer and cut across the rear portion to a power pole behind one of the patio areas. She said she has the vacation of easement with her. She said there is a 10' easement in the Gage Canal that Edison brings their equipment in and out. is She said a fire truck could easily get back there. Commissioner Sims asked if she had any intention of using this as a habitable room in the future. Ms. Hassard said they do not, and if they had guests coming, they would put them in the house that they own next door. She said for an accessory structure, apparently there is no hard and fast ordinance that says it can't be any more than 1,200 sq. ft., so staff is using the nearest thing, which is the second family unit, but she doesn't feel they fall into that category since they won't use it that way. She said they are asking for the 1,200 sq. ft. Chairman Buchanan said their concern is when they see a fully detached unit being equipped with utility services, they anticipate that down the road someone may decide to live in it. He said enforcement is difficult since this is in their backyard. He stated that this could be an enhancement to the marketability of their property in future, however. Ms. Hassard said when they first considered this project, they looked at staying in this house or looking for a larger house that has some of these features. She said they decided to go ahead with this as it is more cost effective for them and they plan on staying at this property for a very long time. Chairman Buchanan said, with respect to the maximum occupancy, he doesn't think it is a bad idea, not necessarily for the Hassards, but in the future for there to be some kind of limitation on the occupancy as it ties into the available parking in the neighborhood if nothing else. Ms. Hassard said this doesn't bother them, as once a weight set, ping-pong table, pool table and other items, it would be difficult to fit 80 people in it anyway. Chairman Buchanan asked what she thought would be a reasonable number for a maximum. Ms. Hassard said their family is fairly small, and they don't entertain on a large basis. She said they have one party in the summer, where people are in the backyard, and they have never had a problem with the neighbors. She said it is up to them. Chairman Buchanan asked if 45-50 was reasonable. Ms. Hassard said that is reasonable, as there probably would never be that 29 many people in there. Chairman Buchanan asked how the applicant felt with regard to the sidewalk and street light agreement. Ms. Hassard said there are no sidewalks in the area, and as far as the ornamental street light, most people have some sort of lawn light, and she doubts that they would ever require it. Her objection was that if they sign an agreement to put in sidewalks or a street light, normally this goes along with a bond issue, where everyone voted on street lights and everyone pays for them, and she feels they would be put in a position that, if it came to pass, they would have to pay for the own, plus pay the bond amount on the taxes for everybody else. She said if they were the only ones that didn't have sidewalks, of course they would have to comply, but there are no sidewalks on Franklin or Mirado, and they do plan on putting in a nicer, ornamental lawn light, which they leave on all night for security reasons. Chairman Buchanan said she may want to consider the possibility that whether they impose that as a condition or not, it may be a condition required by ordinance. Ms. Hassard felt that this is only for new residences, and since they are an existing residence and this is only an add -on project, they should be exempt from something like that. Commissioner Sims said the purpose of the sidewalk and street light is for public safety. He said they could possibly get a credit for what they did. The Planning Director said it is not only for new residences that this condition is imposed, it is for all improvements. 10:00 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-92-09 SA-91-21 Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Hawkinson felt this was a good project at the 1,200 sq. ft. they are asking for, and he based this a lot on the size of the lot. Commissioner Sims made a motion to revise Condition 8 to read that the 30 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-09 MOTION maximum party, dancing and dining occupancy shall be no greater than 20 people. Ms. Hassard said she would like to have the option of more people for her summer party. Commissioner Sims changed his motion to 40 people. Chairman Buchanan second. Commissioner Munson said he felt 80 is fine, as they have the lot to handle it. He said he has been to wedding receptions where most of the people stay outside, and he can not find any logical reason for putting a 40 person limit on it. He asked how they would enforce this. Chairman Buchanan said they are specifically referring to the number of people inside this one building, not outside. Commissioner Hawkinson agreed that this shouldn't even be an issue. Commissioner Van Gelder said she didn't understand how entity can put a cap on a residence. She said that nobody will come to her house and tell her she can not have more than five people in her dining room. The Planning Director said it is not a requirement of the code; it is in the U.B.C. and regulates dining and eating facilities. She thought they may have parties, and this could give them a number in case they have complaints or problems with parking or with the next property owner. Commissioner Van Gelder said this is one thing they have to consider, and she has no problem with it. Chairman Buchanan said he was surprised to see this condition, as the inference of partying, dining and dancing is somehow implicitly condoned for this, when the applicant's plan expresses a different use. He said he would rather see it reduced from 80 or deleted in its entirety. Motion fails. 3-4-0-0. Chairman Buchanan and Commissioners Sims and Van Gelder voting yes. 31 PCM-92-10 SA-91-21 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-10 MOTION PCM-92-11 SA-91-21 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-11 MOTION PCM-92-12 SA-91-21 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-12 Commissioner Hawkinson made a motion that this Condition S be deleted entirely. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Commissioner Van Gelder voted no. Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion to amend Condition 2, changing the date from December 23, 1991 to January 27, 1992. Commissioner Sims second. Chairman Buchanan said that technically, this has to come as a new matter from them and not as an adoption of a staff recommendation. He asked if they should be incorporating the January 27, 1992 letter. The Planning Director felt it would be fine. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Hawkinson made a motion to modify Condition 11 to read 1,200 sq. ft. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. 32 MOTION PCM-92-13 SA-91-21 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-13 Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-91-21 with amendments. Commissioner Hawkinson second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:09 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP RECONVENED AT 10:09 P.M. Chairman Buchanan said they were in the process of discussing Planning Commission Meeting times and Staff Level Review changes. MOTION PCM-92-14 P.C. MTG. TIMES MOTION VOTE PCM-92-14 Commissioner Munson made a motion to adopt Option 1. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Munson called for the question. Motion carries. 4-3-0-0. Chairman Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioner Hawkinson voting no. Chairman Buchanan said it is time to consider the proposed Staff Level Review. The Planning Director said she would like to work on the fee structure, as at this point, they subsidize almost 90% of all applications, and her idea is to raise the fees for public hearing items. She said Moreno Valley charges 33 $4,500 for site plans and C.U.P.'s., and most cities have very high fees, at least $3,000, for public hearings. She felt they should try to recuperate their monies on larger projects, and allow the small projects not to be raised. Chairman Buchanan felt this would be burdensome to pass on increased public hearing fees to someone who is building a 11' high patio cover. He felt the idea of reviewing certain projects at staff level makes a lot of sense. He said from the applicant's view point, sitting in the audience while Planning Commission business is being discussed and waiting for the Site and Architectural Review Board, these people spend a lot of time here. Commissioner Sims said he could agree with one-half of the items on the list„ but he still thinks there are some things that they should be looking at. The Planning Director said, with the sign issue, they will have a lot of signs, so she doesn't think the number of meetings will decrease. Commissioner Hawkinson said the way this is worded, they are still going to get the same types of projects coming through, it is only some of the smaller ones that will be at staff level. He said that the mentality of the City has been to try and stimulate and encourage businesses to come in which would generate sales tax, and it now looks like the mentality is working. He said that one thing that would help this is a break on public hearing and C.U.P. fees, and perhaps they could compromise by raising them modestly. The Planning Director agreed. Chairman Buchanan said perhaps they could move this item to the next workshop session, and the Planning Director perhaps could take a look at the accessory structures and room additions and adjust them so that staff is approving less of those on a smaller scale and more are still coming to the Commission. Commissioner Van Gelder said the first four items are the kinds of things they could leave up to staff and the last two items could remain at the Planning Commission level, if they could agree on this. Chairman Buchanan felt this was a good compromise. The Planning Director said it is important that they have over and over again room additions of 500 - 800 sq. ft., which is very burdensome on the applicant. Commissioner Sims said the only thing he has a problem with is the outside of room additions. 34 The Planning Director said usually the outside matches the existing house. She said that with regard to accessory structures, on the next meeting, they will have an 11' high play house. Chairman Buchanan said that anything that is one-half as big as the house, they should be looking at it. He said maybe structures with 50% or more of the square footage of the main residence or of 500 sq. ft. or more would eliminate the little play houses. The Planning Director said 50% and a structure more than 1,000 sq. ft. would be fine with her, and she would like to keep the 30% lot coverage. She said this is a risk for her. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said on #2, perhaps they could change to "all structures but structures with 1,000 sq. ft. or more". Commissioner Munson asked about granny flats. The Planning Director said granny flats come automatically as they require Conditional Use Permits. The Associate Planner said that sometimes, granny flats can be attached as well as detached. The Planning Director said 50% is very good for accessory structures, but for room additions, a lot of houses are very small, so it doesn't take very much to get 50%. She said she could do a survey of the past ten room additions reviewed and how many are above 50%. She suggested 80% of the house as you would see an outside alteration. Commissioner Munson suggested putting in single -level room additions as opposed to two-story units. The Planning Director said room additions are usually for family rooms, and everyone likes very big family rooms. She said to add a family room usually doesn't impact the house so much as it is usually in the back. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said this removes staff and the commission from the position of the people saying they were "only going to add 200 sq. ft., so they didn't think they had to come down for a permit". The Planning Director said she was thinking in terms of impact, as usually projects that go to the Planning Commission are projects that have environmental impact. 35 Vice -Chairman Hargrave said she is eating away at the buffer the Planning Department has, which is the Planning Commission. The Planning Director said they will be compensated with less complaints on processing. Chairman Buchanan said they are giving staff direction to begin preparation of a change of the Zoning Code, and he doesn't want to take it too lightly. He said she probably has enough input and direction from the commission to start drafting a proposed change. The Planning Director suggested a consensus on the first four items, and then she can bring more information at the next workshop on the last two items. Chairman Buchanan asked if anyone on the commission had an objection to having patio covers and enclosures reviewed and approved at the staff level. There were no objections. He asked if anyone had an objection to sun rooms being approved at staff level. Commissioner Wright asked what sun rooms consist of. The Planning Director said sun rooms are basically patio enclosures, but they have glass and may be habitable. There were no objections. Chairman Buchanan asked if there were any objections to satellite dish antennas. He said he didn't have a problem with staff approval of antennas that can be screened from the street, as long as they are completely screened. There were no objections. He asked if there were any objections to overhead decks. There were no objections. He stated that on accessory structures and room additions, she has received input from the commission. He said the consensus seems to be that with projects that have very little visual impact or environmental impact or impact on neighbors, there doesn't seem to be much opposition to having them handled on staff level, but several of the commissioners would like to have the ability to review and give input on projects that significantly impact neighbors or have a visual impact from the street. He said that he appreciated the inclusion of the activity list. The Planning Director said with regard to Gina's, the owner agreed to eliminate one every other sign, so he will have half the signs he has now. She said there was a hearing on 11695 Canal, and the property owner did not show up, so staff will send a formal letter allowing 10 days to appeal to the Planning Commission, otherwise abatement will be processed. She said that 36 the U-Haul site use is permitted in the Specific Plan, but they found a way to approach it, as he is intensifying the use and changing some of the use. She said staff is going to bring it to the Planning Commission. She said the owner of the property adjacent to the U-Haul trucks wanted to say that the City of Grand Terrace needs more rental housing and suggested re -zoning a portion of the BRSP, mainly on the long lots, to multiple family, for duplexes or condominiums. She said the property owner's intent is to subdivide her lot, as she would like to leave the back portion of her lot for a nursery. The Planning Director said she suggested consolidating rather than subdividing. The property owner is apparently allowing the owner of the U-Haul business to store trucks on her property. The Planning Director said that with regard to Gourmet Deli & Spirits, there has been a problem with the hard liquor license, as a resident protested. She said it will take them one year to go to a public hearing, so the tenant wants to take "Spirits" out of his sign. She said he wanted the sign to be an "A" with a circle around it and "Food Store". The Planning Director said they couldn't accept this, and the tenant said he has a ten-year lease, so he is in bad shape. Commissioner Van Gelder couldn't believe that, because of one complaint, he wouldn't be allowed a liquor license. Discussion continued as to the choice of a name for the business. She said with regard to Towne and Country parking, the entry has been red - curbed, and the employees have been asked not to park on Canal. She said there are going to be "NO PARKING" signs on Canal and on one side of Britton Way. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1992. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Planning Director 02-14-92:ma 37 Approved by, Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission