Loading...
01/17/2008 ( i Community and Economic Development Department I , , GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION CALHORKIA MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 17, 2008 The reeular meetinLy of the Grand Terrace Planninu Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on JANUARY 17, 2008 at 7:02 p.m., by Chairman Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Tom Comstock, Commissioner Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner Brian Phelps, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Planning Director Richard Shields, Building & Safety Director John Lampe,Associate Planner Jerina Cordova, Planning Secretary 7:02 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Brian Phelps • Roll Call • Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PATRICIA FARLEY 12513 Michigan Street Ms. Farley requested more monitoring and follow through on decisions that are being made by the Planning Commission. She believed items were getting approved with certain restrictions however, they were not getting enforced. Ms. Farley requested the Planning Commission take care of the problem. 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • 909/ 824-6621 1 =r Vice Chair Addington directed a question towards Director Koontz relating to Ms. Farley's concern. Director Koontz stated that anything that was not adhered to would result in a Code Enforcement action. Director Koontz stated that items such as a change of color are minor and are handled internally with discretion. Chair Wilson invited Director Koontz to bring anything needed before the Planning Commission. BOBBY FORBES 11850 Burns Avenue Ms. Forbes wished everyone a Happy New Year. End of Public Participation ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approval PC-01-2008 Vice Chair Addington made a motion Commissioner Phelps Seconded Commissioner McNaboe noted changes to page 22 "Potion"to be changed to "Portion". Chair Wilson confirmed changes. MOTION VOTE: 4-0-0-1 Commissioner Comstock Abstain 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approval PC-02-2008 Vice Chair Addington made a motion Commissioner McNaboe Seconded MOTION VOTE: 4-0-0-1 Commissioner Phelps Abstain 3. SA-07-08; SA-06-09 - TPM-06-02; E-06-08 SA-07-08; SA-06-09; TPM-06-02 (County No. 18581) and; E- 06-08 to construct three, two-story, single family residences 2 and create three single family lots. APPLLICANT: Techno-Dynamics Consultants, Inc. LOCATION: 21910 Vivienda Avenue (approximately .84 of an acre located on the northeasterly corner of the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Vivienda Avenue.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing,receive the staff report and testimony, close the hearing and approve Resolution of Approval for SA-07-08; SA-06-09 and E-06-08 and recommend to the City Council Resolution of Approval for TPM-06-02 (County No. 18581) supported by the required findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. PC-03-2008 Vice Chair Addington made a motion (as conditioned by Staff and the Planning Commission) Commissioner McNaboe Seconded MOTION VOTE: 5-0-0-0 _. Vice Chair Addington wanted confirmation that the Site and Architectural number was SA-06- 08. Senior Planner John Lampe confirmed. Planner Lampe presented his project to the Planning Commission. He explained that the project had previously been presented in January of 2007. The original project had requested six, two- story single family homes on a small lot subdivision. The Planning Commission came to a consensus that six units were too dense and asked for a revision. The applicant has revised his request to three, two-story single family homes. The project site is approximately .84 of an acre located on the northeasterly corner of the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Vivienda Avenue. Project frontage on Vivienda Avenue is approximately two hundred and thirty feet with an average maximum depth of one hundred and seventy feet. A one-story single family residence currently occupies the site. The site slopes away from Vivienda Avenue to the north with a down slope of about five degrees. The surrounding area is described as a Single Family Residential area with an exception of a few duplexes and a few mobile home parks. Vivienda Avenue is a partially developed local street; however, Grand Terrace Road is classified as a local collector. The project is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use. The proposed development is three homes on three parcels, one home per parcel. Access to the site will be provided by Vivienda Avenue. The setbacks for the R2 zone are twenty five feet from front yard, twenty from the rear yard, and ten and five feet for the side yard, however a l ' corner side yard is fifteen feet under this zone. All minimum setbacks are met for this project. 3 � _ 1 Planner Lampe stated that the proposed retaining walls, for each lot, have curved sections and would be straightened for practical construction. The final wall design will have to be submitted along with the plan check review. Planner Lampe explained there were three floor-plans for the project and briefly explained each one. Each proposed home will have its own architectural treatment. Planner Lampe explained the proposed landscaping plan for the project would have various shrubs and at least two trees per yard. Next he explained that landscaping along the slope fronting Grand Terrace would have to be landscaped by the applicant per a recommended condition. Planner Lampe reviewed a series of conceptual grading plans for the site. He reiterated that the reason for the retaining walls on the project was to raise the slope of the proposed rear yards for usability. The average, finished rear yard slopes will be about five percent. Planner Lampe showed an overhead slide of the drainage and descried the water flow for each parcel. He stated the applicant provided various preliminary technical studies that would also be required for plan check review. Planner Lampe summarized his presentation and stated that staff believed the applicant complied with the direction of the Planning Commission. He stated that staff believed the project was ` compatible and recommended that the Planning Commission: approve the three site architectural review application and recommend to the City Council the approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map to divide the site into three residential lots. Chair Wilson questioned the concept behind the retaining wall. He wanted to know if there was a possibility that it would catch day light into the existing contour. Director Shields stated that day light would be a very deep footing on the retaining wall. He suggested that the retaining wall be moved inward once the pad was established to lessen daylight. Chair Wilson suggested that be a recommendation to the applicant. Vice Chair directed a question towards Director Shields regarding the slope being on someone else's property. Director Shields stated that it was the flood control area. Vice Chair Addington described the north east corner where the contours wrapped and asked if the applicant was grading on someone else's property. Director Shields stated that there was a property line that went straight up and the applicant would have to manicure the slope. Vice Chair Addington confirmed that there were provisions during the review for permission to manicure it. Director Shields answered yes. Vice Chair Addington inquired on any provisions for the stability of the slope when water is against it. Director Shields stated there was a chain link fence that collects debris however the conditions asked for riprap to be placed at the bottom. Director Koontz stated the slope would have to be landscaped with some type of erosion control. 4 Commissioner Phelps addressed the paperwork of the water company that stated six units as opposed to three units and asked if there would be a problem. Planner Lampe informed Commissioner Phelps that he had contacted the water company and there were no problems. Chair Wilson asked Planner Lampe where the street lights for the project were going to be placed Planner Lampe responded to. WILLIE QUIDAY Techno Dynamics Consultants Mr. Quiday requested approval of the project. BOBBIE FORBES 11850 Burns Avenue Ms. Forbes is a resident near the project. Ms. Forbes believed that a land owner in the area is possibly watching the project and assumes he will bring additional units to his land. Ms. Forbes expressed concerns on drainage, water and animals in the area. Ms. Forbes explained that there are wild Coyote's and the height of fences/walls should be taken into consideration. Ms. Forbes additionally commented on graffiti along the block wall. Chair Wilson addressed her concern of additional units on the parcel stating that they will review one project at a time. Ms. Forbes questioned what would happen on the slopes when it rains and when the residents water their yards. Chair Wilson stated that it is considered run off and it has a right to run down through however it doesn't have the right to destroy property. He explained the purpose of a(SWPPP). Ms. Forbes questioned who was responsible for graffiti. Chair Wilson stated that it was the homeowner's responsibility. Director Shields added that it would also be a Code Enforcement issue and reminded Ms. Forbes of the vines that are to be planted to eventually cover the wall. Ms. Forbes last concern was that now that there are two-story homes in the neighborhood could she build one. Chair Wilson stated that the existing zoning allows for two-story in the area. Ms. Forbes commented that the neighborhood was going to look great. RITA SCHWARK 21952 Grand Terrace Road Ms. Schwark questioned the rule on traffic in that area and who would be responsible for the damage to the street. Director Shields explained that the developer was required to purchase a bond for street improvements. i 5 Ms. Schwark inquired on how to limit semi trucks on Grand Terrace Road. Chair Wilson explained that it was a separate item. WILLIAM KAMINSKY Burns/Vivienda Mr. Kaminsky expressed that he wasn't against the concept of the project; however the grading could be better. Mr. Kaminsky informed the Planning Commission that at the last meeting a site study was requested from the Traffic Engineer for Grand Terrace Road. Mr. Kaminsky has concerns with the fence that is along Grand Terrace Road and requests that it be pulled back fifteen feet. Planner Lampe addressed the concern of Mr. Kaminsky and stated the Traffic Engineer stated it will not impact line of sight. Commissioner Comstock commented that regulation requires a twelve foot setback from the road and the wall cannot encroach on the set back in essence you will be gaining twelve feet. Mr. Kaminsky argues his point (inaudible). Chair Wilson gavels for order and requested Planner Lampe to read the portion of the report from the Traffic Engineer. Planner Lampe read the report. Chair Wilson stated that Mr. Kaminsky has a valid point and wants to know if there are any conditions. Chair Wilson directed a question to Mr. Kaminsky regarding the normal or average speed observed in that intersection. Mr. Kaminsky stated that it is a four way stop and ten to twenty percent of vehicles run the intersection. JANICE McSCHINOFF 21816 Vivienda Avenue Ms. McSchinoff questioned the water flow. Ms. McSchinoff stated that the water flow is eroding where the rail road tracks are and is cutting into the property. Chair Wilson stated that when you live in a hillside area, you end up with runoff, landslides and other features. Chair Wilson stated that Ms. McSchinoff s concern of the drainage would be taken under advisement. Chair Wilson lastly stated that staff is to be trusted in enforcing all of the requirements in the grading plan process. JEFF McCONNELL Walnut Avenue Mr. McConnell hopes that the project sets a standard for the area. Mr. McConnell commented on the color pallet and stated that canary yellow was not considered "earth toned" as mentioned in staff report. Mr. McConnell discussed the intersection issues and stated the applicant had done more than necessary to un-encumber the intersection. Approximately one year ago, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kaminsky and Ms. Forbes drove their neighborhood and wrote up a list of things that needed { attention including the intersection and provided it to Steve Berry, Assistant City Manager. It is 6 Mr. McConnell's opinion that nothing has been done to date and it shouldn't be incurred by the -- developer or the homeowners. BOBBIE FORBES 11850 Burns Avenue Ms. Forbes felt the traffic study was only addressed on the drivers coming in one particular way and not the opposite way. Ms. Forbes believes that it is a tough intersection and when there is water there and you are coming from Newport Avenue on Grand Terrace Road toward Vivienda the road does curve; as Mr. McConnell says and you can lose control. Ms. Forbes asked if it would help visibility if the curb was painted? Director Shields responded that he would address the matter with the Assistant City Manager for additional signage and illumination. Chair Wilson stated that Mr. McConnell was right when he stated the applicant shouldn't be placed with the burden of road improvements and wanted to ensure the project was in accordance. Chair Wilson requested that a condition be added that the applicant's engineer coordinate his design with the City Engineer to ensure adequate site distance. Commissioner Comstock asked if the vines along the back retaining wall would extend to the west retaining wall. Director Koontz stated that it was policy to cover the wall. Commissioner Comstock also commented on contacting Edison and asking them in a polite manner to adhere the speed limits. Director Koontz noted Commissioner Comstock's request and stated that Edison should be taking Canal Street. Chair Wilson requested posting a sheriff in that area. Vice Chair Addington thanked the applicant for his efforts on revising his project. 4. Z-06-02; E-07-09 Z-06-02,proposed "Amateur, `HAM,' Radio Antenna Ordinance" to allow for amateur, "HAM,"radio antennas by adding Chapter 18.72 to the Zoning Code; and E-07-09,proposed Negative Declaration that said ordinance will not have significant impact on the environment. APPLICANT: The City of Grand Terrace-Department of Community Development LOCATION: City-wide RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing on Z-06-02 and E-07-09, receive the staff report, hear public testimony, close the public hearing and recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed"Amateur, `HAM,' Radio Antenna Ordinance" and the approval of the proposed Negative Declaration. PC-04-2008 Vice Chair Addington made a motion - (staff to contact the City Attorney regarding spacing) Chair Wilson Seconded 7 (staff to contact the City Attorney regarding spacing) MOTION VOTE: 4-0-0-1 Commissioner Comstock Abstain John Lampe, Senior Planner proceeded with his staff report. Planner Lampe explained the background of the amateur radio structure that initiated a petition by the residents asking for certain restrictions based on public safety and aesthetics. The petition asked for a moratorium on any proposed amateur radio structures exceeding twenty feet and requested an ordinance regulating amateur radio antennas. Neighbors were asked if they knew of any cities that had a HAM Ordinance and it was found that most cities didn't have specific ordinances that regulate amateur radio facilities. Legal constraints were looked at and compared in preparing an Amateur Radio Antenna Ordinance. Twenty years ago the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a specific regulation ordering local governments to only install regulations that would be designed to ensure the safety and health of persons in a community but not go so far as preclude effective amateur communications. The State of California enacted a law five years ago where cities had the right to prepare a local ordinance that accomplished the goals outlined by the (FCC). Los Angeles and Newport Beach have prepared HAM Radio Ordinances that had many provisions that we included in the City's final proposal. The first Draft prepared required a permit for HAM structures that did not meet certain criteria with a minimum standard height limit of thirty five feet. A public workshop was held in November 2006 in which the draft ordinance was discussed with the Commission. The Commission requested some minor changes at the last workshop pertaining to the antenna array, the proposed thirty five foot height limit, a three hundred foot public notice and review by the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated that the City was limited to health and safety issues and not aesthetics given the first amendment issues. A second draft and workshop were done in July 2007 incorporating the concerns of the City Attorney and Planning Commission; allowing a Land Use Application and Building Permit (if determined by Building Department). The City attorney also commented that calling it a Conditional Use Permit rather than a limited discretionary permit provides the City with too much latitude. A second draft was then made incorporating the concerns and comments of the City Attorney and Planning Commission. The second draft contained a proposed thirty five foot height limit. The consensus of the Planning Commission at the July 2007 workshop was that the height limit be reduced to twenty feet. Finally, the third.draft was prepared that included a Land Use Application, building permit, and contained a twenty foot height limit. The project qualified for a Negative Declaration based on the initial study that did not find any adverse impacts to the environment from the adoption of the Ordinance per CEQA. The new Ordinance includes eight provisions and is proposing to add Chapter 18.72 to Title 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Height, number, location, installation, antenna size and a list of property owners within a three hundred foot radius are all development standards that are set forth in the Ordinance. 8 Staff recommended that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the proposed"Amateur `HAM' Radio Antenna Ordinance". Chair Wilson on behalf of the Planning Commission thanked staff on their ground breaking use of legislation. Chair Wilson stated that the Planning Commission was not against HAM Radios. Next, he stated that the City will now have an ordinance to inform operators on what they can and cannot do. Commissioner McNaboe inquired on the height limitation of twenty feet and wanted to know if the opportunity to apply for an antenna higher than twenty feet. Planner Lampe responded to Commissioner McNaboe's question and stated that it was like any other development standard in the City where a Variance could be applied for. Commissioner McNaboe additionally inquired on what would happen to the existing antennas in the City that were higher than twenty feet. Planner Lampe stated that there was a section in the Ordinance relating to non-conforming antennas being allowed to stay as is. Director Koontz added that they would be considered preexisting non-conforming uses. Commissioner Comstock referred to Page 4 Attachment 4 regarding the antenna array. Commissioner Comstock questioned the percentage of the array and believed that on a 7,200 square foot lot it would be quite sizable. Commissioner Comstock suggested revisiting the portion of part A and try to make it more conforming. { Chair Wilson questioned the maximum height on a two-story unit. Planner Lampe stated that it is thirty five feet. Chair Wilson directed a comment toward Commissioner Comstock clarifying the percentage of the array. Chair Wilson invited a discussion amongst the Planning Commissioners. Vice Chair Addington stated that the matter has been discussed numerous times. Vice Chair Addington wanted everyone to keep in mind that the antenna had to be usable and by adding more limitations it would not be defensible in court. Commissioner McNaboe was okay with the Ordinance"as is" so long as it didn't pose as a hazard to the neighbor. Commissioner Phelps believed that the ordinance accomplished what was needed. PUBLIC SPEAKER JOANN JOHNSON 12723 Mt.Vernon Avenue Ms. Johnson stated that a majority of her questions had been answered. Ms. Johnson provided a picture of her antenna that was over twenty feet and stated there were differences between a vertical antenna and a yagi. Ms. Johnson requested a compromise in the height of a vertical antenna. Ms. Johnson requested a copy of the proposed Ordinance. Ms. Johnson stated that most amateurs were considerate to their neighbors. 9 WILLIAM KAMINSKY Burns/Vivienda Avenue Mr. Kaminsky reviewed the proposed Ordinance and recommended that no grandfathering be allowed due to interruption of the older HAM models. Mr. Kaminsky also suggested that the allowance of antennas should be at least two lots apart. Chair Wilson directed staff to discuss older model equipment. Director Koontz stated that any resident that installed older equipment would be subject to the proposed Ordinance. Chair Wilson discussed the spacing between lots and didn't believe that Federal Law would support a spacing ordinance. Director Koontz revisited the I" Amendment Right Issues addressed by Planner Lampe of having to choose between two applicants that lived side by side. Chair Wilson suggested that staff ask about spacing prior to the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. JEFF McCONNELL Walnut Avenue Mr. McConnell questioned how a twenty foot antenna would work near a thirty five foot two- story home. Mr. McConnell wondered if a HAM operator lost power would operators have to supply back up power. Chair Wilson stated that it was up to the operator. BOBBY FORBES 11850 Burns Avenue Ms. Forbes requested an update on the Lark Street antenna issue. Chair Wilson stated that it was a Code Enforcement issued. Director Koontz responded that the antenna was removed. Commissioner Comstock could not recall a section in the Ordinance that applied to variances for additional height. Chair Wilson stated that it is just a part of the procedure and you could apply for a variance with any use. If the variance was turned down you can appeal it to the City Council. • Information to Commissioners Director Koontz noted that the first "Screen Check" is available on the General Plan Update and the Notice of Preparation will be released next week. A copy of the General Plan Update will be available at the Planning counter. A scoping session for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will probably be on February 5, 2008. Director Koontz announced Senior Planner, John Lampe's retirement. 10 Director Shields announced his meeting with Southern California Edison in regards to bringing in a line from the Tippecanoe area through Colton up Barton Road, down Mt. Vernon to Main Street. This will address some of the outages that have occurred in the past and will bring improvements to power poles and telephone poles. Director Shields also met with Riverside Public Utilities on the John W. North water plant located on Grand Terrace Road. Construction has been started on the plant and they will receive a brand new forty eight inch water line in March. Director Shields asked that flyers and door hangers be sent out to property owners regarding the inconvenience. • Information from Commissioners No information provided by Commissioners ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 7, 2008 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By 1� SIN" u Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission 11