Loading...
10/16/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16, 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 October 169 1990 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner John Harper, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman 'z PLEDGE: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. 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 - OCTOBER 2, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-152 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 2, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-152 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve the October 2, 1990 minutes. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Vice -Chairman Buchanan absent. ITEM #2 SP-90-03; TTM-90-03; E-90-08 COAST CONSTRUCTION/HONEY HILLS DEVELOPMENT 23400 WESTWOOD STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A PRIVATE, GATED, CUSTOM LOT SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 37 BUILDING SITES, PRIVATE STREETS AND COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE IN THE RH DISTRICT; AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 5 PARCELS TOTALLING 79.5+ ACRES INTO 37 LOTS IN THE RH DISTRICT; AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF SP-90-03 The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Van Gelder asked who the lot called "Not a Part" belonged to. The Community Development Director indicated this on the map, stating that it falls in the City of Colton. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that there may be vacant lots for a long time and asked if the developers would do anything to preclude erosion from wind or water. The Community Development Director stated that all grading cuts should be treated accordingly per the City Engineer's requirements. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that it was mentioned that there would be Pa erosion mitigation during the grading. The Community Development Director stated that they received comments from the Riverside Corona Resource Conservation District that and erosion control plan be established. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about sidewalks. The Community Development Director stated that since these are not going to be public streets, they can not require sidewalks, and they are not being proposed. Commissioner Hargrave asked about Item 1B of the Environmental Evaluation, regarding mitigation measures as relates to earth and rock movement, and if the earthing would be left on the project and recompacted or transported from the project. The Community Development Director stated that the City Engineer asked for more information regarding preliminary grading, and perhaps he could better answer this. Commissioner Hargrave asked about Item 1G which relates to the location of the San Jacinto fault. The Community Development Director stated that it is one of the major faults that runs through the area, however, it is not on the magnitude of the San Andreas fault. Commissioner Hargrave asked about Item 5C regarding undisturbed natural terrain and the access road which is no longer passable except by off -road vehicles. The Community Development Director stated that staff recommends no vehicle passage allowed at all. Chairman Hawkinson called the City Engineer up. The City Engineer stated that the pump station is adjacent to Lot 16 in a cul- de-sac, and indicated it on the map. Commissioner Sims asked if it was sewer and if it was above or below ground. The City Engineer stated that it was sewer, and he felt it would possibly be a wet well type with dual pumps, and standby power would be required, and 3 the gravity system is relatively close from the proposed facility to their gravity C1 system. Commissioner Hargrave asked if it would be housed or open. The City Engineer stated that there are two types of pump stations: a manhole with two pumps and gravity system or a system with two manholes, one called a wet well where the sewage comes in and a dry well, where the pumps are located. He did not know which type was proposed. He said that the only backflow they would have would be on a discharge system. Commissioner Hargrave asked about sidewalks. The City Engineer stated that this is a private development with 37 lots that are not close together, and he does not anticipate a lot of pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Hargrave asked about street lighting. The City Engineer stated that within the City streets, they are utilizing Southern California Edison standards, but being a private community, he would like to leave it up to the Director or the Commission to decide what standards of lighting they prefer. He stated that his only concern is that any illumination provided is adequate to provide lighting to the City standards with respect to the illumination of the streets being travelled upon. Commissioner Hargrave asked what he expected to see in a preliminary grading plan. The City Engineer stated that what has been submitted is probably a pretty good indication of what will happen in that area. He said that one lot already has a residence on it and one is an open -space lot, and of the remaining 36, all but 5 show pad elevations. He stated that as far as the treatment of the banks resulting from the grading, they can always go back to the U.B.C. and make sure everything has been satisfied. He said that custom grading for a custom home should be considered at the individual Site and Architectural Review. He said that the preliminary grading plan proposes as much as a 47' cut, but they have not set the maximum cut, and he is reluctant to do so as he doesn't foresee anything larger than 47'. Commissioner Hargrave asked if a tolerance level has been set for the grade. The City Engineer stated that they have not set that, but if the Planning Commission so desires, they can do so. 4 Commissioner Hargrave asked if the dirt to be removed would stay on site and be recompacted. The City Engineer stated yes, that there would be no export or import. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there would be a limit to the hours for blasting, and if code requires notification to residents within a certain radius of the blasting site. The City Engineer stated that the noise ordinance would govern this, but the Planning Commission can set the hours. He said that his experience with blasting is that there probably is not as much noise as shock from the vibration. He said that they do not control blasting, as it is controlled by other agencies, such as the sheriff's and fire department, as they issue permits with conditions. Commissioner Hargrave asked about standard curbing versus rolled curbing. The City Engineer stated that he has had a discussion with the developer with respect to the capacity of the streets to carry the drainage within a paved area, as this is his major concern. He said that this would be the item to control the size of the curb. He said that with respect to parking, rolled curbing encourages people to pull off the roadway with wheels on the lawn, and he prefers standard curbing. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the traffic study. The City Engineer stated that it has been done, and one of the assumptions was that there would be access from the easterly end of Westwood onto Reche Canyon, and the study indicated that the average daily on Westwood going westerly would be about 300 cars, but without that access, he estimated that the study would probably say 400 - 425 on Westwood for average daily traffic, and if projected into a peak load, they are talking about 60 cars per hour, 1 per minute at the maximum. He agreed that there should not be access to Reche Canyon. Commissioner Hargrave asked about any negatives regarding the private community being responsible for maintenance. The City Engineer stated that the major potential objection is should the people in a community get tired of paying for maintenance costs, they will come to the City to take over, which brings in the issue of having the community built to the City's standards. 5 Commissioner Hargrave asked if anything in staff s recommendations would be less than the City's standards. The City Engineer stated that the street widths are less than standard, there are no sidewalks, the lighting is less than standard, but the sewer, water system, and structural section he has recommended to Planning Commission to consider would probably be adequate except for the geometry of the facilities. Commissioner Sims was concerned about the complication of sewer lift stations and maintenance of storm drain system, and homeowner's associations don't really have the personnel or inclination to take care of this type of thing. The City Engineer stated that once the association exists, they will assess the individual homeowners for maintenance costs and whatever the CC&R's provide for. He stated that with respect to the sewage pump station, these or fairly easily maintained, with an electrical panel actuated by the various liquid levels in the sump, and they would have to contract with someone to make sure it is operating within the preset levels so that there is no overflow, but he didn't know what the cost would be. The City Attorney stated that this could be addressed in the CC&R's. Commissioner Sims asked how the City felt about cross -lot drainage. The City Engineer stated that they would like to avoid it, but they have inherited a lot. Commissioner Sims stated that he sees some pipe systems going from lot to lot parallel the roadways. The City Engineer suggested addressing these as private easements for drainage. He stated that if nothing happened, the City would have to step in as a matter of health and safety, and look to the property owners to pay the bill. Commissioner Hilkey asked what the current timing is for the fire gate and the front gate in the project. The Community Development Director stated that this would be a condition of the final map, and they would either have it bonded or in place, and if they want it in place prior to any sales or recordation of the map, they can condition it. 0 Commissioner Hilkey asked about plans for flood control on Lot 38. The City Engineer stated that control for run-off can be seen through various lots, and certain facilities are being provided in the flow lines of Lot 38. He stated that Lots 31 and 32 have proposed some protection from flooding from Lot 38. He stated that drainage will have to be addressed during review of the detailed grading plan. Commissioner Hilkey was concerned about restricted views of current owners on the north side of Westwood, and asked if they had seen the CC&R's. The Community Development Director believed they were in a draft stage, and the applicant had not submitted them to date. He said that they can require their submittal prior to making a decision, otherwise it is required that they be approved by the Planning Department and the City Attorney. Commissioner Hilkey asked about the height and elevation of buildings. The Community Development Director stated that this could be in the CC&R's, but they will be having individual Site and Architectural Reviews. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he would rather have something in place now. Chairman Hawkinson asked about the height of the trees and their adverse effect on existing properties. The City Attorney stated that this can be addressed in the CC&R's, and if an individual homeowner feels grieved, this person has the option to litigate. He stated that with regard to existing residences, the law in California states that there is no right to a view, but it doesn't mean it can't be built into the CC&R's. Commissioner Hargrave asked who owned the triangular property on the tentative tract map between Lots 5 and 6. The Community Development Director stated that it is part of Lot 5. Commissioner Hargrave discussed the importance of CC&R's. The City Attorney stated that he agreed, although it is softened somewhat by the specific plan. Chairman Hawkinson asked the representative from the Fire Warden's office 7 to come up. LY' PAUL MILLER COUNTY FIRE WARDEN'S OFFICE 385 NORTH ARROWHEAD SAN BERNARDINO Commissioner Hargrave asked about Condition F9 from the report dated 10-5-90 which relates to the fire access road with a width of 20, which was crossed out and replaced it with 32'. Mr. Miller stated that the 20' standard is under the Uniform Fire Code used for private roadways, driveways or gated access communities as a minimum. He stated that they changed it as that was what the applicant had proposed. He stated that they have upgraded their minimum requirements in areas subject to wildland fires to a 26' wide access road for evacuation reasons. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the requirement for fire mitigation measures. Mr. Miller stated the measures they discussed with the applicant were that the all the buildings be sprinklered, based on the cul-de-sacs that were extended and the use of a secondary emergency, gated access. He stated that they required additional access points, 12 foot wide, into the wildland areas, to protect the homes from any wildfire coming in from the adjacent open areas. He said that they also requested that the applicant upgrade the construction standards of the homes to one hour exterior siding, dual paned windows and class A type roofs. He said that the County has adopted standards in hazardous fire areas throughout the County. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there would be additional fire hydrants required since it is in a fire -rated area. Mr. Miller stated that they would still be spaced at 600' with a standard 1,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours, but the developer did agree to sprinkler all of the buildings. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the cul-de-sacs were adequate. Mr. Miller stated that he would have to look at the engineering drawings, but they would require a minimum 40' turnaround. The Community Development Director stated that the radius on the cul-de- sacs would meet the standard. 8 Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was concern about cars parking in the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Miller stated that he would prefer not to have parking in the cul-de-sacs, but it wasn't made a condition. Commissioner Hilkey asked what the smallest width they can make the connecting road between the two Westwoods. Mr. Miller stated that the minimum is 26'. The Community Development Director stated that the original was drawn at 20'. Commissioner Hilkey asked about the locking gate, stating that there seem to be 3 locations for it: Lot 23, the City boundary and in Colton in the lot called "Not a Part". Mr. Miller stated that the fire department doesn't have a preference, but they would rather not have gated communities altogether. He stated that they require that all homeowners have a key to the gate. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they prefer a crash gate. Mr. Miller stated that it would be a secured gate, but they would require a lock system, electric gate with a switch or touch key -pad. He said that if it is an electrical gate, they will require that the fire department can manually open it. Commissioner Hilkey asked who is responsible if the gate is damaged. Mr. Miller stated that the homeowner is responsible, which is a requirement under the Uniform Fire Code. Commissioner Hilkey asked what type of access they wanted onto Lots 25, 26, 7 and 32. Mr. Miller stated that no gate is required, and they would like to see it kept natural. He stated that if they do have a wildland fire, they will bring Type 3 fire engines, which are off -road type engines. The Community Development Director indicated the fire access that will serve as a driveway for Lot 23. 0 Mr. Miller stated that in most instances, it is best to put it close to the cul-de- sac. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the easterly and northerly boundaries were the same as the City boundaries. The Community Development Director stated that the easterly boundary is the City boundary, but the northerly boundary is not completely the City boundary. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. CLIFFORD HOOD VICE-PRESIDENT, COAST CONSTRUCTION 480 WEST CAPRICORN BREA Mr. Hood stated that they have owned the land since 1979, and brought it into the City with an approved tentative map of 103 lots, and due to market conditions, let everything expire. He said that 2 years ago they decided it was time to plan, and they participated in the public hearings for the hillside zoning and overlay ordinances and asked for flexibility. He said that in the middle of 1989 they submitted and informal study for 79 lots. He said they did a market analysis and found there is a market for this. He said they have attempted to confine the development to closing the gap between the developed areas to the east in Colton and the existing projects to the west in Grand Terrace and attempted to stay off of the high ground of Blue Mountain. He stated that the project in its entirety constitutes about 50% of the real estate, and almost 75% of the land is being left undeveloped when you consider the undeveloped open spaces within the lot boundaries, and they have created 37 unique lots. He said that 84% of the property is left outside of the pad and street areas. He discussed other similar projects they have completed. He stated that Lots 3, 4, 6, and 7 do not have pads because they have specific features they did not want to grade. He said they have a few concerns which he discussed. He said that the lot called "Not a Part" has no frontage, and they felt obligated to provide access. He stated that the turn around will have to be worked out with Colton, and it would be impossible to put an 80' radius at that particular location. He said that they did not intend to dedicate the open space as this would have a deterrent effect on what they are trying to create. He said that the slopes, except for the side yard areas, are to be maintained by a landscape company hired by the homeowner's association. He said that the CC&R's are very strict, and if dues aren't paid they can actually file a foreclosure action on a house. He stated that they have no sidewalks is because there is nowhere to walk. He said they 10 prefer the rolled curbs as opposed to curb and gutter, assuming that hydraulically they can handle the water. He felt they would add a rural flavor to the development, and they have reserved all of the landscaping along the parkway to be planted by them and maintained by the association, so nobody would be parking there without being faced by an action by the association. He said that if a fault a mile away bothered us, nobody would be building in Southern California. He stated the main concern is what the house is constructed on. He said that the pump station has not been designed, but he suspects that there will be 2 or 3 submersible pumps, and there would be nothing above grade but the control panel. He said that it will discharge into a gravity line on the property and will flow by gravity several hundreds of feet to the area where it is introduced into the existing system, so no pump sewage will enter directly into the City system. He stated that there are only two spots on the tract where the cuts approach 48' to 50' in height, and that most of the cuts are 15' to 20' in depth. He stated that as they lower the ridge 15' to 20', they are lowering it out of the neighbor's view, so it is much easier to maintain their view. He said they have no objection to coming up with wording that restricts the height of plant material. He compared the vibration of the blasting to slamming a sliding glass door or jumping on a wood floor, and said they would have all homes within a 300' radius surveyed by their consultant to look for any existing damage, so that if they feel there has been damage as a result of their activity, they will have a comparison. He stated that they can put more restraints on the parking since it is a private 0 community. He said that the street improvements are a different rather than lesser standard, and the streets will be wider than those outside the gate, and they will have curb and gutter on both sides of the street. He said that no one will buy a lot until the grading and streets are complete and the fire system intact. He stated that they would be much tougher with Site and Architectural Review than the City will be. He said that the sample CC&R's are subject to revision by the commission. He stated that the only cross -lot drainage will occur in the natural areas of the lots, and that any storm drains will be within easements. He said that they will record the map before they grade. He said that the height limit will be 35' which allows a 2 story house with various pitched roofs. He said that they have a listing of the pad areas and lot areas but they did not submit as they did not want to be locked in until they are actually calculated. He said that fire sprinklers are not objectionable anymore in homes, as they are a very decorative item flush with the ceiling, and they are specified in the CC&R's. He said that there is a private access shown at Lot 7 that goes to the north which is there to provide access for a gentleman who owns the property and has an easement over their property. He said that there is another access point at the reservoir site for emergency services. Chairman Hawkinson asked the price of the lots. Mr. Hood stated they would be in the $200,000 range. He called up their landscape architect. BOB CLARK CLARK AND GREEN ASSOCIATES 3070 BRISTOL STREET COSTA MESA Mr. Clark stated that the entry to the project crosses an area with Cottonwood trees, which they will use throughout the length of the entry. He said that they are attempting a rural and rustic feeling. He said that they will have stone planting walls, automatic entry gates, and an extensive use of upgraded pavement material in the form of a stamped concrete which will duplicate the stone being used on the actual wall surfaces. He said that they are providing a streetscape/landscape with a clustering of trees at property line locations which allows flexibility in accessing the different lots and offers a rural feeling. He stated that the perimeter slopes will be revegetated to blend back in with the existing landscape. He said that they will be preserving several natural features. Commissioner Hargrave asked about their concept of the watering of the slopes, especially prior to development of any homes, as well as how they would handle the irrigation within the homeowner's association. Mr. Clark stated that they are required to permanently irrigate and plant the slopes before anyone builds anything on them, and they will be maintained as master association slopes. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they would be using drip irrigation or standard sprinkler heads. Mr. Clark stated that along the streetscape parkway, they will be using a standard spray to avoid the complications of maintenance. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the slope area irrigation would be standard. Mr. Clark stated that this will be a full coverage spray configuration, as most slopes will be hydroseeded with the native materials, and as things become established, the irrigation can be minimized or even turned off. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they would be drought tolerant coverings, to which Mr. Clark responded in the positive. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he had any input into the landscaping and 12 irrigation for the CC&R's with regard to drought tolerant plants. Mr. Clark stated that he had not looked at that yet. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the landscaping would be installed before lots are sold. Mr. Hood stated yes, and that they will install landscaping as soon as the slopes are ready, as they want it in a finished stated when opened to the marketplace. He stated that they will maintain it until the first lot is sold, and then the association maintains it, but they pay dues on every lot that has not been sold. Commissioner Hilkey expressed concern over control of Site and Architectural Review. Mr. Hood stated that the project first have to satisfy them, then it will go before the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director stated that any habitable space is required to go before the Site and Architectural Review Board before obtaining building permits. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the City can enforce the CC&R's. The City Attorney stated that they are enforceable by virtue of their existence. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the farm machinery was too wide and heavy for the street to handle. Mr. Hood stated that the equipment has not been off the site in probably 10 years, and is not being used. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the walls and fences would be part of the specific plan or Site and Architectural Review. The Community Development Director stated that can do it either way, but he suggested they do not require any perimeter fencing and that fencing be kept to a minimum, and that it be dealt with on an independent Site and Architectural Review. 9:20 P.M. TO 9:40 P.M. - RECESS 9:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 13 BRIAN C. AKERS 22855 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Mr. Akers stated that he owns the lot called "Not a Part". He said that he has no legal access, as the City of Colton has a block at the end of Westwood and the Grand Terrace City line runs along 2 sides of his property line. He felt that the development would permanently land -lock his parcel if they put a gate in at the end of Westwood, but he said Mr. Hood stated he would give him access. He asked if they would be doing much walling. The applicant indicated they would not. Mr. Akers stated that there was an old Sullivan Mutual Water Co. easement across his lot which he was told was being vacated, and he thought this is what was referred to as the access to the water tower built, but he has been shown that it is not, so this allays another fear he had. He stated that he does need some access. DONALD ATKINSON 23300 WESTWOOD G.T. Mr. Atkinson stated that there is a 11,500 minimum lot size and the rest of Honey Hills is a 20,000 minimum lot size, and felt it should be kept in conformity. He stated that where his house sits, if it is not graded properly, the view will be gone. He stated that if Westwood went through, he would fear Moreno Valley traffic. He expressed concern that trash pickup and mail service would not come into the private roads and that police and sheriffs do not enforce on private property. He was concerned that if they added water lines to the existing system without improvement, they would lose water pressure. He questioned the lot sizes. He asked if there could be a guarantee with regard to cutting and filling that there would be no damage to the existing arroyos and canyons. He was not against the project as long as it does not detract from what exists. BILL ADDINGTON 12055 WESTWOOD G.T. Mr. Addington stated that the view blockage should be in the CC&R's, and the CC&R's should address particular lots and pads. He felt that the lot sizes should be maintained at 20,000 square feet. He also felt there should be discussion of a minimum building size, so that they don't lose the integrity of O 14 the project. MIKE STEWART 23376 WESTWOOD G.T. Mr. Stewart stated that he owns the last house at the end of the asphalt, and many people turn around in his driveway, but he was concerned if the configuration of the gates would allow people to turnaround if they can't get into the gates. 9:52 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Mr. Hood stated that the turnaround is designed to provide what Mr. Stewart asked for, and as people pull in and the gates are closed, there will be a phone system, and if no one is home, they have room to turn around. He said that as far as the lot conditions are concerned, they only have two lots in the vicinity. He stated that the minimum pad size is 10,000 square feet, and they have made an effort to make the lots and building pads comparable to those on the adjacent properties. He said that their average lot size is over 40,000 square feet. Chairman Hawkinson asked which were the two lots. Mr. Hood stated that they are Lots 12 and 22. The Community Development Director stated that the important point is that the lots adjacent to the adjoining neighborhood are larger lots, and they are looking more at the buildable pad than the size of the lot. Commissioner Sims asked about police, security, trash and mail service. Mr. Hood stated that they have not had a problem with the post office coming into private communities, the police respond to complaints, but they do not patrol, and the trash pickup does come into the private communities. Commissioner Sims asked about the aspects of the air space and views with regard to one or two story homes. Mr. Hood stated that they are lowering the ridges, and any place they build a house will be at the same grade or lower, and the highest ridge is the first ridge east of the existing development. Commissioner Sims asked how he felt about putting something in the CC&R's 15 for specific lots to guarantee no view obstruction. Mr. Hood stated that it would depend on the attitude of the person he is working with, as some people that live adjacent have enjoyed the open view of their property, and they are now exercising their right. He stated that with 10,000 square foot minimum pads, there will be a lot more one story homes than in any tract development. He stated that they have a 35' height limitation in the CC&R's right now. Commissioner Hargrave asked Mr. Hood if he understood what Mr. Atkinson meant by the "green area". Mr. Atkinson indicated this on the plans. Commissioner Hilkey stated that Lots 2 through 8 could be affected, depending upon the location of the house. Mr. Hood stated that with regard to Lot 8, the pad is directly in front of the existing residence. He stated that the pads will be created for all intents and purposes as they show on the tentative map. The Community Development Director stated that there are communities where views are life and death to building and planning departments, and in those instances, they require Site and Architectural Review and they can condition or put into the CC&R's. He said each site already has to go through Site and Architectural Review. He stated that they can add as a condition that states that the Site and Architectural Review Board shall take into consideration the location and height of proposed structures so as to prevent the unreasonable blockage of existing views from adjacent property to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Hood had no problem with this. Commissioner Sims stated that view orientation was addressed in the CC&R's. The City Attorney stated that this may not address the view of the people outside the project, but the specific plan does and Site and Architectural Review Board can. Mr. Hood stated that the CC&R's can not change without coming back to the commission. The Community Development Director stated that the specific plan can not change without coming back to the commission either. 16 Commissioner Van Gelder stated that if someone wants to buy one of these lots, he would like to know a lot sooner than Site and Architectural Review whether he may have a one or two story house. The Community Development Director stated that an architect should be able to look at the surrounding environment and tell the homeowner what he is looking for. The City Attorney stated that the first step is to go through there own homeowner's association. Mr. Hood stated that this will be explained prior to escrow. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the illumination of the street lights to the west of the project and what type they were looking at. Mr. Hood stated that the illumination will have to satisfy standards, but they will try to find something that is not a custom design but ornamentally fits in with their theme. He stated that if they prefer, they can put in 4' to 5' high lights that would light the area and enhance the landscaping and driveways. Commissioner Hargrave asked if, on the southeast corner of the property, where the Colton residential area abuts the project, there are any natural or artificial barriers between the city limits of Colton and Grand Terrace. Mr. Hood stated that there are no fences of streets, and there is a drop off. 10:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING RE -OPENED BILL DEBENEDET 11963 HONEY HILL DRIVE G.T. Mr. DeBenedet stated that on the north side of Lot 7, he owns 2 1/2 acres, and he would like to have an easement as he has no other way to come in. The Community Development Director stated that there is a portion of the triangular piece that is in the City of Grand Terrace. 10:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to commission. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to do one last physical 17 observation from the Colton side and go by Mr. Atkinson's driveway and finish reading the CC&R's. MOTION PCM-90-153 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to continue SP-90-03, TTM-90-03 and E-90-08 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that they need an agreement from the applicant to waive the 50 day deadline, and the next regularly scheduled meeting is election night. The Community Development Director stated that at the end of this item before adjourning, they will decide whether or not they will meet that week or cancel to the following meeting, and either way, it would not be beyond November 20. The City Attorney stated that he preferred they do not take action until they decide when the next meeting will be. Chairman Hawkinson tabled the motion momentarily. The Community Development Director stated that they already have 4-5 applications for the 11-6-90 meeting. Chairman Hawkinson recommended postponing the meeting one week. The Community Development Director stated that they would have a meeting one week following this meeting, and they won't have a City Attorney. MOTION PCM-90-154 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-154 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to reschedule the 11-6-90 Planning Commission Meeting to 11-13-90. Commissioner Hilkey second. 18 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Vice -Chairman Buchanan absent. Chairman Hawkinson brought back the original motion to continue this item to 11-13-90. MOTION PCM-90-153 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-153 Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue SP-90-03, TTM-90-03 and E-90-08 to the Planning Commission Meeting to be held 11-13-90. Commissioner Hilkey second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Vice -Chairman Buchanan absent. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant is waiving the 50 day period. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 10:35 P.M. No items scheduled for Site and Architectural Review. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 13, 1990. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, L David R.-Sawyer X /,�eC�q�j�Iawkinson Community Development Director irman, Planning Commission 10-31-90 19