Loading...
06/15/1987GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 1987 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 15, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman, Norman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: David Sawyer, Planning Director Loretta Thompson, City Clerk NONE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: led by Commissioner Cole. I. MINUTES PUBLIC HEARINGS Tentative Tract Mr. Sawyer indicated the application before the Planning Map 87-2 Commission is to subdivide a single 1.35 acre R-1 parcel into Glenn S. Sharman two R-1 parcels. Mr. Sawyer presented the staff report on this application. The Grand Terrace Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying TPM-87-2. Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Sawyer if a preliminary grading plan had been submitted? Mr. Sawyer stated there were no preliminary grading plans submitted. One of the conditions the City Engineer, Mr. Kicak, has placed on the tentative map is that the grading plan be presented and approved by him prior to the final map approval. Chairman Caouette stated that it appears the proposed building pad comes to the edge of the bank. Having walked the property, he knows there is a sustantial drop there. He asked if substantial grading would be necessary in order to build the pad. Mr. Sawyer stated one of Mr. Kicak's concerns is that grading would be necessary in order to stabilize the slopes that would be effected. The amount of grading required may not be substantial. The applicant has indicated he would prefer to have the house raised rather than dug into the side itself and c thereby creating a level pad. Mr. Kicak concerns relate to what the leveling of that lot will do to the adjacent slopes. The public hearing was opened. Glenn S. Sharman Mr. Sharman provided background on himself and the proposal before the Planning Commission. Mr. Sharman stated the proposed house will be moved back about 7 or 8 feet from the edge of the canyon. He noted there is another access to the property. It is a graded road that belongs to the vacant property. The property owners have i ndiFcated they would mai nt-a4 n that -,,road. They would get access -to their house on Glendora by way of Mr.-Sharman's easement and Mr. Sharman would have access across their properly inn emergency. Chairman Caouette asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of or against the proposal? Steven Barrett Mr. Barrett stated he was Mr. Sharman's builder. Regarding the Builder pad itself, Mr. Barrett advised the house can be set back from the bank further than originally anticipated because the adjacent property line has been straighten out. The decision has been made to cut into the lot. The new position of the house would allow the easier development of pools and patios. Mr. Barrett also mentioned the storm drain indicating the water will not drain onto neighboring property. Chairman Caouette asked if two dwelling units could be effectively serviced by a single 4 inch sewer line. Mr. Barrett indicated a four inch sewer line is more than adequate for two dwellings. Commissioner Munson asked if the concrete pipe is the storm drain and does it front on the lot. Mr. Barrett stated the easement runs right through there. Commissioner Munson questioned how big the lot is that looks like it has a big hole in it? Glenn S. Sharman Mr. Sharman stated that the large concrete pipe is an irrigation canal that is used three or four times a year for taking irrigation water to some of the orchards down below. He indicated the storm drain Steve is tal-king about woul-d be t-he drain for run-off water. Mr. Sharman stated his property goes about twenty feet west of that irrigation canal. He indicated that to the right there is a piece of property where there is a hole. That, of course is not related to anything we are talking about tonight. Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/87 Page 2 Commissioner Munson questioned if that parcel was big enough to acutally build on and asked if Mr. Sharman had made an offer to purchase that property in order to enlarge the driveway. Mr. Sharman stated his driveway is already about 24 feet wide although it is not all paved. Commissioner Munson asked how big the lot was. Mr. Sharman stated the lot is about 4/10 of an acre if Commissioner Munson was talking about the one with the hole. Commissioner Munson asked if the house being proposed is going to block the view of the present house? Mr. Sharman stated both houses will have a view. Commissioner Hargrave asked Mr. Sharman if he was going to seal his present house if and when the new house is completed. Mr. Sherman advised that was his plan. Commissioner Hargrave asked how Mr. Sharman would suggest the Commission address the potential problem of the new resident and Mr. Sharman not getting along. Mr. Sharman stated the only response he can make to that is that any time you have neighbors living side by side there is the potential for misunderstanding. He also believes there is always a way of resolving these misunderstanding. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wish to speak in favor or against the proposed project? Being none, Chairman Caouette closed the public hearing and returned the item to the Commission for discussion. Fran Van Gelder Commissioner Van Gelder stated she did not doubt that Mr. Sharman would be able to negoiate any problems with any neighbor he might have. However, Mr. Sharman is not going to be with us forever and she was concerned about who is going to be living in these particular residences ten or twenty years from now. The Commission will be placing these potential problems on the shoulder of the City if the proposal before the Commission now is approved. Stanley Hargrave Commissioner Hargrave stated he feels he needs to go back to the property and inspect it because there was some information brought in tonight -that he was not aware of previously. This A nspection may influence his decision on the proposal. Chairman Caouette st-a-ted one of the problems as-soci ated .with property where there is no street frontage or there is a long driveway which serves as ac-cess to more than one unit is the potential confusion with regards to the actual location of the property, particularly in the case of an emergency. Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/87 Page 3 Commissioner Hargrave moved that this matter be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. The motioned died for lack of a second. PCM-87-18 Motion by Commissioner Van Gelder, second by Vice Chairman Hawkinson that a resolution of the Planning Department of the City of Grand Terrace, CA, denying TPM-87-2, an applicatiuon to subdivide a single 1.35 acre R-1 parcel into two R-1 parcels, per section 18.15.050 (C) ,of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code be approved. Commi-ssioner Munson asked ff the driveway was the .reason that Commissioner -Van Gelder was against the project. Commissioner Van Gel -der stated that -the driveway is a problem that may arise in future years. This potential problem is her main concern. Chairman Caouette echoed Commissioner Van Gelder's concerns and added he thinks there is a potential health and safety problem. Motion PCM-87-18 carried with Commissioner Munson and Commissioner Hargrave voting NOE. Mr. Sawyer advised Mr. Sharman there is a ten day appeal period if he wished to appeal the Planning Commissions decision. Chairman Caouette asked if there was any other business to be brought before the Commission this evening. Mr. Sawyer advised he had no further business at this time. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any business from the Commissioners. Commissioner Munson asked if there had been any dates set for the appointment of an additional Commissioner? Mr. Sawyer stated there has not. Two applications have been received for this position. One of the applicants has applied for the aide position in the Planning Department. If this applicant is selected to fill this position, there may be only one applicant for the position on the Planning Commission. There has been talk that this may be an appropriated time to reduce the number of the Planning Commission members to five rather than seven since there seem to be a lack of interest in filling that position in the community. That is something we could think about and discuss, perhaps, at the next workshop. For a community of this size, a membership of five Commissioners could be an adequate number. Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/87 Page 4 a Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: i n DAVID R. SAWYER, PLANNI G -DIRECTOR Planning Commission Minutes - 6/15/87 Page 5 Approved by: CHAIRMAN, Panning Commission