Loading...
06/19/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 1990 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 June 19, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT: Jim Sims, Commissioner PLEDGE: Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. Discussion of appeals to City Council regarding overhead decks. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 5, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-63 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 59 1990 Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve the June 5, 1990 minutes. Commission Van Gelder second. MOTION VOTE PCM-90-63 Motion carries. 4-0-1-2. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioners Buchanan and Hargrave abstained. ITEM #2 Z-90-01 REPEAL OF TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.80, OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE (THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE) AND ADOPTION OF A REVISED TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.80 (SIGN ORDINANCE ONLY) The Community Development Director presented the staff report. He stated that the Sign Ordinance has been drafted very much in compliance with the existing Barton Road Specific Plan's Sign Ordinance with the exception that there are a couple more districts. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce received a copy, but they will not make comments until it goes before City Council. He stated that there is no slight intended toward the Planning Commission, but they felt they did not have enough time to review it. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he had hoped for their comments to be presented tonight. The Community Development Director stated that he would hate to see this deferred to a later date in order to receive the Chamber's comments, as he doesn't know that they will be ready to make comments at the next meeting, but it is certainly an option. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:10 P.M. No comments. 2 PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to continue the discussion because he was absent at the last meeting and has some suggested changes but is not finished with them yet, and after sitting in on San Bernardino's discussion on their Sign Ordinance and would like to look into implementing the Sticker Ordinance. Commissioner Buchanan asked why On -Site Subdivisions require a $500 deposit, while Off -Site Subdivisions does not have a similar requirement. The Community Development Director stated that they could add in a fee for both of them. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there was a separate section for temporary signs. The Community Development Director stated that this is in the Fee Ordinance, and the fee is $10 with a $100 deposit. He stated that they can reword this so that there is so that there is some reference to the appropriate fee and refundable deposit per the City's Fee Ordinance. Commissioner Buchanan stated that it would probably be a good idea to continue the language of sub -paragraph F under 140 and K under 150. He asked if the City has to remove any signs and the cost exceeds the deposit, does it need to be specified that the person placing the sign shall be responsible for any excess costs. The Community Development Director stated that when they went through the Nuisance Abatement Hearing Process, any costs incurred in the enforcement of the municipal code can be placed onto the property owner through a lien on the property. He stated that at the current time, their policy is not to remove signs without going through the Nuisance Abatement Hearing Process. Chairman Hawkinson asked if they were running around in circles right now if they planned to continue this item for input from the Chamber of Commerce. The Community Development Director stated that he didn't know whether they were or not. He stated that he has not asked if they would be ready at the next Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to get more information on 3 MOTION PCM-90-64 Z-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-64 the San Bernardino Sign Sticker Ordinance. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to continue the public hearing and Planning Commission discussion of Z-90-01 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hilkey second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Community Development Director could get some input from the City of San Bernardino on the sticker program. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:22 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:22 P.M. ITEM #3 SA-90-10 KEVIN DAVIS 12005 PRESTON STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SATELLITE DISH IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Munson asked if the applicant agreed that the dish would be ground -mounted. The Community Development Director stated no, that the unit was in place, and staff started the Nuisance Abatement Hearing proceedings with them. He stated that it was his understanding that they were not aware that this required a permit. 4 Commissioner Hilkey asked if staff had a problem with the structure and how it is mounted. The Community Development Director stated that the Building Department would look at that when the applicant applies for the building permit. Commissioner Hilkey asked if he was trying to get a southerly exposure. Commissioner Hargrave stated that it is a northeast exposure. The Community Development Director stated that the exposure is southeasterly. Chairman Hawkinson called the applicant before the Commission, but brought it back to the Commission for action due to the applicant's absence. MOTION PCM-90-65 SA-90-10 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to table this item and continue to the next item to give the applicant a chance to show up. Commissioner Van Gelder second. MOTION VOTE PCM-90-65 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. ITEM #4 SA-90-11 ARCHITECTURAL COMPUTER SERVICE/CALIFORNIA SPIRITS, INC. 22125 BARTON ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A MULTI -TENANT RETAIL FACILITY The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he did not see any color boards. He also stated that the water company's letter indicated that the mobile home park's water service crosses the lot and needs to be relocated, and he asked who 5 would have to relocate it. The Community Development Director stated that he does not know the exact location of the line, but this would have to be solved when dealing with the actual permits and the improvements. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about the street opening onto Michigan. She stated that the City Engineer's memo mentions the curb and gutter 32 feet from the street center line, and she asked if this meant on Michigan perpendicular to the street that will enter. The Community Development Director stated that this would be the curb that would be adjacent to the property and would run parallel with Michigan Street. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she assumed that the street itself would be sort of a half -street into the project. The Community Development Director stated that this would be an extended driveway. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how wide it would be. The Community Development Director stated that the driveway portion would be 18 feet wide and the access drive would be 18 feet wide, which is the requirement for a two-way access drive with parallel parking along the side. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they had something in mind for the decorative wall. The Community Development Director stated that they haven't talked detail design yet, but staff would anticipate slump wall or split -faced wall or block wall with stucco exterior and some type of cap which would match the architecture of the building. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the areas designated on the east side of the building would be openings. The Community Development Director stated that they would not be openings. He stated that the windows and doors would not be in place at this time, and that they building has been designed so that when the adjacent property develops, they will be able to take advantage of that and have access to the parking area. 0 Commissioner Van Gelder stated that they have some designated patio areas and asked what they would be used for. The Community Development Director stated that they don't know at this point because they don't have any tenants. He stated that part of the parking configuration and the reduction as far as required number of parking spaces, the Barton Road Specific Plan allows subtraction of a certain number of parking spaces from a project if they are providing pedestrian amenities. He stated that he spoke with the applicant, and he thinks this was part of the intent of producing these patios, but the patio size doesn't meet the Barton Road Specific Plan requirement in order to have that as a justified trade-off for parking spaces. He stated that staff did feel that the configuration of the site and the improvements going in do not prevent staff from recommending that it be denied based on parking. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they could require a trellis or patio cover, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Van Gelder asked the Community Development Director to point out the loading areas, which he did. She stated that she felt this was not adequate. The Community Development Director stated that it will probably never be used anyway. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what he had in mind as far as the alteration of the pop -out features. The Community Development Director stated that he likes the idea of having the lamps in the end ones, and perhaps they could have a criss-cross design or decorative light alternating, so that it would be broken up. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about street and parking lighting. The Community Development Director stated that it is not required that they light their facility under the normal code. He stated that it can be put down as a condition. He stated that the parking code establishes the height of the parking light, how bright they can be, and where they can and cannot shine. He stated that as far as the street light goes, he is relying on the City Engineer to determine whether or not there is a need for a street light along this frontage. Commissioner Hargrave stated that this is the first proposal under the Barton Road Specific Plan and they should be careful as they will be setting some 7 standards. He stated that the architecture of the structure is designed to be consistent with Barton Road, and asked if this meant in the general sense rather than in setting the theme for the whole Specific Plan area. The Community Development Director stated that this is just in the general sense that the Specific Plan is calling for a different type of building materials, and this project comes within using the design elements proposed in the pallet. Commissioner Hargrave stated that staff recommends that store -front windows be of a multi -pane design, and asked if this is as opposed to one single sheet of glass. The Community Development Director stated that this is correct, but from staffs point of view, the windows adjacent to the actual doors could be removed and this would give more of a three -window effect and would break it up so that it wouldn't be just glass. Commissioner Hargrave asked if, under the site plan under the 11% shortage of the required parking spaces, the applicant discussed vertical versus horizontal parking to see if they could get more spaces. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant looked at several different designs, but you normally get more parking spaces from a 90 degree parking layout than an angled parking layout. Commissioner Hargrave asked if parking was proposed alongside the wall coming off of Michigan. The Community Development Director stated that there are 7 parking spaces that are parallel parked, and the intention staff has impressed upon the applicant is that this should be used for employee parking. Commissioner Hargrave stated that in the Specific Plan, they have set a general theme of not having driveways off of Barton Road any more often than 200 feet. He stated that he is concerned that, when looking at the street light, they are presenting a traffic problem because of cars trying to get in right after coming through the congested intersection. He stated that if they would go in an easterly direction from that driveway and would mark off 200 feet as the minimum requirement and place a driveway there, then they may have a significant problem due to the driveway. He stated that it seems they are giving up significant access to all three of the parcels. He stated that he is also concerned that the easterly portion of the proposed retail shop will have the accessibility for the ultimate buildout. The Community Development Director stated that these are valid concerns, but they should keep in mind that this is not one of the Master Plan areas. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he was concerned that the landscaping is not futuristic in its thinking. The Community Development Director stated that staff feels there is an abundant amount of landscaping which adds to this project. He stated that it would be appropriate that when a wall is designed for this, a walkway and a break in the berm should be provided so that there would be some type of pedestrian access to the site. Commissioner Hargrave asked if a retail liquor store could go into one of these sites. The Community Development Director stated that a liquor store is a permitted use with a footnote that states that a Conditional Use Permit is required for off -sale of alcoholic beverages within 500 feet of a school, which this location is. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the Conditional Use Permit was for beer, wine or liquor sales. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant may be able to answer that better. Commissioner Hilkey stated that last time they saw this project, staff recommended denial, and tonight they are recommending approval, and he asked what was different about the project tonight. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant was further away from meeting the parking requirements and were asking for a Variance, which staff could not recommend based on state findings, and staff was not completely sold on the architecture and site development issues. He stated that they have made substantial gains in attaining what the Barton Road Specific Plan proposes that they do. He stated that at that time, there were no real guidelines and the applicant got caught in an unfortunate timing situation. He stated that they have tried to meet the guidelines and staff feels that they have done a good job. Commissioner Hilkey asked how they meet the parking guidelines. The Community Development Director stated that they meet all the requirements for parking with the minor exception of the 10% in number and 6 the site design meets all the different requirements of the parking code.j Commissioner Hilkey asked if there will be more multi -panes than they see here. The Community Development Director stated that they would like to see each one broken up into a multi -pane design. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the architectural features are acceptable on the east side, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Hilkey stated that they are saying that on the west side, doors and windows will not be there, and he asked what they will see after the building is constructed. The Community Development Director stated that they would be seeing a stuccoed wall. Commissioner Hilkey asked about the parking burden with regard to the future development of the adjacent property. The Community Development Director stated that this project is not relying on the future development of the property and their parking lot to meet their parking requirements. Commissioner Hilkey stated that on the west side of the entranceway there is a solid sidewalk to the street and on the east side they are suggesting a parkway. The Community Development Director stated that staff strongly recommends that they continue the Barton Road Street Improvements in the manner that they have been designed to date. He stated that the Council did approve this design, and staff feels it is important to continue it and be consistent. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they could change the westerly side of the access. The Community Development Director stated that his recommendation is to tear out that sidewalk and landscaping improvements be put in, which continued the landscaping which comes up from the east. Commissioner Hilkey asked if a three foot high shrubbery would be adequate as it borders the gas station. 10 The Community Development Director stated that this recommendation is simply the requirement for a visual separation which is included in the parking code. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. STAN CURATOLO PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA SPIRITS 1595 LAURELWOOD COLTON Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the building is larger or smaller than the last one proposed. Mr. Curatolo stated that it is smaller. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the previous development was divided up into three stores to her recollection. Mr. Curatolo stated that he didn't think they got that far, but the total square footage was about 10,031 square feet. He stated that he doesn't know how many tenants they will have at this point. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if he would be willing to place additional lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Curatolo stated that he would want all the lighting he could possibly get within code for security reasons. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if he would be willing to put lattice work above the patios. Mr. Curatolo stated that he wouldn't want to because he doesn't think it would be inclusive to the development of this center. Commissioner Hargrave asked if it is his intent to try to get a retail liquor outlet. Mr. Curatolo stated that being this is Site and Architectural Review, he doesn't believe he can ask that right now. He stated that their intent at this point is to lease out the complete building to any tenants they possibly can. Commissioner Munson asked if the window treatment suggested by staff was objectionable. 11 Mr. Curatolo stated that he did and very much so. He stated that his definition of a retail store is visibility. Commissioner Munson asked about the pop -outs on the east side. The Community Development Director stated that what he is asking is, when they do come in, would he want the paned windows or the full windows. Mr. Curatolo stated that they will do it however they want him to as he has no preference. The Community Development Director stated that if they decide to go with non -multi -paned windows, staff would recommend that the windows directly adjacent to the doors be removed, as this would give a little bit more break up. He stated that the individual windows are about 3 by 4 or 3 by 5. Mr. Curatolo stated that they would like to go with the single pane with the brick at the bottom if they could. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the rear elevation represents what it would look like the day the center would open. The Community Development Director clarified the rear elevation from staff s point of view. He stated that the windows and doors are not currently proposed. Commissioner Buchanan asked what the proposed color scheme was. Mr. Curatolo stated that they had a sample. 8:35 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M. - RECESS GENE MCMEANS GENERAL MANAGER, RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER 1450 WASHINGTON STREET COLTON Mr. McMeans commented that the service line through their property being a private line doesn't bother Riverside Highland Water Company, however he expressed concern that it was the understanding that the line would be relocated when that property was developed, so consequently, the City of Grand Terrace was not requested to raise that service, which is approximately 4 feet below the grade with the new sidewalks, so it would have to be a consideration on someone's part to raise that service, as they cannot maintain 12 a service that deep on a long-term basis. The Community Development Director stated that the small board that the commissioners had in front of them was the color board for the project. He stated that he also had additional material on the Cal -Shake. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Cal -Shake was wood or concrete. The Community Development Director stated that it is not wood. Commissioner Hargrave asked what color the painted, metal trim would be. The Community Development Director stated that staff would recommend a darker, accent color to pull out the trim. Commissioner Buchanan asked if this could be handled at staff level. The Community Development Director stated that the colors presented in the architectural drawings and the material sheet are within the Barton Road Specific Plan pallet and staff is comfortable in being able to work with the applicant. Commissioner Hargrave asked for a discussion on the monument sign while the applicant was present. The Community Development Director stated that the monument sign would have to meet the specific plan sign requirements which would be for a multi - tenant facility, and they would be allowed to have identification of the center and one major tenant, but it would not be a full listing of all of the tenants, as that would be a directory sign. He stated that as a multiple -tenant site or shopping center site within the CG District in the specific plan, they are allowed to have a wall or canopy sign which would be one single -faced per building per street or parking lot, maximum of two signs per business, a business identification window sign, a business identification under marquee sign and a center identification monument sign, one double-faced per street frontage, which may identify center and/or establishment and shall not be located so as to create a traffic hazard, requires a planter area and a minimum street frontage of 150 feet; business identification monument sign, one double-faced, 24 square feet per face, 6 foot height requirement, and authorized for detached, single business within the structure of not less than 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the specific plan allows for neon signs. 13 The Community Development Director stated that they cannot be neon but can be channel letters, which are individually, internally lit channel letters similar to the Terrace Gateway project. He stated that neon signs are permitted within the windows. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there were any concerns with traffic coming out of the driveway trying to make a left turn onto Michigan. The Community Development Director stated that traffic concerns have been referred to the Engineering Department and they have not put any restrictions on that. Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was an overhang in the parking area. The Community Development Director stated that there is no overhang. He said that there may be a small, covered walk, while referring to the left elevation. He stated that it will not be a full blown canopy, but rather an architectural overhang. Commissioner Hilkey asked how the applicant would feel about putting windows in on the easterly exposure. Mr. Curatolo stated that he wouldn't care to give an open exposure to the far east as they don't have facilities to come in there. He stated that at this time it would be a storage area, and a window would look strange. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed concern that if the back wall was needed for storage now, what would be used for storage if and when the windows are put in. Mr. Curatolo stated that they don't know who the tenants are going to be, but they would move the storage around. He stated that he didn't feel it would be beneficial to put a window where there would be a dirt lot next to it. The Community Development Director stated that from staff's point of view, they would like the windows and doors to go in, and they could be treated to where they are not accessible as long as they have fire approval. He stated that he can, however, understand the applicant's point of view, and one thing that he hadn't mentioned is that it is a vacant lot and the back of their property, and there will be children there, and this would be a great target for rocks. He stated that it would be more apt to be susceptible to vandalism than if there was a project there. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. 14 Commissioner Hargrave asked what would allow them to go back later and have the east side developed as shown conceptually, assuming this is approved. The Community Development Director stated that the only real authority is that it would be worded as a condition that at the time the property to the east develops in accordance with the Barton Road Specific Plan, the proposed windows and access to the facilities be incorporated and put into place. Commissioner Hargrave stated that they don't know if Suite D and E are really going to be there, as one tenant could take them both as one contiguous unit. He stated that the occupant may not want the two window settings. The Community Development Director stated that it is important to also look at sign location. He stated that if the property is divided in the manner shown, the two suites do not have signage on the back side of the building, and staff would not want to approve signs located anywhere on the building except on the areas indicated on the site plan. Commissioner Hargrave asked if anything new would be done with the trash enclosure over and above what they have seen in the past. The Community Development Director stated that they have no standards in line with the Barton Road Specific Plan, but there are design guidelines within the plan as far as different approaches to how it should be treated. He stated that the best trash enclosure he has seen is the style that The Highlands apartment project has in their facility. He stated that there are no conditions here at this point. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the landscaping for the rear elevation. The Community Development Director stated that staff has requested a detailed landscaping plan to be submitted. Commissioner Hargrave expressed concern about using trees that grow up versus out. The Community Development Director stated that the parking code references the lowest limb height requirement so that there is appropriate clearance. Commissioner Hargrave expressed concern over the 200 feet between driveways. 15 MOTION PCM-90-66 SA-90-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-66 MOTION PCM-90-67 SA-90-11 The Community Development Director stated that if they were in one of the master planned areas, they would require a reciprocal access and parking agreement to where that person may not get a driveway. He stated that this project is not in that requirement of the specific plan, so they have a right to the driveway. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is probably going to vote against the applicant's proposed site at this point, as they need to incorporate it as best they can into the whole Barton Road Specific Plan. Commissioner Munson stated that he is going to vote for it, as this is the first step they have had to beautify the City Commissioner Buchanan stated that this project has come a long way and has waited a long time for this to be dealt with. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion that condition of approval # 11 be amended to provide that, "Further, applicant shall obtain a will -serve letter from said water company". Commissioner Hilkey second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he would not be inclined to require window treatment along the easterly exposure at this point in time. He stated that he would like to see some architectural treatment in that area. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion that condition of approval #4 be amended to include, after the phrase "illegal signs or banners", the following: "Further, additional architectural features shall be added to the inset portion of the easterly elevation, to be approved by the Planning Director". Commissioner Munson second. 16 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-67 MOTION PCM-90-68 SA-90-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-68 MOTION PCM-90-69 SA-90-11 Motion carries. 6-1-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder voted no. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion that condition of approval #3 be amended to read, "The store front windows shall be of a multi -pane design, or in the alternative, the applicant shall eliminate the window to the north of the entry door in front of proposed B and D", which he indicated on the plans. Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion. The Community Development Director stated that this was acceptable from staffs point of view. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he would like to see the brick continued up next to the door in the eliminated portions, although this is his personal preference. He stated that he wouldn't mind seeing true or false multi -pane. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she feels very strongly in favor of the multi -pane design, but she would object to the one piece on the inside of the glass to designate the panes as they can be removed. Motion carries. 4-2-1-0. Commissioners Hargrave and Van Gelder voted no. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Buchanan asked if condition #2 included parking area lighting. The Community Development Director stated that it can be amended to read that way. 17 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-69 MOTION PCM-90-70 SA-90-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-70 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion that condition of approval #2 be amended to read, "A detailed landscaping, lighting, fencing and irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval". Commissioner Hilkey second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the windows and doors on the east side are not put in place now, do they see the signs placed in the appropriate places on the east side, and would they be store signs or signs for the complex. The Community Development Director stated that this would be an acceptable location for signs, and they could be the individual store signs. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was any reason other than cost that someone uses brick veneer rather than real brick. The Community Development Director stated that they don't have the architect here, but he would anticipate that it would be overall building design, and the brick being on the floor, it may not support the overhangs and other areas without being substantially enforced. He stated that as long as it is maintained, staff has no problem with it. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her concern over the maintenance of the brick veneer. Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to use new, red brick. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-1-1-0. Commissioner Munson voted no. Commissioner Sims absent. 18 MOTION PCM-90-71 SA-90-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-71 MOTION PCM-90-72 SA-90-11 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was any way to require right turn only exiting on Barton Road. The Community Development Director stated that they certainly can, but normally they like to substantiate that with reasons coming from the Engineering Department. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that what she perceives to be a problem apparently is not a problem to the City Engineer's office or Cal -Trans, for example, with Demetri's entrance. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to restrict the egress out of the driveway onto Barton Road to a right turn only subject to any safety or engineering objection from the Engineering Department. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that anyone who wants to go in that direction can very easily exit at Michigan Street, so it really does not cause a problem. Motion carries. 4-2-1-0. Commissioners Buchanan and Hilkey voted no. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Hilkey made a motion that with regard to condition #7, the three foot shrubbery option is eliminated, so that it just includes a berm or wall or combination thereof. Commissioner Hargrave second. Commissioner Hargrave asked how the Community Development Director would visualize this combination. The Community Development Director drew an example. He stated that the intent was for a visual barrier as opposed to a physical barrier. 19 MOTION PCM-90-73 SA-90-11 Commissioner Buchanan asked if the 3 foot opaque notion was to keep it low so as not to obstruct driver visibility, but high enough to eliminate headlights shining onto adjacent property. The Community Development Director stated that in addition to those items, it also prevents drivers on Barton Road from seeing parking lot after parking lot. Commissioner Buchanan stated that his inclination would be to see the applicant have the alternative for putting in 3 foot shrubs, which would be easier to modify. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Commissioner Hilkey's intent was to put a wall/berm on the west side of the property or the north side. Commissioner Buchanan stated that condition #8 said the area is going to be the same #7. The Community Development Director stated that #7 is along Barton Road and #8 is the gas station side. Commissioner Hilkey stated that his intent was the gas station side. Chairman Hawkinson stated there was some discussion on a break in the landscaping between the two properties, so he suggested looking at this as a separate motion. Commissioner Hargrave withdrew his concurrence with the motion. Commissioner Hilkey withdrew his motion. Commissioner Hilkey made a motion to change condition #8 to read, "The applicant would supply a berm or wall combination on the area adjacent to the existing service station". Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion. Commissioner Hilkey expressed his concern that they wouldn't get any foot traffic from the gas station, but rather from the sidewalk to the development. He stated that the traffic he is concerned about is that going back and forth over the landscaped area in between the Michigan access and the gas station or the parking lot and the gas station. 20 MOTION PCM-90-74 SA-90-11 Commissioner Buchanan stated that the best way to deal with this would be to interpose some appropriate pathways. The Community Development Director stated that it is appropriate to consider the future and current possibility that there will be people walking from one side to the other. He stated that they could limit the alternatives to a berm and a wall, but it is highly important to provide a break in it. Commissioner Hilkey amended his motion to say, "With the cooperation of the Planning Director and the applicant, installation of one or more walkways at the westerly adjacent property line". Commissioner Hargrave concurred. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he had a problem with the wall along the driveway. Commissioner Hilkey withdrew his motion. Commissioner Hilkey made a motion to add condition # 14, that the applicant install windows on the easterly side as shown on his elevations. Commissioner Van Gelder second. The Community Development Director stated that this is in conflict with the motion made previously regarding condition #4, in that this motion provided that the inset portion would have some type of treatment. Commissioner Hilkey stated that his understanding of the motion was to enhance the architectural features already shown on the east side, rather than to replace the windows. Commissioner Buchanan suggested adding what he was proposing and deleting the additional language added to condition #4. He stated that he would like to see some sort of false window, louvre or shutter. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the visual aspect is the most important. She stated that the if the storage problem is a problem now, then it will still be a problem 2 years from now when the other project comes in. She felt very strongly that now is the time to do it. Commissioner Buchanan stated that nobody who owns the property to the east is here tonight, but if you are driving west on Barton Road toward the 21 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-74 MOTION PCM-90-75 SA-90-11 freeway and you see the store front with windows, doors and signs, and it attracts your attention, you are going to pull into that dirt parking area that belongs to someone else and try to figure out how to get down there. He stated that there is a 4 or 5 foot elevation difference between the two lots, and people will be trying to figure out how to get down the bank and into the doors. He stated that they have a problem in presenting that as the front of the building. Commissioner Hilkey asked if it was ever going to be the front of a store or not. He stated that if it is not, then they shouldn't show it as such. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he hates to discourage applicants from indicating future portrayals. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that they are not being consistent with the east and west sides. Commissioner Munson asked for a restatement of the motion. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the motion states that they should install windows across the east side. Commissioner Munson asked if there was landscaping and sidewalk from the edge of the building to the edge of the property. The Community Development Director indicated where it would be. Motion fails. 2-4-1-0. Commissioners Hilkey and Van Gelder voted yes. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Hargrave wanted to make sure that all landscaping, including grass and shrubbery, be drought -tolerant or drought -resistant as defined by the University of California, County Extension Department. Commissioner Buchanan second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he heard strong comments suggesting that 22 they continue the Barton Road landscaping scheme. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if this was all determined for the specific plan. The Community Development Director stated that they did not, as the improvements along Barton Road were done separate from the Barton Road Specific Plan. Commissioner Buchanan suggested that they add to the motion that the landscaping shall be consistent with the Barton Road improvements and to the extent possible shall include drought -tolerant plantings. Commissioner Hargrave concurred. Commissioner Buchanan concurred as the second. MOTION VOTE PCM-90-75 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. MOTION PCM-90-76 SA-90-11 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to approve SA-90-11, subject to the conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report and as amended this evening. Commissioner Munson second. MOTION VOTE PCM-90-76 Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave voted no. Commissioner Sims absent. ITEM #5 SA-90-12 SAM MEDINA 22705 CARDINAL STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF AN OVERHEAD DECK IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT 23 The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson declared a brief recess. 10:35 P.M. TO 10:45 P.M. - RECESS Chairman Hawkinson called the Site and Architectural Review Board back to order. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they would have to come back for a permit if they put a rail on this. The Community Development Director stated that a rail is required on the overhead deck portion now. Commissioner Munson asked if the lattice was the same height as the deck. The Community Development Director stated that the plans indicated that there will be 7 1/2 foot clearance between the floor and the lowest portion of the cross beam. He stated that the actual lattice portion will probably extend another 12 inches. He stated that the actual height is 8'2", while the overall height of the deck with the patio cover would be 11 to 12 feet high. Commissioner Van Gelder what the distance was from the edge of the cement to the property line. Chairman Hawkinson stated that the applicant indicated 19 feet from the property line. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the support posts are further beyond the hand rails, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the underlying 2 X 6's cover the entire area. The Community Development Director stated that it appears that they become 2 X 2 railings, but this should be clarified with the applicant. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. SAM MEDINA 22705 CARDINAL STREET G.T. 24 Mr. Medina stated that the deck was originally going to be bigger, but the Community Development Director suggested that it wouldn't pass at that length, so he redrew his plot plan using the same drawing. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he is confused that they redrew the plot plan, yet the structure is already in place. Mr. Medina stated that it is not finished. He stated that he owns Inland Empire Patio and Concrete and has never done any work in Grand Terrace, and every other city either has engineering plans or a set of guidelines or you go over the counter and get a permit. He stated that he had the lumber dropped and didn't want $800 to go to waste during the Site and Architectural Review process so he built the structure so it wouldn't warp, but it is not finished. Chairman Hawkinson asked what kind of footing he used. Mr. Medina stated that they are 18 X 18 footings, but he thinks they'll need 2' X 2' footings, so he thinks he will excavate down around the footing, get the inspection, and then repour it underneath the slab. He stated that the brackets are already in the concrete. Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Medina to refer to the plan and show what is built. Mr. Medina stated that indicated what was built on the plans. He stated that the flooring is laid and all that is laid on the handrails are pickets. He stated that he will be taking off the top of the deck and rebuilding the whole structure. He stated that 87' is the bottom from the mud seal of a house to the floor joist of a house, which is the strongest point. He stated that 7' is after dropping down to the header giving you clearance from the front, not from the back. He stated that the actual ledger would be 87' connected to the floor joist of a second story home. Commissioner Hargrave asked how many square feet the balcony would be. Mr. Medina stated that it would be 106 square feet. He stated that originally, he was going to have stairs, but he heard that they were out of the question. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the design as presented on paper is acceptable as long as everything is modified to conform with what is presented to the Commission. Commissioner Buchanan asked where the balcony would open into. 25 MOTION PCM-90-77 SA-90-12 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-77 Mr. Medina stated only into the master suite. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to the Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-90-12, subject to the conditions as noted in the Planning Department recommendations. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the Community Development Director looked up the addresses of the neighbors' responses to see where they were in orientation to the applicant's house. The Community Development Director stated that they did not, but they did send out their own notifications to the adjacent property owners. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. ITEM #6 SA-90-13 SANG M. CHI/SEONG S. CHOE 22735 CARDINAL STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF AN 11 FOOT HIGH PATIO COVER IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the drainage of the pitched roof, and if they should put some guttering on the pitch. The Community Development Director stated that they can add this as a condition, but the Building Department didn't express a need for it. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. 26 SANG M. CHI 1016 SOUTH CATALINA STREET LOS ANGELES MOTION PCM-90-78 SA-90-13 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-78 Commissioner Hargrave asked why the patio covering is going up to 10 feet high. Mr. Chi stated that the owner wants it this way. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the Planning Department has suggested matching roof tiles versus shingles, and asked if the applicant objected. Mr. Chi stated that he thinks that this would present a financial problem to the owner. Commissioner Buchanan stated that on something like this where the pitch is such that the roof material is prominently displayed towards the rear of the home, he feels this is an appropriate condition, and the asphalt shingles are out of place. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-90-13 with staffs recommendations. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. ITEM #7 SA-90-14 RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER PRESTON STREET NORTH OF ETON DRIVE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW TO REBUILD EXISTING WATER BOOSTER STATION 27 The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she would like to see the variety of fencing done away with and something permanent put in. She stated that solid block walls seem to be an excellent target for graffiti and asked if there were any alternatives. The Community Development Director stated that the main concern regarding graffiti would be along the public right-of-way, and much of this site is adjacent to private property, so this would be less of a concern. He stated that Council's concern regarding graffiti has led to the slumpstone type of wall rather than the flat, stucco wall. He stated that landscaping along the wall would eliminate part of the problem. EUGENE MCMEANS, GENERAL MANAGER RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER 1450 WASHINGTON STREET COLTON Mr. McMeans presented handouts to the Commissioners and a plot plan on the overhead projector. He stated that this is a two -pump station and will be switching over one at a time. He stated that there is a power pole transformer on the site near Preston, and the entire south section has power lines going completely through from street to street. He said that from the transformer station, they drop to a power pole and into the existing, and that the new requirements are that from the transformer pole of Edison's they will underground, so they will come down the pole and underground into the new building. He stated that at the present time, the building is of wooden shake with a couple of cut-outs for maintenance purposes. He said the building is block and steel with a metal roof simulated like Spanish tile. He stated that the black area represents the inside of the block wall. He indicated a slight bank which extends basically to the property line. He stated that this bank becomes more extreme as you get to the back of the property, which will continue back to a point. He stated that they will work on the drought - tolerant plants. He said that they are proposing a block wall with a gate to access the current greenbelt in the very back. Mr. McMeans stated that they have no problems with most of the conditions with a couple of exceptions. He stated that with regard to condition #3, they hope to use a drip system for the irrigation; with regard to condition #4, each of the contractors must have a business license, which they enforce on their specifications at time of contracting; with regard to condition #5, they assume they will comply with the City Engineer, as they have not seen anything back yet from him; with regard to condition #6, they have spoken with Paul Miller with the Fire Marshal's office, and his comments were quite favorable; and with regard to condition #7, they are attempting to upgrade the aesthetics. He stated that they are concerned with the condition that the simulated Spanish tile be the same color as the fascia and the doors. He stated that they selected the color to highlight the Spanish tile, otherwise it would have no character. He stated that he is also concerned about the back portion, referring to the pictures he handed out. He stated that they would like to suggest that they block wall what is around the building. He stated that the neighbor to the north fence is way up top, and has some greenery in it at the present time, and they suggest that they put no fencing back there, and if they put a 6' block wall in front of the neighbor to the south, they would lose the aesthetics of the wrought iron above their block wall fence as their block wall will extend 1 1/2' above the wrought iron. He stated that they propose not fencing it at all, and they will have a sprinkler system in there anyway, and will set 2 or 3 overhead sprinklers that will irrigate the iceplant, their property their neighbor's property to the north, the oleanders on the south and the geraniums on the slope to the north, and give the neighbors to the south visibility through the wrought iron. He stated that the greenbelt should not be torn out. He stated that they initially proposed to put a chain link fence on whatever grade is there, which is about $1,300. He stated that if they go in with a four foot retaining wall, put in slump stone (a lot of which would not be seen), and eliminate the cross block wall and extend everything back, they are talking approximately $11,000, and will have gained relatively little. Commissioner Munson asked what the time span of the project would be. Mr. McMeans stated that the contract is written for 100 calendar days. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they were proposing not to put the wall in but instead a more extensive watering system and landscape maintenance. Mr. McMeans stated that with a consistent irrigation system, they would maintain it. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they had been maintaining it so far. Mr. McMeans stated that the entire site, until they started removing trees and doing clean-up, was probably forgotten. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the color combination should blend in to the community. Mr. McMeans stated that most of the surrounding roofs are wood shingle, which they don't want. He stated that they wanted metal, as the entire roof 29 MOTION PCM-90-79 SA-90-14 structure is designed to be removed. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was a retaining wall on the north side of the property, to which Mr. McMeans responded in the negative. Commissioner Hilkey expressed concern that the metal roof might act as an amplifier for any existing noise, whereas wood would dampen noise. Mr. McMeans stated that this is why they are putting the 3/4" sheeting over and under the metal roof as a damper. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave stated that Mr. McMeans is asking that condition # 1 be changed to what his rendering represents, which causes him no problem, but he doesn't understand the proposal on condition #2, other than to do away with the 6' high slumpstone block wall around the perimeter. He asked the applicant back up to the microphone. He asked what houses were around the site. Mr. McMeans stated that there are two houses to the south and one house to the north along with one across the street. Commissioner Hargrave asked the Community Development Director's idea on condition #2. The Community Development Director stated that with the landscaping plans submitted, staff would consider a 6' high block wall as a simple solution to the maintenance and appearance of the property. He stated that if the Planning Commission was to consider eliminating the wall requirement around the area requested by the applicant, staff would recommend that they be concerned regarding the landscaping and maintenance of that sloped area as well as the flat area. He stated that staff would prefer the wall. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he prefers landscaping to the wall and would like to incorporate that into condition #3. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he would prefer the landscaping. Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve SA-90-14 subject to the 30 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-79 MOTION PCM-90-80 SA-90-14 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-80 MOTION PCM-90-81 SA-90-14 conditions as listed. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Buchanan asked if he understood the motion to reflect their intent that the rear, triangular portion not be walled. Commissioner Munson stated that this is how he understood the body to feel. Commissioner Buchanan stated that at the end of the first sentence where it says "perimeter of the site" they should insert the word 'building" so it says the "perimeter of the building site". He asked if this would be enough clarification for condition #2. The Community Development Director stated that they can rewrite the motion to include this. He clarified that the motion is stating that the project be approved as recommended by staff, which would include a wall around the entire perimeter of the property. Motion fails. 1-5-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder voted yes. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to modify condition #2, that the proposed project shall contain a 6' high slumpstone block wall around the perimeter of the pump -house site as illustrated on the applicant's submittal. Commission Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to amend condition #3 to specify 31 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-81 MOTION PCM-90-82 SA-90-14 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-82 MOTION PCM-90-83 SA-90-14 that the submittal of the detailed landscaping and irrigation plan to the Planning Department for approval, and such plan shall include adequate slope coverage and landscaping treatment for the westerly, triangular, unfenced portion of the site, subject to Planning Department approval. Commissioner Munson second. The Community Development Director asked what the intention was for the level portion of the triangular property. Commissioner Buchanan stated that his intention was for low water requirement ground cover or shrubbery -type ground cover. Chairman Hawkinson expressed concern of the maintenance aspect. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Chairman Hawkinson voted no. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to amend condition #7 to read that all aspects of the proposed project, including building maintenance and specifically including maintenance of the landscape on the westerly portion of the property, be maintained in a clean and functional manner as the condition continues to read. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey voted no. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion that the Site and Architectural Review Board approve SA-90-14, subject to the conditions of approval as 32 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-83 presented by staff and amended by this body this evening. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. ITEM #3 SA-90-10 KEVIN DAVIS 12005 PRESTON G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SATELLITE DISH IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT MOTION PCM-90-84 SA-90-10 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-84 MOTION PCM-90-85 SA-90-10 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-90-10 with conditions as stipulated by the Planning Department. Commissioner Hilkey second. Chairman Hawkinson objected due to the fact that the applicant was not present. Commissioner Van Gelder agreed. The Community Development Director stated that since they are making a recommendation which is not what they have up, and since it is already existing, they might want to continue the item. Motion fails. 2-4-1-0. Commissioners Hargrave and Munson voted yes. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to continue SA-90-10 to the next 33 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-85 regularly scheduled Site and Architectural Review Board Meeting. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. Chairman Hawkinson asked if, due to the July 4th holiday, it would be possible to move the July 3 meeting to July 10. The Community Development Director didn't see a problem with this and stated that he should just direct staff to make the appropriate notifications and adjourn this meeting to that date. Chairman Hawkinson recommended he do so. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 12:20 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD JULY 10, 1990 Respectfully submitted, L David R. S&yer Community Development Director 07-18-90 Approved by, S 4r nson Ch 'r an, Planning Commission 34