Loading...
12/15/2005 Community and Economic Development (ALIFORNIA Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION (909) 824-6621 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING December 15, 2005 The regular meetina of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center. 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace. California, on December 15. 2005, at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Douq Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Robert Bidney, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Richard Shields, Public Works Director Michelle Boustedt, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Brian Whitley, Commissioner 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bidney Prior to roll call, Planning Director Koontz announced that Commissioner Whitley had resigned as the Planning Commissioner because he had moved out of the City. • Roll Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Laura Austin 12356 Michigan Street Ms. Austin spoke about the trucking firm known as Swertfeger Trucking on Michigan Street. Ms. Austin feels that the Environmental Impact Report is in error because it states that there would be no environmental impact to the surrounding areas. She feels that the diesel fumes are dangerous to the health of the surrounding neighbors. Ms. Austin also mentioned that Mr. Swertfeger was supposed to landscape the newly fenced areas to screen the view of the company, and has not done so. 1 Bud Howell 11821 Mt. Vernon Avenue Mr. Howell states that he has lived at this address for many years and is very happy with the job that the Planning Commission has done. Mr. Howell is concerned with the areas that have red curbs for no parking and feels that it could pose as a problem in the future. Most of the houses within the area have alleyways with garages. The only parking on the streets are for guests. Should the City decide to have no street parking in front of these homes, the single family residences within the area will be greatly affected Planning Director Koontz replied that the decisions of where the curbs are to be painted red are the concern of the Community Services Department and the City Council. ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 3, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-45-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes of November 4, 2005 Vice Chair Addington wanted to add that prior to voting on the final item, he wanted to note the long pause prior to making his motion. Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-45-2005: Approved 4-0-0-1 Commissioner Bidney Abstained 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-46-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes of November 17, 2005 Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-46-2005: Approved 4-0-0-0 3. SP-05-02, SA-05-19, SA-05-24, TTM-05-03 E-05-21: SP-05-02, SA-05-19, SA-05-24, Vesting Map TTM-05-03, (County No. 17766) and E-05-21 to construct a 35 single unit single family condominium project on 3.7 acres. 2 APPLICANT: The Greystone Group, Inc. and Sequoia Equities LOCATION: 11830 Mt. Vernon Avenue (An approximately 3.7 acre parcel located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon Avenue about 750 southerly of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and - Brentwood Street.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive the staff report and testimony, close the Hearing and approve the Resolution calling for the approval of SA-05-19, SA-05-25 and E-04-21 and recommend to the City Council the approval of the Resolution calling for the approval of Vesting Map TTM-05-03 and the adoption of the Ordinance for SP-05-02. Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his Staff Report. A proposal has been made to construct a 35 unit single family residential condominium project on a 3.7 acre parcel. The subject site is located on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon.. The property is located approximately 750 feet southerly of the intersection of Brentwood Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue. The site is presently occupied by a single family home that was built in 1922. Also on the site is a swimming pool and various accessory buildings that were used for agricultural purposes in the past. The house and the out buildings will be removed if this project is approved. The site contains numerous mature trees and slopes approximately 4 1/2% to the west. The high point of the site is located along Mt. Vernon with a drop of about 25 feet to the westerly end of the property. In addition, there are substantial slopes on the perimeter towards the Highland Apartments which are located to the north of the subject site. The site is enclosed on the westerly, northerly and southerly sides by the Highlands Apartments. The average density of the project is 17 units to the acre. The east side of Mt. Vernon is single family detached housing in the R1 Zone. Mt. Vernon Avenue is an 88 foot wide secondary highway and as shown on the City's Circulation Element. It is presently developed with curbs, gutters and meandering sidewalk on the westerly side in front of the subject site. The subject site is located in the R3 or the Medium Density Residential Zone, and the "MDR" (Medium Density Residential) category of the City's General Plan. The maximum density allowed in the R3 Zone is 12 units per acre, with a bonus which would allow up to 15 units to the acre. The proponents could have come before the Commission this evening for an apartment project, with 12 or more units per acre under the existing R3 Zone. However, a condominium type of project has been proposed with 9 1/2 units to the acre. The site plans illustrates the proposed project consisting of 35 detached single family residential units located throughout the development all the way to the westerly end of the project. It will be serviced by a 26 wide drive in a loop configuration with one entrance off of Mt. Vernon Avenue. The fire department has required that there will be a separate means of access to the property located here for emergency purposes only. 3 The units will be set back about 19 feet from the Mt. Vernon right of way to the residential structures. Also, from the westerly and northerly property lines, the setback will be averaging about nine feet. i The units will be setback ten to thirteen feet from the interior loop drive which provides interior access to the property. The units will be sitting approximately ten to thirteen feet back from the edge of the drive. The distance between units will be eight feet. A zero lot line type of configuration will be provided but the spaces are not lots in the sense of the Subdivision Map Act. Each buyer will be given the air rights to the actual unit itself and also to the small yard surrounding each unit. The lot sizes will range.from about 2,600 to 2,700 square feet or a little over 4,300 square feet in size. The average space size will be a little less than 3,000 square feet per unit. Some of the units that will be fronting off of the interior drive setback about ten feet from the drive, and some of the driveways providing access to each garage measure about fifteen feet in length. Staff feels 'that this could pose a problem should one have a full sized car, the vehicle could probably be backed out or at least block the proposed five foot wide sidewalk which will be located on the outside of the interior loop. To avoid this problem, the Staff is suggesting that the project be modified to some extent that the driveways have at least an eighteen foot minimum depth as measured from the garage to the edge of the loop or the outer edge of the sidewalk. The total onsite parking will consist of a two car garage per unit with 70 parking spaces located within the complex besides the garages. Also shown are two open guest parking areas for guests or visitors with a total of 18 open parking 'spaces. This onsite parking meets more than the minimum requirements for this project. In addition to that, there will be U' additional parking for visitors in front of each garage. There are two common open areas. The larger of the two will be 5,600 square feet and will be located in the westerly center of the project. There is no specific active recreational amenities shown for this area other than a proposed walkway across it. This will also be the location of an underground detention basin which is part of the drainage system of the project. The Staff has suggested that a condition be .added that the developers supply recreational plans to provide more active recreational amenities for the site. The secondary location is at the southeast corner of the subject site which will be developed for additional landscaping for the project. At the present time, there is a five to six foot block along the southerly, westerly, and northerly perimeters of the property separating the site from the Highlands Apartments project. This wall will be removed and replaced by a system of retaining walls and a screening wall which will be six feet in height. Interior fencing between the units will consist of wood fencing approximately five to six feet in height with gates between each unit. Along the Mt. Vernon frontage, the specific plan discusses fencing which will be enhanced with pilasters along Mt. Vernon Avenue. The Staff is asking for a fencing plan to be submitted as part of the approval package for this project. Two floor plans have been proposed for the project. Plan One consists of a first floor kitchen, living room, dining room and powder room. The second floor will have a master bedroom and two additional baths and two additional bedrooms. Plan Two consists of a similar floor plan as Plan One, but slightly bigger in terms of square footage for a total of 4 1,828 square feet. There is also an option to add a fourth bedroom with a total square footage of 1,963 square feet. The design concept of the project is that each floor plan will have three elevations to vary the architectural style within the project. The specific plan talks about a theme of early 20th century California Spanish bungalow style with low pitched roofs and barrel shaped roof tiles to accent the character of the buildings. There will also be wrought iron shutters to compliment the Spanish style. The Applicant did provide colored elevations for the three alternatives schemes for each plan and are displayed for the Commission to review. Also submitted with the packet was a preliminary. landscaping plan. All of the proposed trees will be 24 to 36 inch box trees. Because this is a condominium project under the State Map Act, the Tentative Tract Map has to be filed under the County of San Bernardino, Number 17766. As part of the Conditions of Approval is that a homeowners association shall be created which will have the responsibility of managing and maintaining this development. A conceptual grading plan was also submitted. The average grade from the easterly end of the property and the westerly part of the property will be 5%. Maximum retaining wall height will be about 10 feet along the southerly boundary of the subject site. In addition, there will be about 25,000 cubic yards of earth that will be exported from the site. The Staff is recommending mitigation of the amount of earth that will be exported from what is essentially a residential site and are suggested that an approved export plan be submitted with the City prior to the issuance of the grading permit to provide regulation and the hours of the grading. The storm water drainage system for the project has been reviewed in detail by the City Engineer, and the City Engineer feels that the submitted plans prepared by the applicant's engineer are feasible. The final part of the specific plan discusses that the project will be developed in phases. Staff has added a condition that phasing for the project be subject to some regulation so that there will be an assurance that the project will be completed in a reasonable amount of time. As part of the CEQA review, it is Staffs opinion that the project does qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and that with the recommended conditions of approval, the project will not have an adverse affect on the environment. In making a recommendation, Staff has considered the following items: (1) This is a site that has been zoned for moderate density development for 20 years. (2) The project is consistent with the zoning,under the City's General Plan. (3) The development will be an attractive asset to the City; and (4) the project will provide a transitional use between the apartments west of Mt. Vernon and the single family homes on the east side. - Based on the analysis, Staff is recommending to the City Council the approval of the submitted Specific Plan and the approval of the vesting tentative tract map together with the mitigated Negative Declaration, and that the Commission also approve the submitted site and architectural review applications. 5 Associate Planner Lampe concluded that the Conditions of Approval and the Site and Architectural Review, one of the Conditions, Number 17 states that the setbacks along the northerly, westerly and southerly property lines should be in agreement with what was shown on the site plan with the exception of allowing patio covers to be built on the rear yard setbacks. An exception needs to be added to the effect that the rear setback can be modified to.accommodate the 18 foot driveway length. To increase the driveway length, the rear yards would have to be reduced to accommodate the change. Also, Engineering sent a letter to Staff with regard to Condition 25 of the Tract Map which required that the Applicant submit the proposed storm filter for the project to the Water Quality Control Board for approval. The Applicant's engineer suggested a revised language for Condition Number 25. The City Engineer was contacted and he did not have a problem with the revised language noting the fact that there is language in that revision that states that the storm filter would remain subject to approval of the City Engineer. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his Staff Report. . Vice Chair Addington asked with regard to the revised Condition Number 25, does the City issue precise grading permits. Public Works Director Shields replied that the City does require precise grading permits. Vice Chair Addington wanted more information about the section along the westerly property line. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the Applicant's Engineer has the information with regard to that section of the project and will be presenting it before the Commission. Chair Wilson opened up the Public Hearing. David McMahon -Applicant Greystone Development 341 Bayside #7,.Newport Beach Mr. McMahon introduced himself to the Commission and reported that he has brought his Engineer along with his architect to answer any questions that the Commission may have. John Olivier Fescoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman, Irvine Mr. Olivier greeted the Commission and reported that the Conditions of Approval were reviewed and they are in agreement with the Conditions. With regard to the west wall at the property line, a diagram has been issued to the Commission with regard to the area showing the details of the storm filter drains and the storm drain system. Vice ChairAddington asked Mr. Olivier does the 8 foot by 4 inch high outlet curb have the capacity for the 17 to 18 CFS as proposed. Mr. Olivier replied that the final engineering is working with the City Staff to confirm those calculations with'regard to the outlet curb. 6 Vice Chair Addington asked_ if there is an emergency overland escape route should an emergency occur. Mr. Olivier replied that there is. Chair Wilson wanted information with regard to the filtering agents that will be proposed. Mr. Olivier replied that per the Water Quality Guidelines that a charcoal filter system will be utilized. Chair Wilson asked what type of curb will be proposed for the project. Mr. Olivier replied that it will be a wedge curb. Chair Wilson wanted more information with regard to the proposed sidewalks around the entire project. David McMahon-Applicant Greystone Development 341 Bayside Drive #7, Newport Beach Mr. McMahon felt that it would be a nice addition to have sidewalks throughout the entire project so that children may be able to ride their bicycles on the sidewalks rather than on the streets. Vice Chair Addington asked with the area along Unit 1, where the east wall facing Mt. Vernon Avenue, is this a proposed flat wall or a zero lot line wall. Mr. McMahon replied that the architect could answer the question. Albert Yolo-Architect 2031 Orchard Drive, Newport Beach Mr. Yolo replied that the side of the Unit is the active side where the larger windows and the master bedroom would front that side. Chair Wilson asked with regard to the retention basin, what type of drainage will be used. John Olivier Fescoe Engineering 16795 Von Karman, Irvine Currently, a park element is planned in the area with 60 inch pipes underneath to take the peak flow off of the main storm drain to divert it. Chair Wilson asked if a Maxwell System was considered. i - Mr. Olivier replied that it was not considered but can be checked with the soils engineer. Chair Wilson asked if any discussion has been made with the fire department. 7 Mr. Olivier met with the fire department with regard to the requirement of the secondary access. Public Works Director Shields asked with regard to the sheet that was passed out by the Applicant's Engineer. In the event a 100 year storm presents itself and there would be water going over the block wall, was there any concern of the water going directly into the garages of the Highland Apartments. Is there any thought about putting in a head wall and directing the flows towards the planter area and exits beyond the residences. Mr. Olivier feels that it can be accommodated to increase the angle of the parkway culvert to get the water flowing in the right direction. At this point, there is no objection to including this in the Conditions. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission. Commissioner Bidney asked if there are any amenities proposed for the project. Planning Director Koontz replied that a Condition has been added to include some type of amenity package. Vice Chair Addington asked if on street parking be allowed or permitted within the project. Planning Director Koontz replied that the fire department will not allow on street parking for a street that is at 26 feet._ ��t��►�N S-%M 3 MOTION PC-47-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to add three c nditions to the project. The first Condition was to add Item 3 to add the ! following Condition to SA-05-19 and SA-05-24 as presented by Associate Planner Lampe. The second Condition is to add the revised wording for Condition 25 as presented by the Applicant. The third Condition is to require architectural features along Unit Number 1 at the easterly portion of the property as seen from the street. Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-47-2005: Approved 4-0-0-0 MOTION PC-48-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve SP-05-02, SA- 05-19, SA-05-24, TTM-05-03 and E-05-21 with the additional conditions that were approved. Commissioner Comstock seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-48-2005: Approved 4-0-0-0 8 4. SA-05-23, E-05-24 To construct one-story additions totaling 1,391 square feet to the front and back of an existing residence containing 1,767 square feet and to remodel the appearance of the existing house. APPLICANT: Roberto Fernandez LOCATION: 23171 Vista Grande Way (Site is located on the northwesterly side of the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Vista Grande Way.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing and approve SA-05-23 to construct one-story additions and remodel and existing residence and approve E-05-24 as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption in that this project qualifies to be in a class of projects which is exempt from CEQA review. Associate Planner Lampe presented his Staff Report. The applicant has provided this application along with a detailed letter of intent describing the reconstruction of the existing house on the northwesterly corner of Grande Vista Way and Grand Terrace Road. Improvements will include increasing the living area of the house from 767 square feet to 3,158 square feet by adding a 1,391 square foot addition to both the front and back of the house that will include a master bedroom, study, media room and a laundry room. In addition, the exterior elevation of the house will be re-designed and will also be a new courtyard, and a covered entry way added to the front of the house and a covered patio to the back of the house. Additional reconstruction will include new roof, windows, plumbing, �- electric and HVAC. The subject site was part of the Parcel Map 16945 which was before the Commission earlier this year. The Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the tentative parcel map to divide the three acre parcel into four parcels. The Applicant had purchased the property after the tentative map was approved by the City Council. The applicant will be coming back before the City sometime to have the final parcel map approved which means that he will meet the various conditions of approval, including those conditions for street dedication and improvement. The subject site is located at the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Vista Grande Way. Parcel Number Four includes the existing house, contains 47,000 square feet. The surrounding area is developed to large lot custom built type of homes. Both Grand Terrace Road and Vista Grande Way are local streets that are shown on the Circulation Element and have an existing right of way of 40 feet. Both have planned a 60 foot ultimate width, therefore, additional street widening will be part of the final map approval process. The site is located in the R1-20 Zone or the Low Density Residential category of the City's General Plan. The project is both consistent with the City's Zoning and General Plan. The properties to the immediate north are also zone R1-20. Properties to the immediate south and east are in the R1-10 category. The City's Zoning Code under 18.62.020 does require a Site and Architectural Review such as the one proposed, whereas the applicant is proposing to add more than 65%' of the 9 living area of the house. This project allows for 79% increase of the living area of the house. The property currently has a driveway coming off of Vista Grande Way and will remain in the existing configuration. The residence does have a turnabout area where the resident would be able to turn around and out and will not have to back out into the street. The front of the house will contain the media room, large study, court yard and the new entry to the house. The new laundry room and master bedroom will be located in the rear of the house. The additional living area will amount to a little less than 1,400 square feet. The front courtyard is proposed to be about 300 square feet of additional court yard area with a 190 square foot entrance area to the residence. The patios in the rear of the residence will amount of 982 square feet. Given the topographic features of this property, a grading plan will not be required. In addition, the .applicant's representative wishes to keep as much of the existing landscaping as much as possible. There are many mature trees on the property, and the landscaping in the front of the residence will be refurbished. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report and asked that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the project remodel and expansion as called for by the Resolution of Approval as presented. Chair Wilson invited the Applicant to speak before the Commission Tony Diaz t 100 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland Mr. Diaz reported that Mr. Fernandez and his family had purchased the property for the intent to live near his children. Mr. Diaz was happy to answer any questions. Vice Chair Addington asked why a remodel was chosen versus a demolition and re build of a new residence. Mr. Diaz replied that the company that is doing the remodel is a close friend of the applicant and are actually doing the remodel as a favor. Mr. Diaz reported that because of the cost, it would be cheaper to remodel the home rather than demolish it. Vice Chair Addington asked if the application propose to change any of the Conditions from the original Parcel Map. Planning Director Koontz replied that there were no proposed changes. MOTION PC-49-2005: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve SA-05-23 E-05-24. Chair Wilson Seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-49-2005: 4-0-0-0 10 ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8:23 am CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Planning Director Koontz reported that the Lark Street antenna that was denied by the Planning Commission has been appealed to the City Council, and will be heard on January the 8th. The Colton Unified School District had formally certified the EIR for the proposed new high school for Grand Terrace. • Information from Commissioners Vice Chair Addington asked what was the status of the Nextel tower that was approved over the summer. Public Works Director Shields replied that a new foundation system was submitted a short time ago, which slowed the process down. Plan review has been done and the project is moving forward. Commissioner Comstock asked the status of the Town Square Project since he had noticed a couple of residences demolished. Planning Director Koontz replied that at the request of the Sheriffs Department, the buildings were to be demolished due to juveniles trespassing into the homes. Commissioner Bidney asked with regard to the Sav On project, will the loading area be located on the side of the building or to the rear. Public Works.Director Shields replied that there will be no driveway to the north from Arliss, but there will be a driveway on the side of the building. Chair Wilson expressed his disappointment in the media coverage with regard to the Senior Condo project. Chair Wilson wanted to share his disagreement and wanted to state that the Staff and City Council were more than cooperative and the comments made by two homeowners in an interview were uncalled for. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:30 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 19. 2006 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By; Gary Koontz, Planning Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission 11