Loading...
03/17/1986 12-8.1051 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 1986 The adjourned 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 March 17, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner John McDowell, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary EXCUSED ABSENCE: Sanford Collins, Commissioner Vern Andress, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Munson I. MINUTES A. Minutes of February 17, 1986. PCM 86-24 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Munson, and passed by a 4-1 vote to approve the minutes of February 17, 1986, as submitted. Chairman Caouette abstained from vote. II. NEW BUSINESS IIa. Site & Architectural Review SA86-02, Single Family Residence, located at 11871 Preston Street. Chairman Caouette moved to Item IIa and asked Staff to make the presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report as submitted in packet. Pointed out that a problem with the sideyard setback requirements has been resolved, by the owners choice, by reducing the square footage of the house. Chairman Caouette asked if Condition #1 regarding compliance of all City Ordinances and Building regulations would require a sidewalk. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, indicated that the applicant would have to request the City Council to allow him to enter into an agreement, to construct improvement within 5 years, provided that all the adjacent properties on that side of the street have those same improvements. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the Planning Commission. Being no one, turned the item back to the Commission for discussion. 86-25 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve Site and Architectural approval 86-2, subject to conditions of approval as stated. IIb. Site & Architectural Review 86-3, Single Family Residence, located at 23048 Victoria Street. Chairman Caouette moved to Item IIb and asked Staff to make the presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report, recommend- ing that the Planning Commission approve SA 86-3 subject to conditions of approval. Discussion took place between the Commission and Staff regarding an easement for access and a possible street maintenance agree- ment between the property owners. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the Commission regarding this item. Gretchen Andrews, 17440 Cires Drive, Fontana, CA. Owner of the property, expressed that it was their intention, as well as, the other neighbors with adjacent property being developed, to maintain the driveway. The driveway would be made of concrete. They plan on a joint venture for street maintenance. Discussion took place regarding the vacation of Victoria Street. Staff advised the Commissioner's that all the parcels, as part of the Parcel Map procedure, have an easement. A total of 4 parcels take access off that particular portion of the Victoria P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 2 Street vacation. It was also noted that this will be a private street/common drive. Also, discussed was accessibility of emergency vehicles to subject areas. It was established that there was enough width to allow for emergency vehicle access. PCM 86-26 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson, seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve Site and Architectural review 86-3, subject to the conditions of approval as submitted in the staff presentation. IIc Site & Architectural 84-15, Office Commercial Building, located on Barton Road between Canal and Vivienda. Chairman Caouette asked staff to present the staff report. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the staff report. It was noted that the proposed plan doesn't meet the minimum standards of the City for parking spaces, which are proposed at 17' in length instead of the required minimum of 19' . Also, Item #12 states that prior to issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan for the site would have to be submitted to the Planning Commission. Staff noted it should read "A lighting and landscaping plan". Staff recommends that the building be reduced to permit construction of required parking spaces, and recommends approval of project subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the Commission on this item. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, Grand Terrace, applicant, regarding the parking spaces. They will pave the first 17' , then have green area, the first 2' underneath the front end of the car after tire bumpers. He indicated that that gives them the full 19' . Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney noted that the Planning Commission would have to advertise for a variance, if the Planning Commission went along with Mr. Karger's proposal. That it does not meet the Municipal Code requirements and would require a variance. Also, the Planning Commission would not be able to make that decision until such time as a public hearing had been scheduled and public testimony heard. Barney Karger, applicant, indicated that they would pave it. Further discussion regarding parking took place among the applicant and the Planning Commission. P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 3 Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if the initials WM was some sort of sign. Mr. Karger, applicant, indicated that the WM was one of the signs that would be on the building. Chairman Caouette asked staff if the WM would be approved at the same time as the Site plan. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, asked that the Planning Commission make a condition that the sign would have to meet the require- ments of the Sign Code and be approved by the Planning Director. Barney Karger, applicant, asked for clarification regarding trash areas. Questioned whether the Planning Commission might change the code to specify either roof or cover trash containers. Discussion of the landscaping for the project took place between the Applicant and the Commissioners. Commissioner Cole asked staff if there was a way to get around the need for a variance, in view of preference for landscaping. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, replied there were none. A variance would be complying with the Zone Ordinance as currently written in Title 18, which states that parking spaces are required to the 19' rather than 17' , plus an overhang. There could be a problem of precedence setting for another proposal with the same request. Advised the Commissioners that they could proceed with rest of approval, and request a variance for that one condition. Further discussion regarding the westside of the building took place. It was noted that it would be a fire resistant wall. Also, discussion continued regarding parking area and number of parking spaces. Chairman Caouette thanked Mr. Karger. Asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission. Being no one, returned this item back to the Commission for discussion. Chairman Caouette asked Staff if a motion was required with reference to Condition #12, landscaping and lighting plan and deletion of the wording Phase I. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, replied that he felt Phase I should be eliminated because there is no pending proposal before the Planning Commission to consider this as Phase I. He also indicated he would like the Planning Commission to insert the wording "Lighting & Landscaping", if they so desired. PCM 86-27 Motion by Chairman Caouette and P .C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 4 seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 5-0 vote to amend Condition #12 to read "Prior to issuance of a building permit, an exterior lighting plan and landscaping & irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission." PCM 86-28 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 5-0 vote, to add Condition #17 stating that any signs associated with the subject project shall be in accordance with appropriate ordinances and subject to approval by the Planning Director. Further discussion took place regarding the minimum requirements for parking area. PCM 86-29 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 5-0 vote, to amend Condition #16 adding the option that the applicant could modify the parking layout to meet all City minimums, which would mean pave that area. Or, choose the variance process for the current parking layout. PCM 86-30 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve Site and Architectural Review 84-15, subject to the conditions of approval as amended. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS IIIa. CUP/SA 86-1, Sisters of St. Benedict, a proposed convent located at 22791 Pico. Chairman Caouette asked staff for staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the staff report. He pointed out a condition of approval, to construct the improvements along Pico Street frontage, which would include curb, gutter and sidewalk and pavement between the curb and existing pavement. Staff recommended that Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the CUP/SA 86-1, subject to the above condition and P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 5 consider approval of same. He also requested the Chairman to ask the applicant if he had seen the Fire Department requirements. Mr. Blaine Rawdon, representative, replied he had seen them that morning. Chairman Caouette, with no further questions for staff, opened the public hearing for the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Asked if the applicant and/or their representative was present. Mr. Blaine Rawdon, Blaine + Rawdon Architects, representative of applicant, stated they had no objections to the conditions of approval, except the conditions relative to curb, gutter and sidewalk on the south side of Pico. And in addition to that, new pavement between the curb, the existing pavement and new curb. Noted that all the property to the east of the subject property is A-1; and that they do not have a concrete curb. They do not see the necessity of replacing a 2 year old asphalt curb, 2 years after it's been put in, in an area that is going to have one house on it. Mr. Rawdon, representative, went on to say that there were a couple of items on the report from the Fire Department that bothered them. One of them was the request for 2 fire hydrants. They don't know if an existing fire hydrant located on the west side of the property is included in that request. The other is the fire flow of 1500 gallons per minute. Mr. Rawdon explained that in his conversation with the Riverside Highland Water Company, they had said that pressure would be obtainable. Objected to a single family type residence requiring an onsite fire hydrant. Mr. Rawdon requested that these conditions be amended, deleted or whatever would be appropriate. Commissioner Munson inquired about the type of carports they were proposing and, since it has been his position in the past to require garages, asked how much of an imposition it would be to make them fully enclosed garages. Mr. Rawdon replied that there are 8 cars, 5 would be on one side of the motor court and 3 on the other. There would be an open end to the east. Also, indicated that the only imposition would be financial. Further discussion took place between the Commissioners and the Applicant regarding garages vs. carports and what the requirements were in an R-1 zone. Mr. Rawdon noted one other item in the letter from the Fire Department, that access roads be a minimum of 20' unobstructed width, with a turning radius capable of supporting and accommodating large fire apparatus. Mr. Rawdon believed the P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 6 City Engineer has the determination of driveways. Also noted, that they have access across the front of the house on a cul-de-sac with a 16' drive and that there is a 45' space for turn around. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that the Planning Commission makes the determination of the Fire Department's conditions; and that they are simply a recommendation to the Planning Commission with exception of items covered by the Uniform Fire Code. Also noted, the Planning Commission has the option of either a carport or a garage or a number of them, as in this instance. Further discussion took place among the Commissioners and the applicant regarding interpretation of Fire Department, as to whether this project is considered a single family residence. Also, discussed was the water pressure in that area. Staff mentioned that the Riverside Highland Water Company would have to determine if they could supply volume of water at 20 psi residual pressure. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else in the audience, who wished to address the Commission on this project. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, Disagreed with conditions of approval for a sidewalk on that side of the street. Also, the cost of garage doors was mentioned. He recommended that the Planning Commission eliminate the sidewalk and onsite fire hydrant as required by the Fire Department. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, pointed out that the Planning Commission must consider what the Fire Department has recommended. Also noted that the Fire Department considers this project a different use, then what is being represented by the applicant. Bill McKeever, 12714 Blue Mountain Court, Grand Terrace, spoke in favor of the project. Also, noted that there is plenty of pressure for that hydrant adjacent to the church. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this project. Being no one returned this item back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Chairman Caouette asked staff what avenues were available to solve the conflict of the Fire Department conditions. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, replied that in previous instances when the Fire Department's requirements could not or were not met, the City Council recognized them based on Staff's recommendation, and accepted a modified condition to proceed with the project. But, set a condition that, if and when those conditions could be met, they would then be P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 7 required. Noted that the Fire Department's requirements for improvements were subject for discussion; but, added that the Staff has no choice but to recommend to the Planning Commission and City Council that Staff's conditions of approval for improvements, be constructed. Discussion between Staff and the Commission continued on the subject of curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, pointed out that there is no curb and gutter on Pico or Blue Mountain Court, since it developed by parcel map process under S.B. County, with Blue Mountain Court as a private street. Commissioner Cole noted that it probably would never have concrete curb and gutter along that Parcel Map frontage of Pico. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, replied not unless there is a major permit for remodeling in excess of 600 sq. ft. Noted that when the southeast corner of that parcel, which is still vacant, developes, they will be required to install full improvements. Discussion continued between Staff and Planning Commisison regarding location of Wilderness Park in that vicinity and the impact of traffic in that area. It was noted that there is additional access off of Pico. Further discussion regarding the garage ordinance took place. Staff established that the Planning Commission had the option of carports or garages. PCM 86-31 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 5-0 vote, to amend Condition #5 to read "Construct curb and gutter along the Pico Street frontage in accordance with the adopted General Plan specifications." Discussion among the Staff and the Planning Commission took place regarding carports. It was noted by Staff that since there is an option, carports or garages, either would meet the requirements unless Planning Commissioners wished to set a different requirement. Chairman Caouette mentioned that since carports were shown on the plan, then if that plan was approved, then carports were approved at that time. PCM 86-32 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 5-0 vote, to add a condition P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 8 # 10, which says "prior to the issuance of building permit, landscaping and irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission." Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, in response to Vice-Chairman Hawkinson's question regarding the Fire Department requirements, recommended that the applicant and/or representative meet with the Fire Department and discuss exact meaning of their requirements with respect to the number of fire hydrants, fire hydrant locations, and fire flows. PCM 86-33 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Cole, and approved by 5-0 vote, to approve CUP/SA 86-1, subject to the Conditions given in the presentation and those as amended. In addition, the applicant prior to issuance of building permit, meet all of the requirements of the Fire Department, whatever requirements might be in an amended letter from the Fire Marshall. IIIb Public Hearing - An amendment to Title 18 dealing with minimum square footage for apartments. Chairman Caouette asked staff for presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report. Chairman Caouette opened public hearing asking if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this ordinance amendment. Being no one, asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, was opposed to this ordinance amendment. He felt that 800-1000 sq. ft. seemed to large for a 1 bedroom. Requested that the ordinance require 2 bedroom/2 bath rather than a certain square footage. Also, that he felt they should consider, not so much square footage, but upgrading limitations. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in opposition to this proposed amendment. With no response, closed the public hearing and returned this matter back to the Commission for discussion. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson indicated his discomfort in locking into certain square footages. He felt each project should stand on it's own merit. With a limitation of square footage, may be overlooking, in the future, a project that has merit. P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 9 Commissioner McDowell suggested that they should hold to a norm of square footages for various categories. Also, mentioned dissatisfaction with a single family house at 1200 sq. ft. Further discussion took place among Planning Commission and staff regarding intent of General Plan for affordable housing. Chairman Caouette noted that if smaller units are going to be a bone of contention and possible reason for rejection of a project, suggested establishing some ground rules. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, pointed out that the Planning Commission was acting in an advisory capacity and that the City Council, after recommendation of the Planning Commission, would then amend the Ordinance. Discussion among Staff and Planning Commission regarding staff report attachents, which listed Staff's recommended square footages. Staff noted that since the City had no minimum standards for minimum square footages in Zone Ordinance, that this was simply a recommendation. Chairman Caouette suggested the Planning Commission take a look at it and send forward a recommendation to City Council, since they had specifically requested it with the garages issue. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson pointed out that whether the Planning Commission makes a recommendation back to City Council or not, the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee would eventually take a look at this particular aspect of the ordinance. Commissioner Munson proceeded with a motion, which pertained to R-2 and R-3 with 1,2 & 3 bedrooms. Motion was that 750 sq. ft. in studio and 1 bedroom be the minimum. Also, 950 sq. ft. in a 2 bedroom as a minimum and 1100 sq. ft. in 3 bedroom. Motion died for lack of second. PCM 86-34 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and seconded by Chairman Caouette and passed by a 4-1 vote, to accept the suggestions and recommendations of the Staff. That R-2 be 800-1000 and 1200 and R-3 be 800, 1000, to 1200 and present to City Council for their action. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson voted against the motion. Barney Karger - replied that at the last City Council meeting, P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 10 it was his impression that the City Council, if recommended by Planning Commission, prefer that attachments of garages in apartment units, not be required. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that Council as part of their discussion made a motion, which was withdrawn because it would have to come back to the Planning Commission, that garages not be attached to the building at all. Mr. Hopkins went on to say that when this first came to the Planning Commission it was more restrictive, in that the garage be attached to the unit. The Planning Commission liberalized it and simply said it only had to be attached to the building in which the unit was located. This is what Mr. Karger is speaking to. City Council considered it more important that they adopt some requirement in an expeditious manner, rather than have detached garages an option. Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:09 p.m. , to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Respectfully submitted, JOSEPH KXAK, Planning Director Approved: NOFIfF CAOUETTE, hairman /lh P.C. Minutes 3-17-86 Page 11