Loading...
04/13/1989CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 13, 1989 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Grand Terrace was called to order in the Council Chambers, Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on April 13, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Byron Matteson, Mayor Hugh J. Grant, Mayor Pro Tem Barbara Pfennighausen, Councilmember Jim Singley, Councilmember Gene Carlstrom, Councilmember Thomas J. Schwab, City Manager/Finance Director Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager John Harper, City Attorney David Sawyer, Community Development Director Juanita Brown, Deputy City Clerk Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: None The meeting was opened with invocation by Reverend Dale Goddard, Inland Christian Center, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Pfennighausen. Mayor Matteson convened City Council meeting at 6:05 p.m. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 6:10 p.m. ITEMS TO DELETE None. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2A. Mayor Matteson Presented Dick Rollins with a Proclamation for his many hours of civic service. 2B. Tony Petta explained the objectives of the "Pride of Home" awards and presented the participants to the Mayor for their awards. Bea Gigandet Mr. & Mrs. John Helt Mrs. Debbie Harber CONSENT CALENDAR CC-89-49 MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar with the removal of Item F. 0 A. APPROVE CHECK REGISTER NO. 041389 ITEM FOR DISCUSSION B. RATIFY 4/13/89 CRA ACTION C. WAIVE FULL READING OF ORDINANCES ON AGENDA D. APPROVE 3/23/89 MINUTES E. CITY MANAGER'S ATTENDANCE AT THE 1989 LEGISLATIVE SEMINAR 3F. BOND RELEASE - FOREST CITY - PHASE I Mayor Pro Tem Grant indicated that he wanted this item voted on separately so he could go on record opposing it. CC-89-50 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 3-2 (MAYOR MATTESON AND MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT VOTED NOE), to release the bonds on Forest City Grand Terrace, Phase I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION None. ORAL REPORTS 5A. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Crime Prevention Committee Dick Rollins, 22700 DeBerry St., reported that the June 4th Safety Fair is progressing and would like Council to help in any way they can to make this a successful event. 2. Emergency Operations Committee Council accepted the Minutes of January 23, 1989. 3. Historical & Cultural Committee Council accepted the Minutes of March 7, 1989. Council Minutes - 04/13/89 Page 2 5B. COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Pfenni hausen, suggested that the Public Hearing Notices, which are sent to the residents, have a brief description of the topic to be addressed in language that is easy to understand. Mayor Pro Tem Grant, reported that he attended the Omnitrans Board meeting as the alternate on the 5th of April and the County Transportation Commission SANBAG meeting as the principal on the same day. He indicated that he was also appointed to the Commuter Rail Committee of the SANBAG on the governing board. Mayor Pro tem Grant requested an analysis of the benefits the City is receiving as a member of SANBAG. Mayor Matteson, asked the City Attorney to explain what the City can do regarding the billboard issue. Ci ty Attorney Harper, explained that billboards are classified as off -site signage and you can't do away with them, although, the City can impose restrictions on the size and design to ensure nice signs and charge a business license fee. Mayor Matteson requested that the City Manager investigate and make a proposal to Council at their next meeting. NEW BUSINESS 8A. Report on Plexco Industries in Colton. City Manager Schwab, reported that he and the Mayor were given a tour of the facility and gave a report of his findings. Mayor Matteson indicated that he found it to be a very clean operation and recommended that the other Councilmembers and interested residents tour the facility. Councilmember Pfennighausen had concerns regarding the safety of the facility and suggested that those who have concerns continue to watch the operation. PUBLIC HEARING 6A. Planning Commission Recommendation to Adopt Z-89-1. Community Development Director Sawyer presented his staff report and approched the map pointing out various changes in the zoning. He went through the Zoning Ordinance Council Minutes - 04/13/89 Page 3 stating proposed changes using view graphs for the residential area. Mayor Matteson opened the discussion to the public. Chauncey Eller, 23100 Vista Grande Way, Grand Terrace; We bought our property in 1955, started building, and moved in in 1957. Last fall we decided to sell a piece of our property. About that time is when we got the overlay area maps showing that we were in the overlay. Our property is in section 8 and it had been established that this would be zoned R 20,000. I attended the Planning Commission meeting and Mr. Sawyer indicated that perhaps I would be able to get a variance and recommended that I attend the meeting tonight. I have some sketches to pass out. If you will note, the dotted line represents the south edge of the Southern California Edison easement and you can see where we have our dwelling. I built that within 6 inches of the easement, and in that easement you can't build a structure above or below the ground, nor can you put a hard surface driveway. You will note where I have the proposed lot size. I could go back a little further to the east and get 10,000 sq. ft., but if I have to stick to 20,000, then I would have to go to the north across the driveway under the easement, way back to the edge of our property. Then I could get the 20,000, but that would cut us off from the road. We would have to build a road down along the side, which would not be acceptable at all. Therefore, I respectfully request that you return section 8 to R 7,200 or if you have to increase it, don't go beyond 10,000 square feet. Councilmember Single stated that he had met with Mr. Eller and did some investigation and contacted a Dr. Darwin, who did not agree and had some severe concerns regarding Mr. Eller's lot split and suggest that Mr. Eller contact Dr. Darwin to discuss this. Mr. Eller agreed. Community Development Director Sawyer explained the agricultural overlay proposal. Clifford Hood, Brea; We re th e j W 11 Council Minutes - 04/13/89 Page 4 not to continue. The original tentative map in effect graded the entire 80 acres from the top of the property at its highest point to the bottom. We recognize that subsequent to that time hillside areas have become more socially sensitive, and I think that the staff will acknowledge that we've submitted two or three different schemes just for study purposes. I did submit comments in writing to the Planning Commission that I think rezoning property in hillside areas to an arbitrary configuration of one acre really destroys the capacity to plan the property. We have no objection to the sensitivity of the hillside, and would expect to develop the property in keeping with those concerns. However, when we're now being faced with the rezoning that in effect establishes a density of 80 units maximum, we're placed in the position of coming in for a reduction in lot size by using a specific plan procedure. If the zoning were left alone you could utilize the laws that you already have, primarily the subdivision map act, which almost mandates you to deny property development that's not compatible with topography. We now can use lot size in the more developable portion of the property that allows us to acquire the yield that is necessary for us to continue with the economic development of the property. We have been before the Planning Commission and it was alluded to a night that the hillside overlay is following this zone. You couple those two together and in effect this property may be undevelopable with all of the anticipated laws. It was explained to us by the Planning Commisssion that the specific plan does allow us to come in and create a unique zone for the property and that the intended zoning that's before us tonight in effect establishes a yield as opposed to lot deminsions that's critical to us. I'm not sure what the yield does to us because we haven't analyzed the property with an 80-lot development. We would prefer that the zoning be left in tact and that if it is your desire that we plan these hills in a way that's sensitive to the hillside itself, that we be allowed to do that without looking down the barrell of 150 to 200 ft. lots. That certainly is the element position that the City has the opportunity to take. Gene McMeans, Riverside Highland Water Co., 1450 Washington St., Colton; indicated that he would like to see Council follow staff's recommendation. Bill McKeever, 12714 Blue Mountain Ct., Grand Terrace; I would like to see the overlay considered for area 11. We live there on a 1 1/2-acre parcel and we have horses. I am concerned about losing the ability to have animals there because the property is developed to provide for that, and I Council Minutes - 04/13/89 Page 5 �or�p the ability would constitute a loss in value of the Barney Kar, er, 11668 Bernardo Way, Grand Terrace; I live in area 8. I recently found out that I live in an area that is zoned 7,200 sq. ft. I think we need more communication with the people of this City so you can be aware of what we want. I don't trust that the Blue Mountain Court area will get an agricultural overlay. If you're going to pass this thing lets pass it with the agricultural overlay at that time. Many years ago, area 8 north of Barton Rd., was zoned out of its horses and its cattle and goats, so that we couldn't get rid of our animals and get them back later legally. Area 8 north of Barton Rd. and area 11 should be allowed to have animals. I don't know why we're dropping the Planned Urban Development (PUD) designation, it should be left in for the benefit of the people. I believe, in the past, the state required 20 units to the acre, this is not being complied with. I recommend that you do more research on this issue. Dennis Kidd, 22874 Pico St., Grand Terrace; my property is currently -being used for agriculture and I would like to see it remain zoned for agriculture. Bill Addington, 12055 Westwood Ln., Grand Terrace; the piece that I will address is parcel 9. It wraps around and takes its access from Westwood Dr. in Honey Hills. Our concern in Honey Hills is that it develop consistent with the property that is already there. Honey Hills has been developed at about one unit per acre. I was pleased that the City showed a lot of concern for that hillside property. I'm in favor of that 40,000 sq. ft. zone. I think it is consistent. I do request that in general all of the minimum lot sizes in the residential zones for the City are the same, 1,350. However, I appreciate the fact that not everybody that wants to build on a lot wants to build 2,600 or 3,600 ft., but I think that as a general rule you'll find that there is a 2,600 sq. ft. minimum in that area. I certainly wouldn't ask the Planning Commission or City Council to make that a hard fast rule that would not permit someone to do something slightly less than that, but I think it would be appropriate for the minimum lot size in the R1-40 to be 2,600 sq. ft. _Mary Anderson, 22872 Main St., Grand Terrace; I have the 52-acre parcel at the south of Main in the current agricultural zone. The one thing I have not heard about tonight is the density transfer that would allow the acreage on the part of the mountain that is deemed undevelopable to be transfered to the lower portion, which is better developable. I discussed several concepts with Council Minutes - 04/13/89 Page 6 Mr. Sawyer and including 10,000 sq. ft. lots 15,000, 20 and 40 lending itself to the various areas in order to achieve the maximum yield out of 52 acres, where only about half of it can be used. So, I feel comfortable with it so long as it is all under the specific plan, which is a fairly protective measure. I would like to keep the Al overlay. Mar orie McQuory stated that she has 3 1/4 acres, which borders Gage Canal. She stated that her lender told her that if she wants to do any extensive repairs she probably could not increase her loan because of a nonconforming use if rezoned from agricultural, and asked if anyone knew anything about this. Cit Attorney Harper replied that he cannot speak for a bank, but common sense says that if you have security you could increase your loan. He was sure any bank would loan her money; home improvement loans are the easiest loans to get. Community Development Director Sawyer stated that if she needed something from the City for her lender, we would be happy to help her. Mayor Matteson recessed City Council meeting at 8:25 p.m. Mayor Matteson reconvened City Council meeting at 8:31 p.m. Councilmember Pfennighausen stated in relation to living area - minimum square feet - multiple family - "studio," that she wanted studio removed from the Code due to the fact that it is unrealistic to develop an 800-square foot room. A studio apartment, in our code, has to have the same amount of square feet as a one -bedroom apartment. She hoped Council would seriously consider removing "Studio Apartments" from the Code completely. Therefore, we would only be able to build one -bedroom or two -bedroom apartments. Ma or Matteson felt it should be left in since it is addressed; 7 as to be addressed some place. Mayor Pro Tem Grant felt it should be left in, but agreed with ounce member Pfennighausen that to make it the same square footage as a one -bedroom apartment is absurd. Councilmember Pfennighausen asked, if left in, could the square ootage be reduced to 650 square feet. Mayor Pro Tem Grant agreed. Council Minutes - 04/13/89 Page 7 Councilmember Carlstrom asked what do you do about the additional dwelling that is not allowed the kitchen, but it is allowed a living room and sleeping space in the living room? Councilmember Pfenni hausen replied that is clearly defined in the Code as a guest house. Community Development Director Sawyer explained that a guest house is a detached structure that does not have a kitchen. Councilmember Single stated that he agreed with Councilmember P ennig ausen, and suggested that maybe it could be listed as a footnote. CC-89-51 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, SECOND BY MAYOR MATTESON, FAILED 3-2 (MAYOR MATTESON AND COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM VOTING AYE), to leave in studio apartments. CC-89-52 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 3-2 (MAYOR MATTESON AND COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM VOTING NOE), that the designation of studio apartments under multiple family be removed from our Code. CC-89-53 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, to add a footnote to table 18.12.030, which clarifies multiple family dwellings as 1,2 and 3 bedroom units only. Because of major concerns with the documents as presented, some changes were suggested and it was returned to staff for rework; therefore, CC-89-54 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM, CARRIED 5-0, that Sections 18.12, 18.15, 18.18, 18.2, and 18.24, in relation to residential zoning, be continued to May 11, 1989. CC-89-55 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PFENNIGHAUSEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SINGLEY, CARRIED 5-0, that Section 18.09, in relation to the Zoning Map, be continued to May 11, 1989. CC-89-56 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, CARRIED 5-0, that Section 18.60, in relation to the City's Off -Street Parking, be continued to April 27, 1989. 6B. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision SA-88-17 (California Spirits). Councilmember Carlstrom left Council table due to a potential conflict of interest. 11 11 Council Minutes - 04/13/89 Page 8 —11 Community Development Director Sawyer, gave a report and made a recommendation that ounce deny the applicant's appeal. Terry Haden, Haden Architects, 506 N. Eureka, Redlands; stated that the problems at this point with the project in terms of the design are fairly minute. It became clear at the early Planning Commission level that the question was not one of design execution, but whether the project was desirable. We certainly have no problem in working with the City to make whatever architectural enhancements the City requires if this were determined to be an acceptable project. What we have here is a couple of small guys who bought a piece of property that they wanted to develop. They've been penalized now for some period of time. Their property is now under a cloud, in that they can't develop it, they can't even sell it because the property has no use based on the current decision of the Planning Commission. Stan Ceratola, California Spirits; We purchased the property two years ago. At that time the point was brought up that we were in our right to build and we had the proper zoning and we could do this. So we came up with the money and purchased the property because we had an approval from the City. We waited a year and decided to go ahead with this, now it has been two years. I don't think its fair to be kept waiting. Council concurred that the project is not in the best interest of the City at this time. CC-89-57 MOTION BY MAYOR MATTESON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GRANT, CARRIED 4-0-0-1 (COUNCILMEMBER CARLSTROM ABSTAINING), to deny the appeal. ORDER OF ADJOURNMENT Mayor Matteson adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:50 p.m., until the next regular City Council/CRA meeting, which is scheduled to be held Thursday, April 27, 1989. /Ixz�-. /� Y" MAYS of the City'of G and Terrace. TEPUT,X CITY CLERK of Vie City of &and Terrace. Council Minutes - 04/13/89 Page 9