Loading...
01/20/2005 Community and Economic Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION ' MINTUES OF REGULAR MEETING CALIFORNIA January 20, 2005 The reqular meetinq of the Grand Terrace Planninq Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on January 20, 2005, at 7:02 p.m., by Chairperson Douq Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Brian Whitley, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner John Lampe, Associate Planner Jeff Gollihar, Planning Technician Michelle Boustedt, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Gary Koontz, Community Development Director 7:02 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Addington • Roll Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE ITEMS: 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2004 MOTION PC-01-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes of November 18, 2004 Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-01-2005: Approved 3-0-1-1 Commissioner Bidney Absent Commissioner Whitley Abstained 2. TPM-04-03/E-04-07 Continuation of TPM-04-03/E-04-07 Applications for a Tentative Parcel Map and Environmental Review to subdivide Assessor's Parcel Number 276-421-06 into three (3) parcels. The site is Zoned R1-20 (Single Family Residential Minimum 20.000 sauare feet) with an (AG) Aaricultural Overlay. 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, Califdrnia 92313-5295 9 909/ 824=Q621'_<- .._ APPLICANT: A & A Surveying & Mapping —* LOCATION: 22959 Grand Terrace Road, APN: 276-421-06, a 2.65 acre lot i at the southwest corner of the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Vista Grande Road in Grand Terrace. RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing, and approve TPM-04-03/E-04-07 with Conditions. Planning Technician Gollihar greeted the Commission and presented his Staff 'Report. At the meeting dated November 18, 2004, the Staff had presented the proposed parcel map. It was the Commission's decision to continue the item due to concerns of what was proposed. It was the Commission's request to resubmit the proposed parcel map showing three parcels rather than four that were originally presented. Physical access had to be illustrated for future appearances for grading of the property. Post construction best management practices for the project also had to be submitted. The required items were discussed with the Applicant where it was agreed to present the item with the requirements from the Commission. It was also explained to the Applicant that with regard to the street improvements it will not be required of the Applicant until the time of Final Map has been recorded. Planning Technician Gollihar.concluded that the revised application for TPM-04-03 and E-- 04-07 is in compliance with the Municipal Code and meets all the findings in the Zoning Code regarding the proposed tract map. l - Chair Wilson opened the Public Hearing and asked the Applicant to speak. Cynthia Neebreth - Daughter of Applicant Ms. Neebreth greeted the Commission and expressed the concern of the requirements of the street improvements. At this point, she feels that this could be done at a later time rather than when the tract map is recorded. Chair Wilson replied that it can be bonded for improvement or a letter from the Applicant's Engineer for the cost. Once the map is recorded, the construction of street improvements can then commence. Ms. Neebreth replied that if one never builds on the property, will they still be required to make the street improvements. Planning Technician Gollihar replied that it was explained to the Applicant that at any time a subdivision of a parcel map is done, the street improvements are required and can be handled by a bond. Corazon Cacho - Property Owner '- Mrs. Cacho expressed her concern with regard to the street improvements. She feels that it is overwhelming. She also has a concern with. the dedication of 10 feet for road improvements. 2 Chair Wilson replied that the 10 feet dedication is a separate subject from the Bond issue. It is a subdivision code that requires that when one were to subdivide a property, one would put up a bond for improvements or a Certificate of Deposit-to guarantee the work, or the work can be put in and then keep the property. A condition of the recordation of a map is to guarantee that the improvements will be put in by the property owner. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the conditions that have been set forth is coming from the City's Public Works Department, in which they have made a requirement for the applicant to install such street improvements. Because this matter is going forth to the City Council, it may be beneficial to have further conversations with the Applicant and for the City Council to decide what they would like to do with this matter. Barney Karger 11668 Bernardo Way Mr. Karger has no objection to the subdivision of the parcel but was wondering the street will be widened further down by the elementary school. At this time, there is no room for cars to park on both sides of the street and for through traffic. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing. Vice Chair Addington remarked that he was happy with the proposed application, and feels that all of the concerns were addressed. --' MOTION PC-02-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a Motion to Approve TPM-04-03 and E-04-07. Chair Wilson seconded the motion. Commissioner Bidney wanted clarification with regard to the improvement bonds. Are the bonds from a year to year basis. Chair Wilson replied that the bonds are on an annual basis. If one is found in default, the bonding company has a right to pursue the applicant, and can notify the City. Commissioner Bidney asked should the bond company notify the City that the premium has not been paid, what happens. Chair Wilson replied that the map will be recorded but the bond holder will be in default and legal action can follow. Commissioner Whitley asked with regard to the preliminary grading as illustrated on the map, when will there be a need for an easement to be recorded to reflect the drainage issue? Shouldn't this be an issue that could incorporated with the Conditions of Approval Associate Planner Lampe advised the Commission that what is being presented is a _ preliminary grading plan. Before a building permit is issued, a final grading plan has to be submitted. At that time any necessary easements on the property might be conditioned in 3 the final grading plan. At this time, the preliminary grading plan is presented to discuss how the property could theoretically be graded to reflect the proposed subdivision. Planning Technician Gollihar added that Condition Numbers 17 and 18 point out such r conditions. MOTION VOTE PC-02-2005: Approved 5-0-0-0 3. SP-04-02, SA-04-02 SA-04-03, SA-04-04 SA-04-05, SA-04-06 TTM-04-01, E-04-01: Continuance of application for construction of a total of 16 lots, 15 to be developed with single family detached type units on individual lots ranging in size from 4,460 square feet to 5,914 square feet. The 16th lot of 12,007 square feet to be developed into a 4-plex type apartment building. APPLICANT: Massaro & Welsh, Civil Engineers-Land Surveyors on behalf of Barney Karger LOCATION: Approximately 2 acre vacant area located generally on the north side of De Berry Street between Gage Canal right-of-way on the west and Mt. Vernon Avenue on the east. RECOMMENDATION: Re-open the Public Hearing and receive the Staff Report and any public testimony. The Staff is making no recommendation for this proposal at this time; however, the Planning Commission may wish to consider two possible actions consisting of: 1. Continue these items either with or without a "date certain" until the Applicant has submitted the requested additional information and Staff had enough time to review it. 2. Continue these items, to a "date certain" for denial in order to give Staff additional time to prepare the necessary Resolution of Denial including supporting findings of denial. Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his Staff Report. The subject site consists of a two acre linear piece of property on the north side of De Berry Street between Mt. Vernon Avenue and the Gage Canal right-of-way on the west. This is a Continued Public Hearing that was held in August of 2004, by the Planning Commission. The original request was to construct 15 detached single family homes, with a four unit apartment building on the east end of the property. Along with the request was a tentative map to divide the property into sixteen lots, one which would consist of the proposed apartment building. 4 At the Public Hearing in August, Staff pointed out that the Applicant had not submitted certain items that were not included in the March 4th of last year incomplete letter. A copy of the letter has been attached to the Staff report. Because the required items were not provided, it was Staffs decision that a full analysis of the project could not be performed with the inclusion of the environmental studies as required by CEQA. In addition, the Planning Commission was informed that the Applicant did not modify the project or proposal after meeting with the Planning Staff or the City Manager. At the conclusion of the August 19 meeting, there was a unanimous motion on the part of the Planning Commission to take the matter off calendar until certain items have been submitted to Staff. It was the request of the Planning Commission that a Specific Plan document be submitted along with all necessary information and studies so that the environmental documentation for this project could be completed. On November 15, 2004 a brief report was given to the Planning Commission from Staff with regard to the project. At the time of that meeting, nothing had been submitted and no contact .was made between the Applicant and the Planning Department. It was the Commission's request that the matter be brought back before the Commission at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Following notification of tonight's meeting, a promise was made to the people who had attended the original August meeting be re-noticed for the Public Hearing. That notice was also sent to the Applicant from which the Planning Department had then received a telephone call from Mr. Welsh indicated that his client, Mr. Karger had signed an Addendum Agreement with Mr. Welsh's firm to address all of the issues that had come up at the August 19th meeting. Mr. Welsh had written a letter to the Planning Department indicating that he is making every effort to prepare the additional required studies. Mr. Welsh has also requested that the item be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 17, 2005, to allow enough time to submit all of the items as requested by the Planning Commission. At this time, the Staff is not making any recommendations including whether to continue the matter with or without a date certain. Without a date certain, it would allow Staff sufficient time to review prepare an analysis of the required documents. The second option is to continue the matter to a date certain. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report. Chair Wilson opened up the Public Hearing. Paul Welsh - Engineer 1572 North Waterman Avenue #5 San Bernardino Mr. Welsh reported that his firm is currently in the process of preparing all of the required studies for the project. At this time the acoustical study has been completed, and the landscape architect is currently working on a preliminary plan. Mr. Welsh reported that he 5 I would feel more comfortable if the meeting can be continued to March 17, 2005, rather than February. Associate Planner Lampe replied that none of the documents have been seen by the Planning Staff as yet. When the required reports are completed and submitted, they will have to be circulated to be reviewed by outside reviewing agencies. Catherine Olson 22471 De Soto Street Ms. Olson is still -in disagreement about the proposed apartment complex. Ms. Olson brought photos of the current condition of the property that Mr. Karger currently owns. Ms. Olson wanted to know who's responsibility it was to maintain the alley way. If the homeowner's are being fined for not weeding the area, why is it that Mr. Karger is not being fined for such violations. Associate Planner Lampe replied that it is an issue for the Code Enforcement Department, and will refer the concern of Ms. Olson to the Code Enforcement Department. Barney Karger 11668 Bernardo Way Mr. Karger reported that he had notified the City with regard to Ms. Olson's concrete block wall is four inches into the easement of the alleyway. There is a forty foot easement that was recorded around 25 years ago. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing. MOTION PC-03-05: Vice Chair Addington moved to continue the Public Hearing to a date uncertain. Chair Wilson seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-03-2005: 5-0-0-0 4. TPM-04-06/E-04-11 Tentative Parcel Map No. 04-06 (County No. 16945 and Environmental Case No. 04-11 to divide an existing parcel into four (4) separate lots, ranging in size from 24,000 square feet to 47,000 square feet. APPLICANT: William H. Addington on behalf of the owner, Nancy Franich LOCATION: 23173 Vista Grande Way (irregularly shaped, 3.2 acre parcel located on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Vista Grande Way). RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive the staff report, presentation and public testimony, close the hearing and approval of the Resolution calling for.the approval of TPM-04-06 by the City Council supported by the required findings and subject to the recommended conditions of approval. 6 Associate Planner Lampe thanked the Commission and presented his staff report. The aforementioned property is located on the northerly side of the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Vista Grande Way. To the immediate South of the property is the previously presented parcel map. There are a few undeveloped parcels within the immediate area. The Applicant is making the proposal on behalf of the property owner that has requested to divide the parcel into four parcels. Parcel 1 will consist of 30,000 square feet. Parcel 2 will also be 30,000 square feet, Parcel 3 will consist of 24,000 and lastly Parcel 4 will consist of 47,000 square feet. The latter parcel has an existing vacant house in it. The topography of the site consists of a low rise pad where the house is constructed. The elevations drop off to the north and to the west. The westerly portion of the site is crossed by a.1100 foot wide easement of the California Aqueduct. The State Department of Water Resources was contacted with regard to the easement area. One of their engineers informed staff that no permanent structures would be allowed within the area. The easement area could be fenced off with chain link or wood. It is the State's requirement that access be provided to the aqueduct should there ever be a need for access. A permit to do any type of grading or improvements will need to be obtained by the State prior to the beginning of any work in the area. The site is located in the R1-20 which is low density single family residential which has a 20,000 square foot minimum parcel size. The site is also located in the LDR or Low Density Residential of the City's General Plan. The request that is before the Commission is consistent with the General Plan and the City's Zoning Code. Three of the parcels will front Vista Grande Drive. There is a 10-foot dedication requirement along Vista Grande to widen out the street. There will also be a 10-foot dedication required for Grand Terrace Road. This recommendation comes from the Building Department of the City. The Applicant has not submitted any plans for construction of new homes on the parcel. However, if and when the Applicant decide to construct homes on the parcel, a Site and Architectural Review would be required before the Planning Commission for each home. The Public Works Department is seeking improvements to the street frontages consisting of curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lights. The Applicant has no objection to providing the street improvements, but feels that they should not be installed before the recordation of the map, but when the entire street is improved. The Applicant was asked to provide a preliminary grading plan showing pads for the three vacant parcels consisting of drainage and manufactured slopes. At least one possible and most likely scenario for grading the property has been presented. It has also been verified that per the State Water Quality Control Board that this parcel would have to go through an NPDES Review. The Applicant has responded to such a request to provide bio filters on each of the four parcels to satisfy the NPDES requirements. There is a proposed parcel line in the center of the aqueduct between Parcels 3 and 4. There has been some conversation on what would happen should the Water Resources Department required to work on the aqueduct, and should a fence become damaged, it 7 would be the property owner's responsibility to mend the fence. It was also suggested that the fencing be placed at the edge of the easement and not at the center of the easement. The Environmental Review was performed in which this project does qualify for a Class 15 Category Exemption. Associate Planner Lampe concluded that it is Staffs opinion that the proposed request is reasonable and is both consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. The Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the Resolution of Approval with the addition of the condition relative to any modification.or grading in the easement of the aqueduct. Chair Wilson opened the Public Hearing Bill Addington 12055 Westwood Lane Mr. Addington greeted the Commission and reported that he is representing the property owner who currently lives in Los Altos, California. Mr. Addington is satisfied with the Staffs presentation and report, and is happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Vice Chair Addington wanted to state for the record that Mr. Addington and he are related to each other. Commissioner Whitley asked what type of fencing is located at present at the aqueduct. INAUDIBLE Chair Wilson wanted to know what the depth of the pipe was at the aqueduct. Mr. Addington replied that there is six foot of cover. It is not the applicant's wish to build anything on it in the future. Commissioner Whitley asked whether the Municipal Code requires any fencing located around the easement is required. Mr. Addington replied that the existing vacant house is an older home and it's the Applicant's wish to sell the home. Horse ranches are no longer desirable in Grand Terrace, and feel that it would be beneficial for the lot to be split to build three more custom type of homes. Associate Planner Lampe added that when homes will be proposed to be built on the parcel, a Site and Architectural Review will probably include the issue of the easement and will be addressed then as well. Vice Chair Addington asked the Commissioners that between Parcels 3 and 4 with regard to fence installation. Did any of the Commissioners have a concern with the fence being built in the middle of the easement rather than the edge of the easement? 8 Chair Wilson feels that the Site and Architectural process will allow the Commission to review the issue of whether the fencing should be put in the middle or on the edge of easement. Commissioner Comstock added that each of these lots can have conditions placed upon each applicant should' the aqueduct fence needed to be demolished and reinstalled at the cost of the property owner. Vice Chair Addington asked with regard to Parcels three and four and future fence lines. Would the Applicant have any objections to shifting the common lot line to the east right-of- way of the aqueduct? Mr. Addington replied that if that were to be done, the burden of maintenance of Parcel three would become large. Although the aqueduct is at the center line of the easement, the pipe is actually located to the west of the line. There would be no interference with the pipe and the property line. Mr. Addington feels comfortable with the Associate Planner's Condition with regard to obtaining a permit from the Department of Water Resources. Darryl Carlson 23142 Vista Grande Way Mr. Carlson wanted to know what size of a residence would be allowed to be built on the parcel. He feels that if too big of a home is built, he will not be able to maintain the views he currently has. Associate Planner Lampe replied that when a home' is proposed to be built, a Public Hearing will be made and all of the surrounding neighbors will be noticed and encouraged to attend. Mr. Addington asked staff to put up a photograph onto the projection- unit and wanted to make additional comments. INAUDIBLE MOTION: PC-04-2005: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve TPM-04-06 and E-04-11 with the Conditions MOTION VOTE PC-04-2005 Approved 5-0-0-0 ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION, MEETING 8:40 Pm CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION, • Information to Commissioners None 9 l • Information from Commissioners None ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:40 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 17. 2006 Respectfully Submitted, Approved y, Gary Kdontz, Planing Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission r 10