Loading...
05/19/1986 12-8.1055 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 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 May 19, 1986, at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner Sanford Collins, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary EXCUSED ABSENCE: John McDowell, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Munson. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of May 5, 1986 PCM 86-45 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-0-1 vote, to approve the minutes as submitted. Commissioner Munson abstained from vote. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Request for a Variance at 22154 Deberry Street. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Noted that the use of the property would become non-conforming should the existing tenant, who is a member of the applicant's family, move out. That existing property would be considered for use as an R-2, with a revenue generating potential. The request of the applicant is to consider a variance to make use of that property as R-2. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of staff? He noted that he understood this to be more or less a granny flat situation. Joseph Kicak noted that it would not meet all of the criteria of the granny flat as defined in the City's ordinance. Discussion took place between Staff and the Planning Commission regarding whether there was some way to continue as a granny flat use. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director noted that if the Planning Commission grants the variance, as requested, that unless some restriction was placed on this particular property, that when this use terminates the granny flat use, the variance would allow the use of that property as an R-2. Therefore, they could generate revenue and lease the 2nd house. Further discussion continued. In response to Commissioner Munson's question, it was noted, by staff, that they could add to the existing structure, but they could not add another house. Discussion between the Planning Commission and Staff took place regarding the possible intention of the applicant renting out the building. In response, Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, clarified that the applicant is attempting to refinance this property. And, in requesting the appraisal of the property, the applicant was told that the 2nd house has no value in a single family, R-1, zone. Mr. Kicak recommended that in approving this item, that the Planning Commission add a condition that the 2nd home on that property may be used as a habitable residence, provided that there is no revenue generating intent or use of that property. Mr. Kicak also noted that this house was a fully self-contained residence. Chairman Caouette remarked that if he understood the staff report, the lending institution, or whoever is performing the service for the applicant, has a problem with the property because it is a non-conforming use; and therefore, there is a problem with refinancing. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that the problem is in the appraisal of the property for the 2nd house not necessarily the refinancing. But, what they are saying is that as long as it is in an R-1 zone, the use is R-1; therefore, the 2nd house has no value in an R-1 zone. Commissioner Munson noted that it would be his motion to continue this item until the next meeting, in hopes that the Applicant P.C. Minutes 5-19-86 Page 2 would be present. Otherwise, he would vote against the variance. Chairman Caouette responded that before a motion was considered, he would like to conduct the public hearing. Opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the requested variance. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, Grand Terrace. Noted that he knows Mr. Grable and is familiar with that property. Indicated that both of the houses had been there for more than 40 years. Mr. Karger was in favor of the variance and felt that it would not hurt anyone in that neighborhood. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this variance. Being none, returned this item back to the Commission for discussion. PCM 86-46 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-1 vote, to continue this item to the next meeting, in order for the applicant to be present. Commissioner Collins voted against the motion. IIB. Public Hearing on property for R-1 Hillside and R-1 PUD overlay Zones. Chairman Caouette asked Staff for presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report. Noted that the proposed R-1 hillside overlay would consider the properties southerly of DeBerry Street, easterly of Oriole and northerly of Main Street, which are now zoned R-1. The proposal is to provide a minimum 4500 square foot flat area of the pad. In addition, a minimum square footage of livable space of 1350 square feet. The second area being proposed is the R-1 PUD Overlay. That area is located southerly of Palm, and the easterly of the Southerly extension of Honey Hill Drive, also, the area on the easterly side of Blue Mountain, easterly of the Honey Hills Development. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission conduct Public Hearing on this item and direct the City Attorney to prepare an appropriate resolution to forward to the City Council. Discussion took place among the Planning Commission and Staff regarding how much area was left to be mapped. It was noted, by Staff, that there is about 40 acres that has not yet been mapped in that overlay. Chairman Caouette asked how would the R-1 PUD differ from the hillside designation that is in the General Plan. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that P.C. Minutes 5-19-86 Page 3 the R-1 PUD would probably end up being a transfer of densities within the area. However, the PUD would control with respect to the building size, building separation and all of the open space. Mr. Kicak added that the Hillside overlay is primarily to have a minimum flat area lot size with minimum livable square footage. Chairman Caouette opened the public hearing asking if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the proposed overlays. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that the reason for the PUD was to cluster. Transfer the densities, which is primarily due to topography that exists on the easterly side of Blue Mountain. This would be done in order to preserve as much natural area as possible. Bill DeBenedet, 11960 Honey Hill Drive. Expressed his interest in the Honey Hills Development area, and that he would be in favor of clustering of homes in a PUD overlay, which is due to the rugged terrain. Commissioner Munson questioned Mr. DeBenedet what a standard lot would be if the houses were clustered. Bill DeBenedet responded that it depended on location. Some would be larger lots, 10,000 sqaure feet, because of the rugged terrain. Noted that you could still have 1/2 acre ground for dwelling, but can be used for something else. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, noted that he was not necessarily for or against. Inquired if it would be possible to get a PUD on his property, so that he could cluster the houses and keep the orange grove as it is. It was noted, by staff in response to Mr. Karger's request, that he would need to come back to the Planning Commission for them to consider his proposal. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed overlays. Being none, closed the public hearing and returned the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Collins noted that at this time they are trying to legislate something that has been the perogative of the Planning Commission in the Site & Architectural Review process. Further noted that if the Planning Commission was going to make it 12,000, 14,000 or 16,000 R-1, which in his opinion would be best, then he thought they should at least require P.C. Minutes 5-19-86 Page 4 developer to make 7200 square foot flat area on each pad. Further discussion among the Planning Commissioners took place regarding size of lot. Chairman Caouette asked where 4500 square foot came from. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson responded that this particular issue is a by-product of a recommendation of the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and Chairman Caouette noted they were in concurrence with Commissioner Collin's suggestion. Commissioner Cole expressed concern that if a 7200 square foot minimum lot is requested, then they are asking for a 7200 square foot flat area of the pad. And, that in order to level the pad may build a 14' high retaining wall. Commissioner Cole felt that rather than take that chance, may be the Planning Commission ought to look at 7200 square feet minimum lot size area or 10,000, 12,000 and/or 14,000. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson concurred that the Planning Commission put something back in the form of 10,000, 12,000 square foot minimum lot size in this area. Commissioner Munson clarified that the pubic would dictate what they may or may not want, at the time of public hearing, if the Planning Commission increased the size of the lots to 12,000 - 14,000 square feet. Chairman Caouette suggested that they split this for now and first talk about an action on the R-1 PUD and then take up the R-1 Hillside issue. Asked if there was any discussion on the PUD Overlay proposal. PCM 86-47 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 5-0 vote, to direct City Attorney to prepare an appropriate resolution recommending that in the R-1 PUD Overlay area, be approved at a density of 1 unit per 20,000 square feet. Intent to allow clustering of houses to preserve as much natural landscape as possible. Chairman Caouette asked if there was discussion on the R-1 Hillside overlay. Noted that his concern is that development in that area results in excessive backyard slopes. PCM 86-48 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 5-0 vote, to recommend to the City Council that R-1 Hillside overlay be further identified, by staff, that instead of minimum square footage level pads, that they have a lot area of 12,000, 14,000 or 16,000 square feet, according to elevations as studied by P.C. Minutes 5-19-86 Page 5 staff. III. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Caouette added New Business Item III a. Noted that at the May 5, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting, the Planning Commission continued Site & Architectural Review 86-4, and that the applicant would now like to present the revised plans for Planning Commission consideration. Asked for a staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that these plans came in late Friday, May 16, 1986. Noted that the colored renderings before them were the landscaping plans and plans showing the 6' tilt-up concrete wall proposed around the project, with exception of the frontage on Commerce Way. Chairman Caouette asked if there were questions of staff or the applicant. Discussion took place between the Applicant and the Planning Commission regarding the proposed concrete wall. The applicant noted that the wall is a requirement for screening and it would be 6' high with a smooth surface. It was noted that a 1" recessed reveal, which is around the building itself, would be painted red. PCM 86-49 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve the revised Site & Architectural Plans 86-4, as submitted. Noted that the building would have a 1" recessed reveal painted. Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:06 p.m. , to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Respectfully submitted: r JOS P fTCAK, Planning Director Approved: _�)f CHAII61AN, Planning Commission P.C. Minutes 5-19-86 Page 6