Loading...
11/16/2006 110 Community and Economic Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION (A L I F O R N I A MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING November 16,2006 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 November 16. 2006 at 7:00 n.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 Phelps • Roll Call • Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ITEMS 1. MINUTES: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-29-2006: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to Approve Commissioner Mc Naboe Seconded MOTION VOTE Approved 5-0-0-0 PC-29-2006: 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • 909/ 824-6621 1 2. TPM-06-03,E-06-12: TPM-06-03 (TPM 18333 - County Surveyor Number), and E-06-12 - Divide the subject site into four separate lots in conformance with the R1 -7.2 Zone APPLICANTS: Edmundo Illabaca for Zapata Real Estate Investments,Inc. LOCATION: 22000 and 22034 De Berry Street (two parcels totaling 1.06 acres on the north side of De Berry Street about 500 feet westerly of Michigan Street.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing and recommend to the City Council the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 06-03 (TPM 18333) and approve Environmental Review Case No. 06-12 to divide the subject site into four separate lots. Chair Wilson: Do we have a Staff Report Planner John Lampe:Yes. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. _ The subject property, consist of two parcels. The entire site is about 1.06 acres located on the Northerly side of De Berry Street about 500 feet Westerly of Michigan. The site has a frontage of 320 feet on De Berry with a maximum depth of 207 feet NS There are presently two houses on this site the westerly house and another on the easterly portion of the site. The house on the westerly portion was constructed in 1924. The existing topography of the site slopes down away from De Berry Street. There is an East West drainage that runs along the Northerly boundary of the subject property. The drainage will run west. Chair Wilson:Any questions of staff before we open the public hearing? Vice Chair Addington: John I wanted to thank you for giving us a complete submittal package. Thank your for addressing the NPDS comments. The question that I have is: Vice Chair Addington: Q: On lots 1, 2, 3,and 4,will there be cross lot drainages met on those and if so do we need to condition it for you? Planner John Lampe: A: Yes, I think there will be such a requirement but we feel that the Public Works recommended condition that they have to file for the precise grading plan and have it approved. I think that will cover that issue without having to have a specific condition to require the cross drainage. 2 Vice Chair Addington: Q: The second question I have is, "Would the existing buildings out there on parcel 1, the existing barn and parcel 4 the existing deck, those are right up against the property line, since this is a new development creating new lots, how does the existing structures fall in line with the set backs?" Planner John Lampe: A: The only one that I was aware of was lot 1. There is a structure on this location. That is an existing situation so I think that is a non conforming situation. The other structure in the back, we could add a condition that the applicant would have to remove the structure to conform with the set backs for an accessory structure or seek a modification of the standard. Vice Chair Addington: Q: What is the recommendation of the staff? Planner John Lampe: A: I think we should ask the applicant what their desire would be to satisfy that requirement. Vice Chair Addington: Q: If it is a non conforming structure at this time,with the new development it can move forward as a non conforming structure? Director Koontz: A: Yes. That is how we are interpreting this. Now if either the structures were to burn down, the cannot be built in the same place, they would have to abide by the zoning set backs, but since the one house was built in the 1920's and the west property line is not moving, that really isn't in play in this development. Its only really the one on parcel 4. We looked at it and spent a lot of time staring at it. By the time we were done,we were no that concerned about it. It is a pre existing condition. Vice Chair Addington: Thank you. I appreciate your input. Chair Wilson:Any further questions of the Staff? Commissioner Phelps: What caused the configuration at parcel 1167-161-27? What feature caused this shape? Director Koontz: It is a drainage course. Chair Wilson: So it runs along the drainage course and that is the legal description of the property? Director Koontz: Yes. If you look at the ariel photo you could see it as a defined drainage course,right along there. Chair Wilson: Yes,I thought it looked like that. 3 Chair Wilson: Any other questions Commissioner Comstock: Has the applicant arrived? Director Koontz:Yes Commissioner Comstock: Okay I have a question for him later. Chair Wilson: If there aren't any further questions from the staff, I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant to come forward and speak on behalf of his project or his proposal. You are welcomed to come to the podium. PUBLIC SPEAKER EDMUNDO ILLABACA Zapata Real Estate Investments, Inc. Edmundo Mabaca (applicant): I am the applicant for this Tentative Parcel Map. I am just going to give you a little history. This here is Mr. Zapata (points to owner) who is the owner of the two existing lots. This parcel map started as just being the westerly lot. He bought this lot and he asked me to help him divide the lot into two. He had the chance to buy the lot next door. We proceeded, first we did two separate parcel maps, then we spoke with the people from the City (City of Grand Terrace) and we thought it would be better to request this tentative parcel map for dividing the two existing lots into four. We have done everything that we have been required. It is a very simple map. We just decided to keep the existing houses in lot number one and four. We are looking to divide it into to two new building sites. The owner first had the idea not to build in lots number two and three, but after the grading plans were required, it's going to be ready to build after all the permits are issued and the grading plan is approved. Chair Wilson: Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Comstock: Yes. In looking in some of the other parcels out there, I've notice that that they divided the parcels with chain link fencing. Are there any plans to divide the parcels with the fencing? Edmundo Illabaca (applicant):Yes Vice Chair Addington: No questions. I would like to thank you for giving us a full and complete application with extra exhibits,it makes our decisions easier. To the staff regarding the fencing. We are at the parcel map stage right now Would the fencing be part of this application or the application for the new homes in the architectural review. Director Koontz: Typically that would be part of the "Site and Architectural" for the new houses. 4 Chair Wilson: Any further questions for the applicant? Chair Wilson: Okay thank you,we will now invite the public to participate to whatever comments. Seeing no takers we will close the public hearing Please vote. MOTION PC-30-2006: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to Approve Commissioner Phelps Seconded MOTION VOTE PC-30-2006 : Approved 5-0-0-0 3. SA-06-17,E-06-14: SA-06-17, E-06-14 to construct a two story addition of 1,146 square feet of living area at 22154 Pico Street, Grand Terrace. APPLICANTS: Mandry Construction for property owners Terry and Valerie Futch LOCATION: 22154 Pico Street(APN# 1167-281-52) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and approve SA-06-17, and E- 06-14 to construct a two-story single family residential addition of 1,146 square feet. Chair Wilson: Do we have a Staff Report? Assistant Planner Richard Garcia:The applicant,Mandry Construction is proposing to construct a two-story single family residential addition of 1,146 square feet of living area at 22154 Pico Street. The addition will be attached to the rear of the existing single story home of 1,440 square feet. OVERHEAD PICUTRES 1.The aerial photo accurately depicts the subject site as a one-story single family home. The surrounding area is developed as R1-7.2 single family residential to the North, South and East. There is Church building on an 111-7.2 lot to the West. 5 2. The site plan indicates the location of the residence. The proposed addition will contain 1,146 square feet of living area and will have a new upstairs master bedroom,master bathroom,guest bedroom,loft, and walk in closet. The first floor will contain an additional living room, a game room, a craft room, a half bathroom,and a linen closet. The addition will conform to all development standards for residential development in the R1-7.2 zone. The house will be set back 5 feet from the existing swimming pool and 34 feet from the rear property line. Lot coverage will amount to 35%. 3. The front and rear yards of the resident are presently landscaped. The applicant proposes to retain all of the front yard landscaping,including a mature tree, shrubs,turf and decorative rock. 4. The first floor plan illustrates a new game room,craft room, dining room, living room, a half bathroom,and a walk-in linen closet. 5. The second floor plan illustrates a new master bedroom,master bathroom, loft,walk-in closed, and guest bedroom. 6. The front,rear,left and right elevations show exterior embellishments in the form of 6"wood trim around the windows to match existing trim,3 layer stucco,and a sliding glass door in the rear. End of Overheads Assistant Planner Richard Garcia: This project is a Categorically Exempt Class 3 project per the California Environmental Quality Act. This project shall comply with the NPDES requirements, and a Water Quality Management Plan Agreement shall be required as a condition of approval. Staff recommends that the planning commission approve the proposed two- story addition under SA-06-17 and E-06-14 as called for by the attached Resolution of Approval.That concludes my presentation. Thank your for your consideration. Chair Wilson: Any questions of staff/commission,Before we open Public Hearing? Director Koontz: Can I make a correction? Chair Wilson: Yes Director Gary Koontz: Concerning the NPDES this kind of project,is exempt (from our understanding) from NPDES. Chair Wilson: Any questions of staff/commission,Before we open Public Hearing? 6 Building& Safety Richard Shields: I would like to make a response to my conditions that are attached to the Staff Report. They were Building&Safety conditions, and after reviewing them right now and determining the size of the project. This project will require street improvements be installed (Curb& Gutter) and a new drive approach. That is something that isn't stated on the conditions of approval and it needs to be added. Chair Wilson: Has that been discussed with the applicant? Building& Safety Richard Shields: No,I just noticed it right now, and that is why I am bringing it up. Chair Wilson: Thank you. Vice Chair Addington: I have a question. Can you put attachment 4 back up on the overhead? The one with the picture of the house. Rich,looking at the picture, there are improvements already there. Building& Safety Richard Shields: Oh,that's why. Good point, curb& gutters existing. Okay my mistake. Chair Wilson: Thank you. Good catch Vice Chair Addington. We will now open the Public Hearing and invite the applicant up to speak if he chooses or his representative. PUBLIC SPEAKER ROY MANDRY Mandry Construction 8356 Lakeside Drive Riverside, California ROY MANDRY(applicant): Mr. and Mrs. Fletch would like to put this room addition in. They have been in the community for about 20 years and they feel they want to stay for a long time. Plus they feel that it is a positive upgrade. We are trying to make the project match the house that is already built. When you look at it you will not see an "Added-On Box". The footprint is not going to change that much from the existing house,just a little to the one side. Chair Wilson: Refresh for me what the total square footage is going to be by the time we get done adding this?Is it in excess of 2,300 square feet? Assistant Planner Richard Garcia: 2,586 Building& Safety Richard Shields: It is 1,434 right now. 7 f Chair Wilson: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant. Vice Chair Addington: I do have a comment. I would like to thank you for your elevations you provided. On the front elevation,I wanted to thank you for the windows that were added,it's a nice architectural feature that will be seen from the street. Chair Wilson: Thank you,any other questions for the applicant? We will now invite the remainder of the public to come to the podium and state their opinion or whatever comments they may have on this particular case. Seeing no takers,then we will revert back to the Commission and we will close the Public Hearing and go right to the Planning Commission for an action. Vice Chair Addington: I have a question, since no one from the public spoke up, so I would like to ask this question. Often when we have two-story room addition,we have people objecting because it is now two-story's,was there an analysis done for the neighborhood, is there already two-story homes and does the square footage of the proposed house compare to the existing homes. Assistant Planner Richard Garcia:Yes I did review the neighboring homes. -- To the South,there is a home at 1,900 square feet it is single story home. I did not see any two-story homes. Because of the configuration,it would not impose any privacy issues on the homeowners. To the West there is a church, set back several hundred feet. It seems to be a vacant lot, but it is actually once parcel and there is a Church on it. This would be the largest.As I said,there is a 1,946 square feet to the South. Vice Chair Addington: Were the surrounding neighbors notified. Assistant Planner Richard Garcia:Yes notification was mailed out,as required by law. I did not get any responses,neither positive nor negative. Commissioner Comstock: I live down in that area. You folks have one of the nicest houses (directed to Mr. &Mrs. Futch). There are other two-story houses on Pico Street,not too far away from this structure. It is not like we are putting a two-story structure among only one-story structures. My question is and I was reading in the packet regarding the five foot setback from the swimming pool. I realize that is code but that seems awfully short for distance between the swimming pool and the new addition. Five feet is zoning code on that? Building& Safety Richard Shields: Actually Commissioner,there is no distance requirement. You can have that wall in the pool if you'd like. I have seen it in different jurisdiction i.e.,Rancho Mirage when I used to work there, they actually had the pool inside the home.As long as the pool is reinforced to 8 withstand the surcharges of the footing,there is no set back requirement. Now if there is a window in that set back then the window must be tempered. So five foot is plenty of room for walk around. Commissioner Comstock: I was just looking at it and it seemed awfully close. I was just making sure we did it right that way. ROY MANDRY Mandry Construction 8356 Lakeside Drive Riverside, California ROY MANDRY(applicant): Where we are putting the room addition. The footprint is not changing on that room. In other words we are demolishing the top and we will be going up. That wall is staying right where it was Chair Wilson: Thank you,we had closed the Public Hearing,but we made an exception for the addition information. I would just like to state that one of the Goals for the General Plan is that we upgrade our housing stock. I greatly appreciate this application. It definitely does that. Any other questions or comments? Commissioner Comstock: I move for approval of SA-06-17 and E-06-14 Vice Chair Addington: Seconded Chair Wilson: We have an Approval and a Seconded,please vote. Congratulations. MOTION PC-31-2006: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to Approve Vice Chair Addington Seconded MOTION VOTE PC-31-2006: Approved 5-0-0-0 4. APPLICANTS: City of Grand Terrace - Department of Community Development PROPOSAL: Workshop and briefing on a first "draft" of the "Amateur Radio Antenna (HAM) Ordinance" for the City of Grand Terrace (Z-06-02) LOCATION: City-wide 9 RECOMMENDATION: Provide any comments on the proposed "HAM' Ordinance and to determine if the "draft" is ready for public release. Chair Wilson: Do we have any staff comments? Planner John Lampe: Earlier this year the City Council was presented with a petition, amongst other things, asking for a "moratorium" on any proposed amateur radio antenna structures exceeding 20 feet in height. The petition, as you may guess, was initiated as the result of an application by Mr. And Mrs. Ehlert to allow for a 75 foot high amateur radio antenna structure in the Southeasterly area of the city. In response to the petition the City Council instructed the staff to prepare a permanent ordinance regulating "Amateur Radio Antenna Structures" in Grand Terrace Staff has prepared a Draft Ordinance for the Commission's review and comment. Tonight we are asking for your input so that we may refine the r proposed Ordinance for public review Once the public review is completed, it is staff' intention to set the matter for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Some of you may remember from the some of the information we gave you in the public hearing regarding the proposed 75 foot that the regulation Amateur Radio Antenna Structures"'has had a long history. Over twenty years ago the FCC issued an order that local governments could regulate amateur installations to insure the safety and health of persons in the community but could not enact regulations which are so restrictive that they would preclude effective amateur communications. In 2003, then Governor Davis signed a State law, Assembly Bill 1228, which in effect implemented the 1985 FCC order into State Law and which mandates that any proposed ordinance regulating amateur radio antenna structures "Shall allow those structures to be erected at heights and dimension sufficient to accommodate amateur radio service with the minimum practicable regulations to accomplish the local governments legitimate purpose". Staff believes that the"Minimum Practical Regulation"mandated by State Law falls within two main areas, i.e. public safety and aesthetics. Public safety can be regulated through the requirements for a building permit to be required for these structures. The person that would make that decision 10 would be the City's building official. Secondly, for aesthetics, we have focused on the potential visual impacts related to size, height and location for the HAM radio structure on a piece of property. In preparing the draft ordinance the staff was obligated to take into consideration State Law on this matter. We also reviewed numerous existing amateur radio antenna ordinances, especially those that had strong aesthetic list of regulations but were fairly easy to understand and administer. The proposed Draft that was given to you to look at,proposes to add a new chapter to the City's Zoning Code with nine separate sections to regulate ham radio antenna structures The first section has to do with the Purpose of the Ordinance. It sets out that the main purpose of the Ordinance is to provide protection to public health and safety and to minimize adverse aesthetics impacts to the community. Secondly the Ordinance will be regulating a Land Use so it would be a good idea to have definitions. We have several definitions that will be used in the Ordinance so that there will be common understanding of what is proposed We have also provided Development Standards that any antenna that would be permitted as a matter of right. Someone could come in and as long as they can show that they meet all of the development standards. They can get an approval to have the antenna. The standards are called out in Section 18.72.040. Further, we have gone on to indicate how someone could come in and get an antenna approved that does conform to the development standards of the Ordinance. As part of that process we would notify the immediate adjacent neighbors of what the proposed project entails. As long as no neighbor objected to the proposal and as long as the antenna met all of the standards of the section of the Proposed Section Ordinance, the planning department could go ahead and issue the Land Use application for the antenna. There would still be an obligation that it would need to be reviewed by the Building and Safety department to.make sure whether to require a building permit or not. If someone were to come in and propose an antenna that did not meet the standards i.e., height, locations, setbacks, etc., they could go through a process by which they could get a Conditional Use permit and that would require a public hearing before your body to consider the proposed project. Whether it be, a height that would exceed 35 feet or whatever the situation would be that they would not be within development standards of the code. Each case where you would have a Conditional Use Permit application would be based on case by case situation. However the application does require that certain things be submitted including a Site Reception study so that we have some quantitative way of knowing what the issues are regarding the reception and height of the proposed tower. We have also set out the acquired findings that the Commission would have to make before the Conditional Use Permit could be granted relating back to the requirement of State Law and also the specific conditions on any 11 structure over 35 feet, it would have to be such that when it is not operating it would have to be lowered to height of no more than 35 feet. This seems to be a common requirement in most ordinances where they do allow the antenna to be raised a higher height for transmission purposes, but when it was not used it would have to be lowered to a height of 35 feet. Lastly, we have also included some provisions to take care of existing situations where we do have few antennas in the City that have existed for a long time; this provides for their non-conforming status. I would like to go back to the Land Use Application., if I didn't make it too clear about the Land Use Application. If the neighborhood objected to that then it would come forward before the Commission to have it reviewed. There would not be additional filing fees for that application. This is a "Draft" prepared mainly for discussion tonight; I would like to welcome any comments from the members of the Commission. Chair Wilson: Has this proposed document been reviewed by the City Attorney. Planner John Lampe: No, our game plan is to get some information from the Commission and make sure we are going in the right direction to prepare a Proposed Ordinance that would include the "Whereas" the reasons for the Ordinance, do the Environment Review and then submit it to the City Attorney for review. Chair Wilson: In your opinion,this is a defensible document? Director Gary Koontz: The document is based on existing Ordinances we took from other cities, so we are reasonably comfortable that if the other cities got them passed then we could have a pretty good shot at doing it as well. But we will be submitting it to the City Attorney to get his opinion on it. One thing you may want to think about, when we talked about the infamous "Lark Street Antenna" was the size of the array itself being 35' x 32'. One of the things we would like to ask is do you want to consider any kind of horizontal dimension of an array. That if it exceeds a certain size dimension wise it would be something you looked at it would immediately go to you. The question is how big is too big? Chair Wilson: Commissioners,I open the floor to you. Vice Chair Addington: How was the height of 35 feet established? Planner John Lampe: That is the basic height limit for the R1 zone. Basically what we are saying is anything that conforms to the basic underlined height limit of the R1 zone and as long as it meets the other development standards of the Ordinance,it could go through the Land Use process, not requiring a public hearing. 12 Vice Chair Addington: From our experience with Mr. Ehlert (I don't know how to pronounce his name). Would that have worked if it was at a lower height? Could he have made that work at a lower height? Director Gary Koontz: You conditioned it for twenty feet (directed towards Vice Chair Addington. Vice Chair Addington: I know what we conditioned it for. What I am saying is I am concerned about this 35 foot height even though it is allowed in our zoning. Director Gary Koontz: We are not experts at this HAM radio operation. That is one of those things that we need to have someone provide certain justification for height then we could include that. Vice Chair Addington: Three to five feet of the ridge line or the high point of the roof,not including the chimney a possible height limit. Director Gary Koontz: Bear in mind that you are giving preferential treatment to two-story houses. - Vice Chair Addington: Two-story houses are only what? 25 feet t Director Gary Koontz: But if you have a one-story house you can only go up you know a lot less. So if someone has a two-story home they can have a higher antenna. Vice Chair Addington: Okay,good point. Director Gary Koontz: Or if you wanted to say take the typical roof elevation of a two-story house then we can go up from there, then we can say the maximum height is X. Vice Chair Addington: Okay Director Gary Koontz: But if you say okay 10 feet above a two-story house, that still is about 35 feet. Chair Wilson: A general "Rule of Thumb" among "Old Developers" (and I am one) is that 35 foot elevation difference between ground levels is a good rule of thumb to make sure that you are not in the middle of somebody else's eye- view. Ordinarily we try to stagger the height of our pads in a hill side division. 35 ft. elevation difference from the bottom to the top to the next level. Vice Chair Addington: Under B. Number Permitted. One amateur radio structure and one whip antenna shall be permitted on each building. "And" as oppose to "or". What is the need or desire of HAM radio operators to have or need both? 13 Planner John Lampe: This seemed to be a fairly common provision in the Ordinances that we looked at. In not being an expert at RAM's, I guess some use"whip" antennas for CB communication and that kind of thing. Vice Chair Addington: Okay Planner John Lampe: We were looking at Ordinances that seemed to allow this kind of configuration,this number. Vice Chair Addington: Then a couple of pages back, top of the page 18.72.070 paragraph C.1. We have a maximum of extended height of 35 feet with the exception of"whip" antennas. So does that mean they can go higher than 35 feet? Planner John Lampe: Yes. The idea is not to have had a maximum height level. That would be determined on a "Case by Case" basis. They do have to submit certain reports and studies as part of the hearing process. A common requirement of the Ordinances we looked at is that they do allow for higher structures than 35 feet but make the provision that when the antennas are not being used,they have to be lowered to a resting height of 35 feet. Vice Chair Addington:That is all of my questions. Commissioner Comstock: In looking at the development standards the permitted height, maximum 35 feet then we go over to the Conditional Use, if we are going to have a structure above 35 feet. I am wondering if we have a maximum height in our zoning code. Are we or should we open the door to have structures about 35 feet. Planner John Lampe: Just remember we are between a rock and a hard place with this Ordinance. We have to comply with State Law. Rather than just setting forth a maximum height so you can't go over that height. We are suggesting that the height of the tower when in it's used, if it's over 35 feet has to be determined in the hearing process. The applicant would have to do a site reception study and you would have to make a case on why you need that height in order to operate the antenna. Commissioner Comstock: I am not certain that I am in favor or that. If we have a zoning code that says a maximum height of 35 feet then we need to keep it at 35 feet and not open the door for people down the road. I realize that it cuts out certain types of antenna structures such as the Ellert Antenna which works at the optimum height of 75 feet. But I am also looking at 7,200 feet lot size with neighbors. Anything higher than 35 feet is going to dramatically affect the aesthetics of the neighboring property owners as well as the values too. Director Gary Koontz: Let us contact the City attorney and see what the legal issue is with restricting it to the 35. Or not. We will get back to you. 14 Chair Wilson: Not all lots are 7,200 square foot lots. In this instance if we could "De-Narrow" our observation, there may be a 10 acre lot that doesn't mind having a HAM Radio Antenna next to it. We have to provide for those circumstances in this Ordinance. Director Gary Koontz: With the "Lark Street Antenna", if that had been placed on a 5 or 10 acre lot you may have looked at it differently. Chair Wilson: Correct Commissioner Comstock: Another question that I have is on the Development Standards letter: C Sitting 9(a)No portion of the antenna structure or mast is located within any required setback area Can you give me a definition of what our setback area is? Planner John Lampe: The typical R1 lot you have 20 ft rear yard setback and on the side you have 5 feet or 10 feet on the garage side of the property. Commissioner Comstock: Okay to be clear,20 ft back from the property line from the rear and 5 to 10 on the sides. Okay that is Director Gary Koontz: Let us clarify that. The structure itself, the antenna foundation, cannot be within that. Now,if there is an array on top like on Lark Street.... Commissioner Comstock: That is what I am concerned about. We keep a minimum setback distance from neighboring or joining properties. Director Gary Koontz:We need to make sure that we all agree that the setback is for the tower, structure itself, or is it for the array (if there is an array)? Planner John Lampe: The definition `B" defines as follows: Antenna structure and refers colleefivey to an antenna and its supporting mast or tower, if any. Commissioner Comstock: So that would be any part of the antenna? Planner John Lampe: Yes, any part. Vice Chair Addington: I would be in favor of adding the word "ARRAY" to this. To clarify it. 15 Director Gary Koontz: That is fine. Vice Chair Addington: Should we be concerned that should they decide to erect a 45 foot tower, that should we have decided that should it fall down that when it does falls should it stay on their property and not be so close to their neighbor's property that it could fall into the neighbors yard. Things fall down. This is Southern California we have a lot of earthquakes and wind. Chair Wilson:Building&Safety would you like to comment on this? Building & Safety Richard Shields: I am not sure that would be something we would want to do. We build houses that currently that have 5 foot setbacks on each side creating a 10 foot between both buildings. In a seismic event there is a possibility that the building could fall over onto the next building. We can make it very stringent. We can put some language that would provide an area for the tower to fall. I think on a small lot it would be difficult. Chair Wilson: Let me add a bit of information. Technically, it will take building and safety review for the accessory structure for seismic and wind load. We should have a reasonable amount of prevention from a turnover event as a result of that. i Building & Safety Richard Shields: As an example, for a structure that was 15 to 20 feet high, my requirement would be structural engineering that would take into consideration that we were in Seismic Zone 4 and the exposure would have to be looked at the location and the exposure of building to wind load. So all these determining factors would then be calculated to design a footing that would withstand a great seismic event or 100 mile wind. Vice Chair Addington: What about the guide wires, the anchor portion in the ground can it be within the setback. Planner John Lampe: Some Ordinances do allow for that. This Ordinance does not. If you would like us to put that in there for guide wires. Vice Chair Addington: I think it would be nice for clarification that the anchors themselves cannot be within the set backs. Chair Wilson:Any further comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Comstock: I am looking at the third page, top of the page. Letter B. B. In processing the submitted application, The Community Development Director shall notify, by first-class mail, the immediate adjacent properly owners.... How close are we defining immediate? I know that when we have other kinds of projects we have to notify with in a 300 foot radius and notify. I am wondering if we should put that in as well. 16 Director Gary Koontz: Immediate would be any parcel that touches the property line. But if you want to put any additional distance that would be fine. Commissioner Comstock: I am talking about a Conditional Use Permit. Is that automatically at 300 feet? Director Gary Koontz: Yes. State Law and CEQA but this is not that kind of permit it is more of a discretionary permit. This is more like a Home Occupation Permit. We notify the immediate surrounding property owners and that is it. If you want to extend it out,you can as far as you want Commissioner Comstock: Well like the case we had earlier in the year. The people's view was dramatically affected by the antenna that was assembled and put up. I am wondering if we might want to have the ability for other property owners who are fairly close by to have some input or able to contact the city. Vice Chair Addington: I concur with Tom on this one. There should be a 300 foot notice. There were a lot of people whose homes were 2-4 homes away complaining when that antenna went up Chair Wilson: I would support a 300 foot area as well. Commissioner Comstock: Lastly, I know that the size of the antenna was one of the biggest complaints earlier in the year with this conditional use permit. I don't know how we could go about limiting the size of that proportionally to the property. That Yagi antenna appeared to me, to be as large or almost as large as the house. Covering a large portion of the lot and I am in favoring of limited the scope of the breadth of that antenna array in some way. Director Gary Koontz: Let us go back and do some research on some of the other Ordinances that have already been approved. To see if there is any language that we can pull out of those.What I recommend is to look at that and talk to the City Attorney and then we will come back for a second workshop to respond to your comments and questions. Chair Wilson:Any other comments for staff? Commission: No. Chair Wilson: I believe you have your comments on the HAM radio. Do any - of you have any other comments for staff ADTOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17 CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Director Gary Koontz: We have a couple of items tonight. The first one is if any of you have looked at our Budget this year, you will notice that there is a line item for some consulting work to start work on a General Plan update. It is that time. What we are doing is we have already started working on it. The goal of this is that we have gone back,we have looked at the existing elements, we have looked at the current law and there are some things we need to correct. We are going to update the background data, we are going to address the new requirements, and we are going to consolidate all the elements in a single formatted document. Right now we have several different books floating around. So far, to date, we have reviewed all of the existing documents which means "I have read every piece of the General Plan word for word". We have gone through and summarized and evaluated all the existing goals, objectives, and policies in each of the elements. I have this huge list Element by Element to try and compare how things all match up. We have identified the goals and policies that really don't apply anymore. Some of which were done back in the late 80's and 90's. The direction was either it was already done or it can't be done for whatever reasons. I have also looked at using the same format, where we are going to have a consolidated document. Everything is going to be in the same order. We are looking now at having a format that is going to have the Standard Seven Required Elements plus one extra. This will include Land Use, Circulation, Open Space & Conservation, Public Health & Safety, Public Facilities & Services (which we don't have now), Noise Element (we will not format noise element too much since it was just approved), and Housing. In the Housing Element we are working with SCAG on our Regional Housing Number Allocation, the new numbers will be out in July of 2007. Those are the numbers that are used to update the Housing Element and we have got until July 2008 to update that. We may be lagging on the Housing Element on that, but I want to get the rest of it in order and approved. The goal right now is to basically be very close to having a new adopted General Plan. The direction that we are moving in is we are going to have a series of Workshops. If we need more than one then we will have them. We will have workshops in front of the Planning Commission and City Council. We are going write a full EIR. I have already sent out RFP's. I have received proposals back at the beginning of this month. We will be hiring a consultant soon to get going on the background data and working on the EIR concurrently with the General Plan. 18 Concurrently with that, we are going to look at also writing a new Zoning Ordinance so that when the General Plan is adopted, we have the Zoning Ordinance going right behind it. A year or so ago we spent at a lot of time on workshops, looking at updates of the Zoning Ordinance. We are going to use that as a base. From that as the General Plan moves forward, if we need to manipulate that around to address new issues in the General Plan we are. Plan on over the course of the next six months we are going to spending a lot of time talking about different sections of it and what to keep and what needs to be done. Basically just working through the whole thing. That will be our task for 2007. Lastly, Our next scheduled meeting is December 21', which is the Thursday before the Christmas Holiday. We have a couple small items we can take; it is nothing that can't wait until January. So it is an issue of, Do you want to have a meeting, or do you want to hold off until January? Chair Wilson: Do we have a consensus (directed towards the Planning Commission)? Commission: All answered "I will be here on the 21"" Commissioner Comstock added he will not be here on the 7`t'. (J Chair Wilson: If you find it necessary to have a hearing at that time use your discretion,if it is not absolutely necessary,then I can't see any point in that. Director Gary Koontz: right now there is one minor project we would like to have another one that is ready to go. It is not like this is something that is crucial and very detailed and complex. Chair Wilson:Just use your discretion • Information from Commissioners Vice Chair Addington: How is the name change going for our pharmacy? The have the old names covered up but they do not have new names up yet. Director Gary Koontz: You had to ask? It is moving along. It is very complicated. CVS has been inundated trying to build new stores and convert the Sav-On's. The have done things that we have had to catch them on and say"step back, lets do it the right way". The have had banners, flags for a few days that were in violation of our Zoning ordinance. They are not there anymore. Rich and I have had to go in and spend time with the manager and contractor to make sure that they were doing things right, with permits. It all gets done in the end. 19 The Reader Board that was in front, one of the issues was that we were supposed to have access to that. Something got lost in Sav-on and they forgot about that. Well we have access now! Vice Chair Addington: So community messages will start to show up then? Director Gary Koontz: Yes. Commissioner Phelps: I would like to thank you for that, Gary! Vice Chair Addington: My neighbors all want to know, "How's Miguels?" Building& Safety Richard Shields: Over the last month and a half,they have submitted two grading plans that Building&Safety has taken in and turned around and approved both of those. In an effort to assist both developers in getting that project going,we expedited that. Minor changes but there were changes. Right now we are currently waiting for a Lot Line adjustment. I think we are in plan review with the Lot Line adjustment. Director Gary Koontz: We received that. We actually tried to Record it a couple days ago,but the Recorder's office rejected it because of the way the Notary Seals were stamped. Building& Safety Richard Shields: So we are going through some technical difficulties with the Recorder,but we are right there with probably the 41h grading plan review. Staff moved very quickly. So as soon as we get the Lot Line Adjustment it would be legal to issue a building permit at that point.You know the building plans had been approved for quite some time, so I could issue those soon after the grading is complete and I get it passed. We will be seeing some movement over there real soon. Director Gary Koontz: There have just been so many details between the Master Developer and Miguels and its just one little thing after another. However,we are determined. Building& Safety Richard Shields: I would like to do it before the code changes in 2008. (laughter in the background) Commissioner Comstock: Speaking of which,are there any expiration on any of those building approvals? Building& Safety Richard Shields: The building approval is good for a year, but if there has not been any code changes,through the state,then there is not reason why we should go in and re-approve it again. Our next code change, because the State is so far behind with building codes 1997 was the last one,we will just go ahead and extend that.When they are ready we will give them the permits. 20 Chair Wilson: I have a question. The Use on the corner of Barton and Mt. Vernon, CVS the only concern I have,is I don't remember us approving the right to retain trailers in the parking lot for an extended period of time,what is that about? Building & Safety Richard Shields: That is or was construction purposes. What they have done was they moved in all of their work equipment for the interior. But those trailers will be out very soon. Commissioner Comstock: I have noticed ESSCO is proceeding forth with their building. Another question. I know that the Master Developer with the Town Square Project, had been at one time in negotiations for the last of the parcels. Has there been any progress on that? Director Gary Koontz: There is nothing going on with that property. The project now is being designed with the Plan B without that property. Commissioner Mc Naboe: But it is being designed? Director Gary Koontz: Yes that is what we are going through now is the "Redesign" of the property. Commissioner Comstock: Well maybe I can insert an opinion. I have talked to several people in the community about that very issue. Everyone that I have -- talked with is strongly in favor of trying to incorporate the Stringfield property in with the rest of the design. I would maybe encourage someone to talk with the developer and see if we can get the two of them back together to negotiate if possible. It would look a lot better of a project to have all of the parcels together. Instead of having one long narrow strip of land that is elevated Eight Feet above there rest of the parcels and some portions with a large wall and all of the rest. I would surely make a nicer looking parcel for the City. Director Gary Koontz: I don't think you would hear anyone at this table arguing at that fact. The issue that we are dealing with is,the City Council made policy about that property regarding eminent domain and only the City Council can take action on it. Chair Wilson: The issue would be better directed toward the City Council at a City Council Meeting. Director Gary Koontz: If you desire we can take that comment. Commissioner Comstock: I am not really wanting to take property by Eminent Domain, I am just saying let's get back to negotiations with it, and see what we can do. Maybe both parties have changed a little, in their views, and they can see for the betterment of the City. I don't know! I can see that you are smiling. There is a lot of information that I don't know about. 21 Director Gary. Koontz: I have had way too many meeting with all parries involved over the subject and there is a lot that can be discussed concerning that. It is a very difficult subject. Chair Wilson: Any other items from the Commission? Vice Chair Addington: Is Mr. Demitri moving forward? Building & Safety Richard Shields: Yes. I have Mr. Dimitri's plans in Plan Review. I should get those back hopefully by tomorrow. Hopefully approved without any corrections. He is ready to go. He has already contacted Edison and has moved the Power Poll and he is getting the telephone lines moved. He is ready. Commissioner Comstock: Wonderful Director Gary Koontz: Also, the Greenbrier project that you approved up on Mt. Vernon, the Small Lot, Single-Family surrounded by the islands, that project is moving forward as well. Vice Chair Addington: Is that the Greystone Homes? Director Gary Koontz: Yes Chair Wilson: Any further discussion? ADTOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:05 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON December 7, 2006 Respectfully Submitted, ApproveA-9 Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission 22