Loading...
09/21/2006 Community and Economic Development Department (ALH ORNIA GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING September 21,2006 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to, order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace,, California.on September 21.2006 at 7:00 p.m.,by Chair Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Tom Comstock, Commissioner Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner Brian Phelps, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Richard Shields, Director of Building and Safety Richard Garcia,Assistant Planner Jerina Cordova, Planning Secretary 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Comstock • 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: None 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • 9D9/ 824-6621 ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval MOTION PC-24-2006: Commissioner Mc Naboe made a motion to approve the minutes of July 20, 2006. Chair Wilson seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-24-2006: Approved 4-0-0-1 Vice Chair Addington Abstained 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 17,2006. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval Vice Chair Addington: I'd like to offer a couple of corrections. Chair Wilson: Commissioner Vice Chairman Addington please Vice Chair Addington: On page five (5) second paragraph from the bottom the acronym is not A.S.T.R.O. it is A.A.S.H.T.O. That occurs three times on page six (6) on page nine (9), seven paragraphs (7) down on Director Shields, "Ballads" should be `Bollards". Chair Wilson: That is B O L L A R D S. Correct. Vice Chair Addington: Yes. Thank you very much. Then on page Fifteen (15), Seven (7)paragraphs down on under Vice Chair Addington, "Building Code" should be"Business and Professions Code". Those are the corrections for me. Chair Wilson: Do we have the corrections? Director Koontz: Yes. Chair Wilson: Motion and second concur? Vice Chair Addington: Yes. 2 Commissioner Mc Naboe: Yes. MOTION PC-25-2006: Commissioner Phelps made a motion to approve the minutes of August 17, 2006. Commissioner Mc Naboe Seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-25-2006: Approved 5-0-0-0 3. CUP-06-05,E-06-09 Conditional Use Permit No. 06-05 (CUP-06-05) and Environmental Review No. 06-09 (E-06-09) to construct a "drive-thru" for the existing Demetri's Restaurant APPLICANT: Demetri's Restaurant LOCATION: 21900 Barton Road (1.95 acre parcel located on the north side of Barton Road just west of La Crosse Ave.) RECOMMENDATION: Receive staff s presentation, re-open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing and approve CUP 06-05 and E-06-09. Chair Wilson: Do we have a Staff Report? Planner Lampe: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. This matter was continued from the last meeting in August, continued for Thirty (30) days in order to give the Applicant the opportunity to re-draw the proposed "Site Plan" for the "drive-thru" of Demetri's Restaurant. The motion that was made at that August meeting, was that the site plan needed to be revised to show several things. One, to show the width of the exit at the exit of the "drive-thru" of 11 ft. (which has been done); Secondly, to widen out the last curb at the Northeast corner of the Building of the Restaurant(that has been done); also, to show how the Clean Water issues are going to be dealt with the "drive-thru". There is a Notation here that the Kristar catch basin is going to be installed to accomplish that goal of cleaning the drainage water before it exits the Site; lastly, it was requested that the Plan be signed and stamped by a registered engineer. The large scale plans that were given to the Commission, shows that it had been done. Following that motion as part of the general discussion on this proposal, it was brought up that there may be a potential for additional traffic impacts on Barton Road, especially, at the intersection of La Crosse and Barton Road; also the traffic flow in front of the drive-way entrance at Barton Road. The applicant contacted a couple of Traffic Engineers to provide an analysis. They got two (2) estimates of something like Seven Thousand Dollars ($7,000.00). The Applicant looked at this and came up with an alternative that may eliminate the potential of Traffic problems on Barton Road by re- striping the parking in front of the restaurant from the 90' parking, that you all were familiar with, to at 60' angled parking. This will ensure that a traffic flow will be going 3 to the North, around the exit, and exiting out the Westerly drive-way and not going out at _ this drive way and creating additional traffic congestion at that point because of the way the angled parking is laid out. Also (the last point), one of the Commissioners wanted to see a Preliminary Directional Traffic Flow Plan. It does show this on a site plan. The arrows indicated are supposed to be painted on the pavement. Various signs have been shown indicating how the traffic flow will be regulated to ensure that the traffic will flow smoothly through the site ("drive-thru") around the "drive-thru" going out to the westerly part of the property, exiting out of the westerly drive way to Barton Road. Staff is recommending (again) that this request be approved based on the Findings and Resolution of Approval (Attachment 16) of the staff report that was given to the Commission, together with the recommended conditions.of approval. Chair Wilson: Does The Planning Commission have any comments or questions for the Staff before we open up The Public Hearing Commissioner Phelps: I do. I really like the 60' angled parking on the one way entrance there. If any projects come up in the future, with one way entrances, we should try to make it work in that direction. I think that is a great way Chair Wilson: Any other questions? If not then we will open the public hearing on this particular item. Any one who would like to speak on this item, we invite the Applicant or the Engineer to address the Commission if he chooses as well as the remainder of the public to speak. Chair Wilson : We will close the public hearing and bring it back to Commission for motion and discussion. Commissioner Addington: I would to thank the Applicant for addressing our various issues from the last months meeting. I understand his issues on the Traffic Analysis. If there isn't any discussion I would like to make a motion of approval for CUP-06-05, E- 06-09. Commissioner Comstock: Seconded MOTION PC-26-2006: Commissioner Addington made a motion to approve CUP-06-05, E-06-09. Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion Chair Wilson: There is a motion to approve and a seconded. Is there any discussion? MOTION VOTE PC-26-2006: Approved 3-2-0-0 4 4. CUP-06-06, SA 06-16 CUP-06-06, SA 06-16, V-06-03 and E-06-13 to V-06-03,E-06-13 construct a two- story commercial/industrial Building containing offices, warehousing and wholesale activities. APPLICANT: Howard Parsell Company on behalf of Essco Electric LOCATION: An approximately 2.4 acre parcel located on the southerly side of Commerce Way beginning about 240 feet westerly of Michigan Street RECOMMENDATION: Receive staff s presentation, open the public hearing, receive public testimony, close the public hearing and approve CUP-06-06, SA-06-16, V-06- 03 and E-06-13 Chair Wilson: Do we have a Staff Report Planner Lampe: Thank you Chairman and members of the Commission. This project was last before the Commission in April of this year. I'm sure you are aware of the details of the proposal. I will try to keep the staff s presentation short and to the point. After your action and approving it in April this year, it was appealed to the City Council, which on May 11`h sustained the Planning Commission's Approval. A lawsuit was then filed alleging that the project was inconsistent with the provisions of the Outdoor Adventures Specific Plan (OAC) and the environmental assessment was inadequate. In July of this year the Superior Court overturned the City's approval of the OAC and the zoning reverted back to the prior commercial manufacturing zoning for the subject site. The project is located on the south side of Commerce Way in this location. It is roughly a 2.4 acre parcel located about 250 feet Westerly of Michigan Avenue. The site, as you can see, is irregular in shape, it is tear shape parcel, with the axis in east-west dimension about 700 ft. at the maximum north-south dimension of about 200 feet. The size and shape of the parcel is important to take make note of because it is a justification for the variances that are requested this evening. The surrounding areas are developed with similar uses. That is Commercial Manufacturing uses, such as the wholesale plumbing business to the North-West and also Superior Pool. This is the existing ESSCO site. The reason for the application is that they are moving from the current location to across the street to the new facility. Commerce Way provides vehicular access to the site. The department of Public Works is asking for Four (4) feet of additional right of way street widening. However, I have been told that the existing curb line will not be changed, just the right of way. Additional properties to the East there is a Mobile Home Park in this location the Barton Road Specific Plan. Properties to the East and the South and the one to the immediate South 5 are in CM (Commercial Manufacturing) Zoning small business park with the building - sitting right on a portion of the property line of the subject property of tonight's hearing. The Site Plan that was submitted is the same site plan that was earlier received by the Commission. It is roughly a Twenty Eight Thousand square feet (28,000 sq. ft.) building located in the eastward part of the site with roughly a one (1) acre parcel in the western part of the property (Overhead). The front part of the building will have Three Thousand square feet (3,000 sq. ft.) office on the first floor together with a Two Thousand square foot (2,000.00 sq. ft.) "will-call" area for customers and clients to pick up merchandise. There will be a second story over the office with additional Three Thousand square feet (3,000 sq. ft.) making a portion of the building a two-story structure. The yard area will include Four (4) docks and a ramp for the forklift (In the prior plan forklift ramp was down here and there has been a slight change). The parking will be on the north side of the building and the east side will have additional parking of about Fifteen (15) cars for employees on the southwestern portion of the site. The yard only will be enclosed by an Eight foot (8ft.) high, decorative, screening wall in this location (overhead). The elevations of the screen wall were shown on the "Elevations" drawings for the project. The colored elevations are on the wall behind you. This will show what the building and fencing will look like. We are having to review and analyze this project in terms of the prior zoning. It has gotten back to the CM (Commercial Manufacturing) zoning because of the action on the OAC. That particular zone has a Fifteen foot (15 ft.) front yard set back along Commerce Way. What that means is that the set-back would have to be measured from the ultimate right of way. The effect of having a set-back going back Nineteen feet (19 ft.). Within that front set back area they are proposing to put the Eight foot (8 ft.) screening wall and also some of the parking for the "will-call" in front of the building. The Zoning Code requires that the front yard set back to be landscaped, with the exception of driveways and walkways. The variances will allow the parking to Encroach into the set-back together with the Eight foot(8 ft.) screening wall. We feel that there is justification for granting the variance because of the size and shape of the property, which warrants and the findings to sustain the variance. Secondly, that the proposed decorative nature of the screening wall and the proposed landscaping will go towards mitigating any adverse effects of modifying that standard. Planner Lampe: OVER HEADS The floor plan shows the existing Twenty Thousand square foot (20,000 sq. ft.) warehousing operation, the various shelving and the units that are used as a part of the storage of the electrical merchandise that they sell in wholesale/retail. This is a small shipping office and this is the first floor. This is the larger scale floor plan of both the first and second floor. A typical office layout that has offices, storage space,break rooms, restrooms and conference rooms, etc. This is a large scale drawing of the will call area it will be on the first floor with approximately Two Thousand square feet (2,000 sq. ft.). 6 This is the elevation showing the North, West, East and South elevations of the building this is the same building that was seen by the Commission in April. They proposed Trim around the windows and around the doors to add a rustic or craftsmen element to the architectural style of the building. Again you will probably get a better feel of what that building is going to look like by looking at the colored elevations on the board behind you. Also on the board behind the Commission is a colored version of the landscaping plan showing the amount of landscaping on the side, showing something like Ten Thousand square feet (10,000 sq. ft.) on the site for the landscaping. They will be required to submit a final landscaping plan and have it reviewed and approved by staff prior to the issuance of building permits. It is interesting to note that they are proposing Twenty- Four inch boxed trees and they will be providing more than sufficient landscaping areas within the parking areas. This is the grading plan that will show the drainage will go to the westerly part of the site. There is a biofilter there that shows how they will address the clean water issues on the site. It is interesting that there is the detail in the biofilter that shows of how that is going to work. Also on this shot of the grading plan is a detail of the proposed lighting from the exterior lighting on the site for the Commission's review. We have also a colored materials board that we would be glad to hand out to the Commissioners for your review. This project, we feel, does qualify for a Negative Declaration. That does qualify under the conditions of CEQA, as the project will not have an adverse effect on the environment. Therefore the staff is again recommending that this project be approved based on the findings and fact and recommended conditions that are set out in Attachment 16 in the staff report. That concludes my presentation. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Chair Wilson: Does the Commission have any questions or comments for the staff? Commissioner McNaboe: I have a question. Are there any significant differences to the design and the layout of this building since the last time we saw it? Planner Lampe: No. The only difference that I was able to spot was the moving of the forklift ramp which I pointed out to you. Everything else is the same. Commissioner McNaboe: That was my question. Commissioner Phelps: I have one. Is there any design that we will be sticky with for the future OAC, as far as the light standards go that we could match, or we should be thinking about matching? Director Koontz: At this point, since there is not officially an OAC, we really shouldn't be trying to address that. Commissioner Phelps: Okay. Director Koontz: This project is a stand alone project. 7 Chair Wilson: John, can you re-visit the purpose of the special circumstance that we have, that brings the subject of a variance before us? Planner Lampe: The size and shape of the property is a tear-shaped parcel and it makes it somewhat difficult to develop of the property and conform to the standards of the CM zone. We feel there is justification to modify those standards. It will be very difficult to have the full set-back which would be measured Nineteen (19) feet back from the existing right of way area. Remember the Public Works department is asking for an additional Four feet (4ft.) of right of way. Then from that point you measure Fifteen feet (15ft.) for the front yard set-back of the CM. We feel that the design proposals, the landscaping, the decorative nature of the screening wall around the exterior of the frontage of the yard, will mitigate the fact that set back is being modified. Chair Wilson: What is your Topo, from your Southeast corner down to the Southwest corner?What is the elevation difference? Planner Lampe: Just by looking at it, I think it is like, well maybe the applicant can provide additional information. Physically it looks maybe to be about Three (3) or Four (4)feet. Chair Wilson: Okay that is fine. We will then open the Public Hearing and receive testimony. We will invite the applicant to address the Planning Commission if he chooses. Chair Wilson: Please state your name and address for the record. Howard Parsell, Applicant: My name is Howard Parsell. Yorba Linda, California. My company is the architect and engineer for the project. We have been through the conditions of approval and we agree with them. I can answer any question you may have. Vice Chair Addington: I have a question. In the trim around the windows, I notice that you have the trim on the upper windows, but not the lower windows. What is the design "concept"? Howard Parsell, Applicant: I'm not sure what you mean about a "concept". Our thinking was that the landscaping would probably screen the lower windows. The upper windows will obviously be very visible to the street and the surrounding properties. So it is important to highlight those. Director Koontz: We.had this discussion with Howard a couple of times. It is in our opinion, from the street, as you are driving by, you got an Eight (8) foot high wall and landscaping and you are going to see about that much of the lower windows. We were worried more about the visual impact of looking up. Vice Chair Addington: Okay, looking at the picture presented to us it is a different view. 8 Howard Parsell, Applicant: Right it is a straight on view, which you probably know is not too realistic. I don't have a problem, if you think it would embellish the building to put the trim on the bottom windows. I like the trim. I think it is good detail. I certainly don't want that to come in between an Aye or a Nay. To answer your question regarding a topo, I think it is about a Six (6)foot fall in along the Southerly property line. Chair Wilson: So we are about Six (feet) and how many feet? Howard Parsell, Applicant: I have forgotten. Gary? It is at least Six Hundred not more. Chair Wilson: That is what I thought Six (6) feet. Howard Parsell, Applicant: About One percent(1%) which is not bad. Chair Wilson: That is about right. Any other questions? Commissioner Phelps: I do. Can we continue some trim at the very top of that wall, similar to the color and shape of the trim around the windows, to disguise the very top of that wall? When I see a wall like that, it screams tip-up at the very top. If we could have some kind of design, architecturally, like that square Styrofoam, that is glued to the top of the wall, and then paint it like the trim, anything of that nature. Howard Parsell, Applicant: We looked at that. We looked at the Cornice approach, like you are talking about, as well as the square. It almost looked too much. The owner commented that he'd rather not. Commissioner Phelps: Okay. The second issue is on the landscaping. It's not really seen in the diagrams that were given, but at the very end of the front parking lot, is going to be backing up to the back of the building to the next behind it. If we could get Attachment 2. Howard Parsell, Applicant: The Southeast corner? Commissioner Phelps: It looks like that building is going to be backing up to the parking. Is there any way that we could add additional landscaping? Maybe some fake trees that will hide the back side of that building. Howard Parsell, Applicant: We could. We show it to you right there. Commissioner Phelps: That is going to be backed up into a building at the end of the parking lot. Howard Parsell, Applicant: No problem. Commissioner Phelps: Okay. Howard Parsell, Applicant: Sometimes I don't like to landscape right up to the building. The watering issues! 9 Commissioner Comstock: I was curious why Building & Safety needed another Four (4) feet? Howard Parsell, Applicant: Sidewalk! Chair Wilson: Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. We have a Request to Speak form. Raymond Johnson. Request to Speak Chair Wilson: Raymond Johnson, please site your name and address for the record. Raymond Johnson 26785 Camino Secco Temecula, California 92590 Citizens for Responsible Government Raymond Johnson: I just found out about this hearing very recently, so I don't have a lot of material prepared. So in part what I will do is incorporate by reference the petitions for reprimandate relative to the Outdoor Activity Center, the petition for reprimandate for the previous OAC for the previous ESSCO project, and the Environmental Impact report and associated studies from the OAC project. This project is inconsistent with the zoning first of all. The question is, what is the zoning of the property? I don't believe that the City Council has yet rescinded the Outdoor Activity Center Specific Plan. Until they rescind that Outdoor Activity Center, you cannot approve a Conditional Use Permit under the CM zone. Once they have rescinded it you may then approve one, but not before. Secondly, the project that is proposed is not consistent with the requirements of Development Code for CM zone and therefore it should not be approved. The findings for the variance are illegal and inadequate if the findings are based on the fact that or are the variances required because of the design that the developers have chosen in this particular building. Not really because they are site restrictions, per say. Additionally, there will be significant environmental impacts as a result of the project for noise, during construction as well as potentially post construction as identified in the Outdoor Activity Center Specific Plan, EIR. There will be tremendous, cumulative traffic impacts from this project as well as other foreseeable projects in the project vicinity. That cumulative traffic impact, my recollection is that, the total is around One Hundred Seventy Million. The city share of that fare share is around Seventeen Million. Based on the size of this project relative to the OAC area for which the analysis was done. The fair share contribution for the traffic impact, cumulative traffic impacts of this project will be in excess of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00). To fund it's percentage of the cumulative traffic impacts, and the City is fooling itself if it thinks it can continue to approve projects without requiring Traffic Mitigation, that somehow this is all going to go away. The City keeps complaining that it has no money. It has no money because it keeps allowing builders to develop projects without providing the necessary funds to provide the infrastructure the city needs to therefore the city has no money. 10 This is a bad project to have at the entrance to what will ultimately be presumably a primary commercial area in the city of Grand Terrace. If you go by the existing facility you will see that they have stuff stored all over the place not only on their property but on the city's right of way. They actually have it on the paved streets outside the fence. Which is not only hazardous, it is a violation of the zoning code. This is not an appropriate place for this project. The city has not appropriately evaluated the Environmental Impacts and they needed to do so and to fully mitigate those impacts so that the citizens of Grand Terrace don't have to subsidize this developer by the payment of general taxes to pay for street improvements that should have been provided by this developer. That is what you are doing. You are asking the citizens of Grand Terrace to subsidize ESSCO, by virtue of not requiring them to provide their fair share. I think the Planning Commission should deny it. They certainly should deny it on the basis that you can legally do what you are doing right now. I don't think the zoning is CM yet? That doesn't happen until the City is actually taken the actions to rescind their primary approvals. I don't believe that that has been done. Chair Wilson: Mr. Johnson can you wind her up? Raymond Johnson: Yes. Once again I think approval at this point in time is inappropriate if not illegal. I think the applicant should be required to fully mitigate his impacts so that the residents of Grand Terrace are not forced to subsidize them. Thank you. Chair Wilson: Thank you. Do we have any other comments from Public Participation? I would like to remind the Commission that this body is charged with responsibility of making a recommendation to the City Council. They take the action of approval or disapproval based on whatever the legal status for a particular property, but we make a recommendation. Director Koontz: Actually in this case because we don't have a tract or Specific Plan, you are the body that would approve this request, subject to City Council's appeal, where they would have final approval. Chair Wilson: I have a question for staff. Considering what we have been through in the last few months, on legal challenges and the properties in the areas that we are talking about now. Is there any consideration given to a peer review on our initial environmental? Director Koontz: No. Chair Wilson: Any questions, comments from the Planning Commission? Commissioner Comstock: I have a couple of questions. Mr. Johnson mentioned that the City has to revoke the OAC designation and I am a little confused. It is my understanding that if it went to court and the judge threw the OAC plan out on legal terms that we would revert it back. Do we have legal basis? 11 Director Koontz: The direction that we have been given from the City Manager and the City Attorney is to do exactly what we are doing. Commissioner Comstock: Second question. The Environmental Impact Report that was prepared in our packet is a Stand Alone Environmental Impact Report, not based upon the one that was submitted through the OAC? Director Koontz: It is an Environmental assessment Mitigated Negative Declaration that was written solely, on its own with nothing associated or referenced in the OAC EIR. In our opinion at this point the EIR and the OAC Specific Plan does not exist. Commissioner Comstock: Which answers my next question regarding future development of the Outdoor Adventure Center. In reality what you are saying legally tonight we have no grounds to review this project in comparison to what maybe speculated as development in the future for the rest of the former designated OAC? Director Koontz: At this point we are using the existing zoning for the entire former OAC area. We do not know what is going to shake out, what the redevelopment area is going to look like, what it will be called, what kind of uses that they will ultimately propose, because we do not have a project. Commissioner Comstock: So this is stand alone project? Director Koontz: In our opinion, yes. Commissioner Comstock: Next question, regarding the traffic impact that Mr. Johnson brought up. One of the concerns is that we will be adding a significant amount of traffic. If ESSCO is currently doing business, across the street, I have forgotten the name of that street. If they are currently doing business across the street and they are moving their facility across the street, granted their business may grow. Will we have that much more or an additional traffic impact compared to what we currently have? Director Koontz: We don't believe so. We wrote into the Mitigated Negative Declaration the analysis that we were given by our traffic engineer. I think they said that about One Hundred and Eighty trips per day total generated. It our understanding, that they will not increase the number of employees by much., We had long talks about truck traffic with the applicant. What he is telling us now, is that under current situations, his yard is so small, he can't bring in full truck loads of material. He has to do partial loads. What is going to happen is that the same truck will be able to bring trucks with full loads. Yes, there is a possibility that there will be a few more new trucks, but we don't see it as being significant, our Traffic Engineer has written a letter saying he doesn't see this as being significant project. Commissioner Comstock: So what you are saying is that partial truck loads had been coming in and in order to carry on the same amount of business, instead of loading a truck half way they will load it fully? So we might be cutting down on traffic? Director Koontz: I doubt it that it would cut down but we don't see it going up. 12 Commissioner Comstock: Next question is in regards to infrastructure. It is my understanding, and I live down there so I am familiar with that area, in looking at this and trying to clarify it, infrastructure is in? Is that not correct? The street, the curb and the gutter! Director Koontz: The only that that is missing is the sidewalk and the side in which we are conditioning. Commissioner Comstock: Okay. In regards to the storage, I want to make sure that we get this on the public record, has that been permitted by the City? Director Koontz: Yes. Mr. Shields has issued an Encroachment permit for them to operate within that area until they move into a new building. Commissioner Comstock: So legally they have permission to do that? Rich Shields, Building& Safety: Yes they do. Commissioner Comstock: Thank you very much. Director Koontz: I would like to point out one other item. In terms of fair share, we recently went through a major fee increase, for all the mitigation fees. There was a massive study done on that, Nexis studies. The calculations for the different businesses, v was calculated including this kind of use. The Resolution on page 5, item 32 "the developer shall pay the appropriate traffic impact fees as required by City ordinance prior to issuance of building permits, said fees will be calculated by the City's building official". There are fees being paid based upon that very recent citywide study. Chair Wilson: Any further questions or comments for staff? Vice Chair Addington: I would like to make a motion for.approval of CUP-06-06, SA 06-16, V-06-03 and E-06-13. I would like to add an additional condition, that the trim on the upper windows be also placed to match the lower windows, so that we will have trim on both top and bottom windows. Commissioner Comstock: I Seconded the motion. Chair Wilson: I would like to, in my portion of the discussion, I would like the Commission to entertain the concept of a Peer Review on this initial Environmental. It is my intention to make these things bullet proof. The initial Environmental has been done in house. Not that it is faulty, but I believe that two heads are better than one when it comes to this particular instance. I believe that most jurisdictions have found that a Peer Review or an out sourced initial Environmental is not bullet proof necessarily but closer to bullet proof in a court of law. 13 Vice Chair Addington: Question then! "Peer Review" so does that mean we go to another agency i.e., Colton, San Bernardino, wherever, and have them do the same review? Chair Wilson: An outside consultant! Vice Chair Addington: Or an outside consultant? Chair Wilson: Correct. Vice Chair Addington: Okay one more question, or two. One, how much time is this going to take and two, and what are we talking about financially, the cost of this? Chair Wilson: The cost would be absorbed by the applicant. As it is the case in any instance when there are special studies required. I don't know what the cost is, but I believe that the staff could enlighten us for a range. Director Koontz: Something like this could range somewhere within a couple of thousand. Chair Wilson: For something like this, I think somewhere between Two through Seven Thousand Dollars and the timing usually is about Sixty (60) days, plus or minus. Depending on what source we have. Director Koontz: We have plenty of sources. I could tie someone down tomorrow if you wanted me to. Vice Chair Addington: I have a question toward Chair Wilson. Are you looking at having this peer review done after tonight, whether the vote goes approval or denial? Chair Wilson: I would urge that the Commission to consider a continuance, and then allow the peer review to take place. Vice Chair Addington: Okay are there any particular items in the Environmental Review that you are concerned with? Chair Wilson: I am concerned about the legal status of an initial Environmental Review that is the basis for our Environmental approval of a project. Out sourcing that Environmental Review takes it out a conflict of interest type of circumstance. Commissioner Comstock: I don't understand how we will have a conflict of interest? Vice Chair Addington: Thank you for asking that question, I was pondering on that same question too. 14 Chair Wilson: Let me kind of back up in relation to an Environmental Review and CEQA circumstance. When we do an Environmental Impact Report, a full non-mitigated Environmental Impact Report, then usually they are out sourced recommendations that are followed and reviewed. That is the next progression. When there is no Mitigated Negative Declaration based on an initial Environmental Review that then has a tendency to stand up to a legal CEQA review, a test. This has been supported, in the past, by Case Law. Since the OAC has been proned to legal challenges, this might be the best way for us to guarantee that this Stand Alone project would receive the proper CEQA route. Commissioner Comstock: Legally right now we don't have an OAC. We have a desire to get an OAC type project moving forward, but I'm looking at the applicant and the business that the applicant has and the conditions under which the applicant would have had to have done business in the past. It has been several months now that they have been attempting to get this project built so that they could take care of their business in the manner that they desire. Personally I feel like, what we have submitted is sufficient for a project of this size. I don't believe that out sourcing is necessary. It gives an untimely delay to the project. It is a pretty straight forward project. The review is pretty well straight forward, the property has been graded, traffic, and all of the concerns have been addressed. Therefore, I would not be in favor of out sourcing. Chair Wilson: We have a Motion on the floor and a Seconded. - Commissioner Phelps: I have a comment. On the Environmental Impact Report, on page 24 of that Environmental Impact Report: Director Koontz: Environmental Assessment! Commissioner Phelps: Assessment. Sorry. Under 11 Utilities and Services Systems, items E and F. You have two items under E and no items under F on the check marks there. Vice Chair Addington: Which page? Commissioner Phelps: Page 24 Vice Chair Addington: Okay. Director Koontz: Notice on page 25 we have the finding under E that the finding is no impact and no mitigation proposed. Yes that is my error. The left hand box should be eliminated. Chair Wilson: Thank you for the clarification, Director. Any further comments or discussion? A Motion is on the floor and has been Seconded. Vice Chair Addington: Is this for approval? Chair Wilson: Yes. Please vote. 15 MOTION PC-27-2006: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve. CUP-06-06; SA-06-16, V-06-03 and E-06-13 Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion Chair Wilson: There is a motion to approve and a seconded. Is there any discussion? MOTION VOTE PC-27-2006: Approved 4-1-0-0 5. SA-05-18,E-05-20 SA-05-18, E-05-20 to construct a two-story single family residence with 4,961 square feet of living area, and an attached three car garage of 970 square feet. It will have 5 bedrooms, 5 1/z baths, a family room, a living room, a library, front and rear porches, a sun deck, and a gazebo. APPLICANTS: Craig and Amy Austin LOCATION: 11675 Grand Terrace Court(APN#0274-441-22) RECCOMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and approve SA-05-18, and E- 05-20 to construct a single family residence. Chair Wilson: Do we have a staff report. Richard Garcia, Assistant Planner: Good evening, the applicants Craig and Amy Austin, are proposing to construct a two story single family Mediterranean residence on a 2,470 sq. ft. vacant lot at 11675 Grand Terrace Court. OVERHEADS Richard Garcia,Assistant Planner: The aerial photo accurately depicts the subject site as a vacant lot'. The Surrounding is developed as an R 120 single family residential to the North, East, and West and an R 1 7.2 to the South. The site plan indicates the location of the residence. The proposed residence will contain Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty One feet of(4,961 sq. ft.) of living area and will have an attached three car garage of Nine Hundred square feet (970 sq. ft.). The residence will conform to development standards for residential development in the R 1 20 zone. The house will be set back Thirty One feet (31 ft.) from the property line on Grand Terrace Court. Lot coverage will amount to Twenty Five percent (25%). The garage will front to the North. 16 The proposed landscaping plan is primarily for the front yard with trees, shrubs turf and ground cover as indicated on the plan. The Grading Plan details the location of area drainage. The site has already been graded. The site will be finished graded so that direction of the drainage will flow around the site and North toward clarifier basins and eventual exit onto Grand Terrace Court. The floor plan shows Five (5) bedrooms Five and a half (5 lh) baths, a family room, a living room, a dining room, a library, front and rear porches and a three car garage of Nine Hundred and Seventy square feet, which will have interior access to the living area by means of a door leading into a hallway. There will also be a sundeck, accessible from two (2) upstairs bedrooms, and a Gazebo in the rear yard. North, South, East and West elevations illustrate the architectural embellishments such as decorative columns, wooden front entry doors, arched windows, concrete tiled roof, front and rear porches, stucco wall covering, stucco fascia and moldings and a matching gazebo in the rear yard. Richard Garcia, Assistant Planner: This project is a categorically exempt, class three project for the California Environmental Quality Act. This project shall comply with NPDES requirements and a water quality management plan agreement and shall be required as a condition of approval. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed two story single family residence under SA-05-18 and E-05-20 as called for by the attached Resolution of Approval. That completes my presentation. Chair Wilson: Do we have any question to the staff? Vice Chair Addington: Yes. I'm not sure if my question is for you Gary or for Building. On Page 3 of 4, of attachment 9, the Building Permit Conditions. Now mind you I am the biggest on the Commission on the Clean Water Act. We are hitting a single residential lot with a lot of Clean Water issues, water quality management and storm water prevention plan. Can you explain, so I can understand why? Richard Shields, Building & Safety: The exception in NPDS is anything over Ten Thousand (10,000 sq. ft.) and from what I can recall this is over Ten Thousand (10,000 sq. ft.). Director Koontz: The site is Twenty Four Thousand square feet (24,000 sq. ft.) Vice Chair Addington: Okay, so required by law. Richard Shields, Building & Safety: Apparently this went through at a previous time and might had been approved and now Building & Safety is saying we need a general and precise grading to see the flows and the drainage to capture some of that into a bios well to clean it before it leaves the property. 17 I think the proposal is to allow it to head down the drive way. Once it has reached its time limit for setting in the bios well. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. That would be the most logical place for the water to go. I was just wondering why we were asking for that condition. Commissioner Mc Naboe: I have one. Does the city have guidelines for the building of homes in this type of an area? There are small narrow roads leading up to this and I am concerned about the trucks and where they will park and the noise while they are constructing the home. Are there guidelines for them to follow for the parking of there trucks and what time they can start and finish. Chair Wilson: What does the zoning, what is the minimum frontage for a lot of a single family residential? Director Koontz: Forty feet(40ft.) Chair Wilson: do they have greater than Forty feet (40ft.)? Director Koontz: Quite a big lot. In terms of the construction, we do have the noise ordinance which prohibits construction before a certain hour in the morning and the evening so we can regulate that. Where they park the trucks, they cannot park in the public right of way. Rich you may want to expand. Richard Shields, Building &Safety: Did you say they can't or they can? Director Koontz: They can but they can't block it. Richard Shields, Building & Safety: Yes. That is correct. In this case it would be rather difficult and the reason being is because there is a cul-de-sac and there are drive ways, to be parking large equipment, I don't that is going to be possible. They do have a big parcel. I think the developer should have a rule and we can place that as a condition if you should chose. We can place all construction vehicles on site. Chair Wilson: By experience, I think it is just the opposite problem for construction; usually they have most construction personnel feel they have to park right in the center of the unit to build it. So other than the grading that will take place, you probably won't have that difficulty on a Twenty Four Thousand square foot (24,000 sq. ft.) lot. There will be some concern about dust control obviously. Just needs to make sure to stay watered down, but that is code item. Commissioner Phelps: What are the square footages of the houses around there? Do you know?Is this in reason? Richard Garcia, Assistant Planner: Next door is very familiar .............. Chair Wilson: Can you speak into the microphone? 18 Richard Garcia, Assistant Planner: Yes, very similar to this property, this one is slightly larger than those on either side. Commissioner Phelps: Okay. Chair Wilson: Any other questions to the staff? I will then open item up for Public hearing. Bill Cloud (Architect) 1574 Elizabeth Street Redlands, California Bill Cloud (Architect): If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. Chair Wilson: Any questions to the Architect? Vice Chair Addington: No questions, but I would like to thank you for putting relief on all four (4) sides of the house. That is what I like to see on the newer homes that are coming into Grand Terrace. I think the exterior elevation on all four (4) sides look very nice. - Bill Cloud(Architecture): Not too many places are real honest. Chair Wilson: Thank you, beautiful design. Just don't let my wife see it, she has been looking at that lot for a long time. Any other comments, any other public participation? There are no takers, we will bring it back to Commissission for discussion or a motion. Commissioner Comstock: I move for approval of SA-05-18, E-05-20 Commissioner Mc Naboe: I Seconded. Chair Wilson: Motion has been for Approval and Seconded, any discussion. Please vote. MOTION PC-28-2006: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve. Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion Chair Wilson: There is a motion to approve and a seconded. Is there any discussion? MOTION VOTE PC-28-2006: Approved 5-0-0-0 19 - ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING CON MSSION MEETING CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS Nothing • INFORMATION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS Vice Chair Addington: I have a question about our pharmacy here in town, Sav-On, as they convert to CVS, I understand that they are to come back to us of a CUP? Director Koontz: No. It is a business change we do this all the time with other businesses. The only thing that is changing are the signs and they will have to submit a new sign package to us, but that will be approved internally. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. Will there be public messages on their signs? Director Koontz: Yes. -- Chair Wilson: So the CUP runs with the land? Director Koontz: Yes Commissioner Phelps: I have one. Vice Chair Addington: I have one more. I always ask this every couple of months Gary, our infamous Miguel's, anything to note on this one? Richard Shields, Building & Safety: With a possible proposal for a Phase II Redesign, the grading that exists with the current approved Miguel's parcel won't work. While they are putting together, for that particular site, it would be better if they would consider Miguel's grading and re do it now before everything starts and get it together and get it done properly. They are in the process of doing that and we will probably see it with in the next few months. Vice Chair Addington: Are they coming back to us for a fourth time? Richard Shields, Building & Safety: No. It is an alteration for the grading plan and the precise grading plan which will entail a re-study of the retention basis on a temporary basis. Until they get the full design of that parcel. Director Koontz: When they did the last grading design it was under the assumption that there was going to be a Lowe's there. Which the grading to put that big Lowe's plus all of the other stuff, is different is what they are doing now without the Lowe's. We want to make sure that whatever they build wasn't going to mess up the rest of the design. We 20 said to go back and make sure it's going to work because Miguel's is going to be there first. I am going to make sure that everything else works around it. Vice Chair Addington: Okay, it just seems like a long time coming for such a small restaurant. Director Koontz: It is. Vice Chair Addington: Thank you. Commissioner Comstock: Our agenda says our item says that our next Commission meeting is going to be on the 5`h of October. I know that we have generally been going about every a month. Director Koontz: We are entitled to have hearings the 1st and P Thursdays. So we continue that and we will post a cancellation before the meeting and it goes to the next one. Commissioner Comstock: If we are going to have a meeting on the 19th of October, I will be out of town and I will not be at that meeting. Director Koontz: We are not planning to have a meeting that day - Vice Chair Addington: For the 19th or the 5th9 Director Koontz: The 5th, we will most likely be having one on the 19th. Commissioner Comstock: I will be out of town. Vice Chair Addington: To complicate things for you, I will not be able to attend that meeting either. Director Koontz: On the 5th or the 19th? Vice Chair Addington: The 19th. Chair Wilson: Any other discussion? Any other information? ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:05 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 5`h,, 2006 Respectfully Submitted, Approve B Gary L. I(oontz, Planning Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission 21