Loading...
08/18/198612-8.1061 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 1986 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324 on August 18, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson: PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Daniel McHugh, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Hargrave I. MINUTES A. Minutes of August 4, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. PCM 86-77 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Commissioner Hargrave and passed by a 6-0 vote, to approve the minutes as submitted. II. INFORMATION ITEM Vice -Chairman Hawkinson moved to the next item which was a general discussion regarding Site & Architectural Review for minor additions. Asked for Staff report. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that it was not just an information item. He stated that recently a structure was proposed to be considered in an existing residential area and as a result of that proposed construction, the Staff requested that it go through the Design Review Board for architectural standards review. There were two problems. One, the costs associated, based on the present Ordinance, with*Si.te & Architectural Review would be $702.00 in order to submit the plans for review and to go through the process. And second, was the time involved. The owner felt that the structure, a minor structure, should not be involved in the Site•& Architectural Review. Mr. Kicak felt that since this body acts as the Site & Architectural Review Board for the City, there might be some input as to what the Planning Commission feelings would be as to what they want to review and what they do not want to review. The structure in question will be a separate structure approximately 400 sq. ft.. Mr. Kicak stated that his question was whether the Planning Commission would like to review this particular project with respect to the Site & Architectural review. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he was at the City Council meeting when this project was brought forth. And, based on that discussion and the facts and circumstances that were presented by the Gentlemen that owns that property, he felt a need to get amendments to bring the cost down for these types of structures. Stated that the gentlemen is going to pay the same amount of costs that it would take to construct a large building. Felt adjustments should be made for that. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that when a Site & Architectural review is submitted, a work order is opened and any staff time that is spent on that project will be charged to that work order. After reviewing the Site & Architectural reviews from the past, the City has had projects that have gone through Site & Architectural Review for as little as $60.00 and some that have exceeded $1200- $1400. This difference is because a person who submits plans with everything required has less time expended on it, than a project that is not complete. The delays result in costs to that particular project and work order. The average cost for Site & Architectural Review has been a little over $500. There needs to be some differentiation between a small project vs. a large project and what goes to the Planning Commission. Commissioner McHugh stated his concern that a 400 square foot building would be exempt from Planning Commission review. Felt that Site & Architectural Review goes beyond square footage or one type of standard that can apply to one given building. Commissioner Hargrave agreed with Commissioner McHugh. He did not think the Planning Commission should give a blanket approval on anything with regard to Architectural Design. P.C. Minutes 8-18-86 Page 2 Felt the facts and circumstances of each project should have consideration as to the costs. Commissioner Cole asked Mr. Kicak if there was a point that constitutes what Staff determines as a minor or a major construction. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that his department has to go by what the code says and the Code states: that the purpose and authorization for this Site & Architectural Review Committee is to insure that the location of the structure will be visually harmonious with the sites and surrounding sites and structures. And, that they do not block scenic views from other buildings and tend to downgrade the natural landscape. Also, to create an internal sense of order and to provide a desirable environment for occupants and the general community. In Mr. Kicak's opinion, the subject project from it's location woudl not have any impact on any of these items. He felt that the problem was that if Staff decides which project goes and which project does not, then it would become subjective. Mr. Kicak, stated he was looking for direction from the Planning Commission as to sorting out these requirements. Discussion took place between Commissioner Van Gelder and Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, regarding the difference that occurs between a review of a major or a minor project. Mr. Kicak responded that the Planning Department tries to 01 determine what impact the project will have. Also, taken into consideration is the cooperation of the applicant presenting the project for review. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked Staff if the Site & Architectural fees are over and above the building permit fees. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded, with respect to the project in question, that the building permit fees were minor. The building permit fees will only be $70, as opposed to the Site & Architectural Review fee of $702.00. Commissioner Munson questioned staff as to how many people had objected to the fees and not built because they could not avoid the fees. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that his Department has not had any until this project. Commissioner Munson stated that this current project, the hobby shop, is the first. He felt that the existing requirements have worked fine and could not see that there would be any further direction that the Planning Director needs that has not been given already. P.C. Minutes 8-18-86 Page 3 Commissioner Hargrave felt that part of the Planning Commission's duty to the City is to allow some flexibility in the rules and regulations where possible. He felt that this is an instance where a man is trying to do a project and the costs compared to what it costs him to build this structure are prohibitive. Asked Staff what would be an acceptable billing rate, and if it is billed on an hourly basis, what the relavance would be to the $702.00 fee. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that on this particular project, the Planning Department has not received anything in the way of architectural renderings. But, the time spent might be between 2 to 3 hours, including the time spent for the Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hargrave felt that he would like to have something that states: that if it is within certain limita- tions, review of the costs and if it is relative to the project, that the Planning Department have some leeway to be the judge of that project. And, if not, then the Planning Department can determine that this is something that the Planning Commission should look at whether it is 200 square feet or not. Commissioner Hargrave did not feel that it makes sense, as far the citizens of the City are concerned, to set down a blanket rule that states what they have to do just because nobody complains about its since, so far the system has worked fine, but felt there should be more flexibility put into it. Commissioner Cole stated that he felt the meeting that the Planning Commission set earlier in the Public Workshop session, as far as the Architectural Standards might mitigate some of these concerns. Did not feel the Planning Commission should give a blanket for all projects under a particular square footage size. Commissioner Hargrave felt that at this time the Planning Commission should share the burden, so that the Planning Department does not have to rule yes or no and the applicant won't try and convince the Planning Department one way or the other. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that in the Title 18 Zoning Code on page 58, Items A - M are required for a submittal for review, which is one of the problems. Stated that he would be happy to take the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak to this project. P.C. Minutes 8-18-86 Page 4 Earl Woodring, 11805 Arliss Lane, is the owner of the project the Planning Commission is addressing. Clarified two items on the plans. Number one, the siding called out on Sheet 5 of 5 will be T1-11, 4 x 8 sheets by 5/8" thick, 4" on -center applied in vertical position. The building will be prime coated white. Stated that he brought this to everyone's attention for the simple reason of the fees, the Site & Architectural Review of $702.00 and Environmental Fee of $165.00. Mr. Woodring stated that this would be a garage type structure. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson thanked Mr. Woodring for addressing the Commission. Asked if any of the Commissioner's had any comments. Asked if there was anyone else in the audience who would like to speak to this particular project. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson felt that Mr. Woodring had come through the proper channels and has raised an issue that might have gone on for some time without ever surfacing. Commissioner Van Gelder had a question regarding Environmental Review. She stated that since this will be a workshop, would there be saws going at 12:00 am or something similar. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that there is an existing Noise Ordinance that would cover that issue. Commissioner Hargrave asked Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, what he felt would be a reasonable fee for the time spent reviewing this project. Did not want to set a precedent, but felt this gentlemen had been put off and wanted to see this matter cleared up. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded with respect to the cost, for staff review if they had the authority to review this project, based on the information available, he would say less than $50.00 for total review. If it would go before the Planning Commission and the applicant had to supply all the information required by the Code, probably less than $100.00. This was Mr. Kicak's personal opinion. The fee structure will be something that the City Council has the ultimate responsibility for. The Planning Commission needed to make a decision as to what the Planning Commission would like to see in a structure in Site & Architectural form. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission needed to make a decision on this particular project. He recommended that this project be reviewed at the staff level, pending plan approval, that the owner be issued a building permit. With respect to other projects that are not now pending, he felt there was time to set some guidelines either through the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee, as well as the Planning Commission Meeting set for September 8, 1986. P.C. Minutes 8-18-86 Page 5 questions. f Commissioner Hargrave asked the applicant about the fencing for that parcel. Stated that if the existing is not repairable, that they would put up a new fence. Asked the applicant what type of materials would be used. Ken Stennett stated that yes, they would put in a fence to replace the old one and use cedar as the material. He agreed to fence the sides and the back (north, south and the east side). Stated that the home is sold and owner is ready to move in. PCM 86-78 Motion by Commissioner Hargrave and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 6-0 vote to add Condition #4 to the conditions of approval, to read: Fencing will enclose the sides and back of the project. PCM 86-79 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder and passed by a 6-0 vote, to add Condition #5 stating that the project will meet the requirements of Ordinance 104, for minimum square footage of 1350 for single family residences. PCM 86-80 Motion by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Hargrave and passed by a 6-0 vote to approve Site & Architectural Review 86-9, subject to the conditions of approval as amended. IIIB. Add on item - Time Extension for Site & Architectural Review 85-4, applicant is Roy Roberts. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked for staff report. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that this request came to the Planning Department late that day. The applicant was requesting that the Planning Commission consider a time extension for the Site & Architectural Review SA 85-4 project. The project is located on the westerly side of Preston between Palm Avenue and Barton Road. The previous Site & Architectural Review was approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had a chance to review the previously approved plans during the Public Workshop Session. Mr. Kicak stated that there was no formal staff report. Therefore, he would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request for Time Extension of Site & Architectural Review 85-4 for a period of one (1) year. P.C. Minutes 8-18-86 Page 7 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson agreed that this was something the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee should review and the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 8, 1986. Asked Staff, with respect to this particular project, would they need a strawvote. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded yes, a strawvote for staff to review this project, from an Architectural standpoint, would be needed. The Planning Commission concurred that Staff could review this project and issue the Building Permit. However, that no decision would be made relative to other projects until review of the Site & Architectural Review process by the Titel 18 Ad Hoc Committee and the Planning Commission has taken place. III. NEW BUSINESS IIIA. Site & Architectural Review 86-9, Single Family Residence located at 12455 Willett. Applicant is Sandsprings Development. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked for staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the staff report. Stated that in the initial review the plans did not meet the specifications of Ordinance 104. However, in subsequent conversation with the applicant, the applicant assured that his plans would meet the requirements of the 1350 square foot minimum for single family residences. Mr. Kicak pointed out that there is also a setback on the driveway side of the property indicated as 8'. The minimum for setback on the driveway side is 10'. However, there is adequate room on that particular parcel to move the parcel towards the other property line to meet the requirement of 10' minimum setback. Commissioner Hargrave asked staff if the applicant noted any type of fencing for the sides and the back of the property on the plans. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that there was no indication of fencing on the plans. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if there were any questions of Staff. Being none, asked if the applicant was present. Ken Stennett, Sandsprings Development, 31606 Railroad Canyon Road. Mr. Stennett stated he would be happy to answer any P.C. Minutes 8-18-86 Page 6 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked Staff if the project was currently expired. Mr. Kicak, Planning Director, responded yes, it had expired. Also, stated that the request for Time Extension on the Tract Map was granted by the City Council in October, 1985. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that this was not a public hearing item, but asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak to this project. Roy Roberts, 5871 Argyle Way, Riverside, CA, owner of the property. Mr. Roberts stated two reasons for asking for an extension. One, he was under the impression that this ran concurrent with the expiration of the Tentative Tract Map. And, when they had applied to clean up the last details for presentation to the City Council for their final recordation of their map, they found that the Site & Architectural review had expired. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Being none, brought the matter back to the Commission for discussion. PCM 86-81 Motion by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Hargrave and passed by a 6-0 vote to grant a time C extension for Site & Architectural Review 85-4, for a period of one year, expiring August 18, 1987. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson adjourned the Planning Commission to a special meeting set for September 8, 1986. /lh Respectfully submitted: Director Approved: CHATAMAN, Plafining Commission P.C. Minutes 8-18-86 Page 8