Loading...
07/18/2002 ctTr �RAND TERR cE Community Development GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION Department MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2002 The reqular meetinq of the Grand Terrace Planninq Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on July 18, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Douq Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Brian Whitley, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Jeff Gollihar, Planning Technician Michelle Boustedt, CDD Secretary ABSENT: None 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ �1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Whitley 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 ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: Approval 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • (909) 824-6621 MOTION: PC-20-2002 Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated June 20, 2002. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. .MOTION VOTE: Approved 3-0-0-2. PC-20-2002 Commissioner Bidney abstained Commissioner Comstock abstained Chair Wilson congratulated and welcomed the new Planning Commissioners, Tom Comstock and Robert "R.P." Bidney. 2. SA-02-02, E-02-03 Site and Architectural Review to construct an approximately 3,000 square foot, one-story dental office with appurtenant off-street parking and landscaping on an approximately .75 acre parcel. APPLICANT: Serafin L. Bernardo, Jr., DMD; Abel. Lopez, Architect. LOCATION: Northwest corner of the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Britton Way. RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing, and approve SA-02- 02 to construct the one-story dental office and approve E-02-03, the Categorical Exemption, in that this project qualifies as a class of projects that is exempt from CEQA review. Associate Planner Lampe reported that the proposed dental office will be located at the corner of Mt. Vernon and Britton Way. The proposed building site measures approximately 100 feet in width with a depth of 360 feet. The applicant is asking for approval of the Site and Architectural review to construct a 3,000 square foot dental office, with off-street parking and landscaping. The subject property slopes with a four foot fall to the south along the frontage of Britton Way. The surrounding property is developed to multi-family residential just west of the subject site as well as various commercial uses to the south of the site. To the north is a vacant parcel, a convalescent care facility, and a private school. It is required that a site and architectural review be submitted to the Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. The site plan for the proposed dental office will contain approximately a 3,000 square foot building located at the east end of the '. subject site. The parking for the office will be located at the immediate portion of the 2 site with a large area to the extreme west end of the site will be reserved for additional future office space. The site plan shows that the property for the project more than meets the Ordinance requirements of one parking space for .every 200 square feet of gross floor area. This application actually has 25 parking spaces, whereas under the code, 15 parking spaces would be required. The excess parking could possibly used for the future building on the west end of the site. The overall dimensions of the layout of the parking lot will meet the minimum standards for parking in terms of parking dimensions. Access to the proposed parking lot will be divided by means of two driveways on Britton Way. The Public Works Department did look at this particular application and made a recommendation about the future widening and improvements along Britton Way. The site plan reflects these recommendations. A trash enclosure has been added in the parking lot area. The proposed floor plan of the building on the west side shows that the building will consist of what would normally be considered a normal kind of dental office layout with dental booths, a conference room, break room, office, reception area, lab facilities, a storage room and restrooms. The main entrance of the facility will be at the southwest corner of the structure. The four elevations of the building show that the building will have a rustic appearance in keeping with the architectural style of other commercial buildings in the City. The architect is proposing river rock around the exterior of the elevations at the base of the building to keep in step with other buildings in the city. Other uses such as cedar appearance siding will be utilized to,add a rustic wooden appearance to the exterior of the building. The use of shake tile roof on the building and use of the dormers on the east side will also provide a more rustic appearance to the building. Several features of the architectural design were employed to follow the design standards of the Barton Road Specific Plan. These features include wall articulation of the project, roof overhangs, simulated wood siding, heavy shake tile roof, and use of river rock accents. The applicant has proposed three different species of trees to be used for landscaping around the proposed building with a minimum size of 24 inch box. Also proposed as ground cover is the use of rosemary and turf. The overall proposal in terms of the number of trees in the areas to be landscaped meets the minimum requirements for the parking lot layout. The Staff did take notice that the plan needs to be improved or at least modified in some way to provide adequate screening between the parking lot and the Britton Way frontage. The Ordinance requires that some sort of screening should be provided at a three foot height whether in the form of a block wall, solid fence or use of landscaping to provide an opaque screening between the open parking and the street. The architect has been made aware of this and is in agreement to make such modifications. 3 Staff had additional comments with regard to the proposed landscaping. Additional landscaping to the plan would lessen what would probably be a sparse appearance. Staff feels that there should be some additional screening added to the site, not only to screen the parking, but also the planting along the proposed block wall along the northerly property line. Based on the amount of landscaping of the site, which consists of almost 60% of the site, a recommendation has been made by Staff that the services of a certified landscape architect should be employed. Staff did list the mandatory findings, which are required by Code, for a site and architectural review in the staff report. The recommended Resolution of Approval has also been attached along with the Staff Report. Also listed were various conditions that staff felt should be imposed along with the project. Planning Associate Lampe concluded that the Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the Site and Architectural Review project as called for by the Resolution. Chair Wilson opened the Public Hearing for comment. Being that there were no takers, Chair Wilson turned the project back to the Commission for comment. Vice Chair Addington had a question with regard to the east elevation, would there be a large roof line facing Mt. Vernon Avenue and would there be a way to break up the roof line? Planning Associate Lampe replied that the Vice Chairman was correct in his lam, assumption, that the dormers were the attempt of the architect to achieve this break up. Abel Lopez, Architect 1481 N. Holly Street, Colton Mr. Lopez replied that the roof line as illustrated in the staff report follows the long side of the building and that the dormers have been placed to break up the roof line and to follow the rustic architectural features. Chair Wilson asked Mr. Lopez if it would be possible to give a little more shadow to the roof. Mr. Lopez replied that the morning sun will shadow towards the north, and as the sun drops to the south in the evening, the dormers will catch shadows onto Mt. Vernon Avenue. Vice Chair Addington asked Staff with regard to the NPDES Permit, current Federal Law illustrates that a permit is not required for anything under five acres. Would this permit need to be required? Requiring this permit can become very costly to the applicant. 4 Planning Associate Lampe replied that the City is in the process of trying to come up with a solution on how the City needs to comply with these types of requirements. i This process has also been explained to both the applicants and the architect. Vice Chair Addington replied that it is to his knowledge that the city may require this permit if there is a threat to the waterways. This study could cost anywhere from $6,000410,000 with an additional cost of$10,000 to implement the process. Planning Associate Lampe agreed with the Vice Chairman, and suggested that the condition can be reworded in a way that the applicant will comply with whatever requirements are applicable to this specific project. Vice Chair Addington asked what a certificate of survey is and why would it be required? Planning Associate Lampe replied that Staff was unaware of where the center line of Britton Way is. The Public Works Department is asking for a survey to establish where the center line is located on Britton Way. Vice Chair Addington replied that legally, there is no such thing as a certificate of survey. What would need to be done is require a record of survey if required by State Law. Commissioner Comstock asked if it would be possible to use landscaping for screening rather than a block wall. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the landscaping is one of the options that can be used rather than a block wall, and it would be to the Commission's discretion on what should be used. Commissioner Comstock suggested that it would be more cost effective for the applicant to use the landscape as the screening rather than a block wall. Chair Wilson asked how close a screening wall would be to a public right of way. Planning Associate Lampe replied that the screening wall should be set back at least 5 feet from the right of way. Vice Chair Addington expressed his concern should the landscape die off, and then there would be no screening, so he is suggesting both landscaping and a wall. Chair Wilson had a concern with the radius with regard to the traffic going onto Mt. Vernon with a site distance that may be less than favorable. Has this been discussed? Planning Associate Lampe replied that he was unaware if Building and Safety had reviewed it. But he did report that the Traffic Engineer had reviewed the project and had no comments. 5 Chair Wilson asked Planning Associate Lampe where the lights will be located, and in what direction will they be facing. Planning Associate Lampe replied that the applicant has not prepared a lighting plan for the project. There is a condition that requires that the lighting be directed away from nearby residential areas. A condition can be added to require a lighting plan must be submitted prior to approval. Chair Wilson asked if Planning Associate Lampe knew what the traffic index would generate for the project. Planning Associate Lampe replied that he couldn't imagine that the peak hour traffic will generate any problems onto Mt. Vernon Avenue. Chair Wilson brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and motion. MOTION: PC-21-2002 Vice Chair Addington made a motion to request staff to reword the Condition of Approval under Public Works, Page 1 of Attachment 3 Item Al to re-word the words, "Certificate of Survey" to "Record of Survey" as required by Law. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-21-2002 Approved 5-0-0-0 MOTION: PC-22-2002 Vice Chair Addington made a motion under Attachment Number 4 from the City Engineer, Item Number 3, to add the words, "the Project shall comply with the municipal storm water pollution permit. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-22-2002 Approved 5-0-0-0 MOTION: PC-23-2002 Chair Wilson moved to amend the Conditions to include the requirement that a lighting plan be submitted as far as the review of the project. Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion. 6 MOTION VOTE: PC-23-2002 Approved 5-0-0-0 MOTION: PC-24-2002 Vice Chair Addington made a motion to move for approval SA-02-02 and E-02-03 with the amended conditions. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-24-2002 Approved 5-0-0-0. 3. SA-02-05, E-02-06 Applications for a Site and Architecture and Environmental Review to construct a new single- story, single-family residence. APPLICANT: Stonewood Construction for Warren & Christina Schmidt. LOCATION: 23031 Grand Terrace Road. RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing, and approve subject to conditions. Planning Technician Gollihar presented his staff report for the proposed Schmidt Residence at Barton and Grand Terrace Road. The vacant lot.is located at lot number 14 of the Vista Grande Terrace Tract Map. The total lot acreage is .68. The proposed residence is consistent with the General Plan designation, which is a low density residential zone designation R-10, which requires a 10,000 square foot minimum sized lot for a single family residence. The proposed single story residence will consist of 2,497 square feet, with a three car detached garage. The residence will cover 13% of the entire property, and will be consistent with the neighborhood, both in house size and in coverage. The proposed floor plan of the residence shows 3 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms, kitchen with a breakfast nook, living room, formal dining room, study, and laundry room. This floor plan is consistent with the greater area for the R1-10, and also the R1-20 lots that are located in the area. The elevation is a modern ranch style home that is also consistent with the surrounding residences. 7 Planning Technician Gollihar concluded that the Staff is recommending the approval of the Resolution to approve the proposed single family residence with conditions as approved by the Planning, Public Works, and the Fire Departments as presented. Chair Wilson opened up the Public Hearing for public comment. Warren Schmidt-Owner/Builder Stonewood Construction 7326 Harding Court, Highland Mr. Schmidt reported that there are a couple conditions that he would like to have reconsidered by the Planning Commission. On Condition Number Eight, the Public Works Department was asking for planting of a 24-inch box tree with irrigation in the parkway area. The property has a very narrow frontage and would not be feasible to plant a tree in the parkway. With a 60-foot driveway approach, it does not leave much room. Chair Wilson asked Planning Technician Gollihar what the setback in relation to the front property line was. Planning Technician Gollihar replied that the setback was 25 feet. Chair Wilson asked Planning Technician Gollihar what the street tree requirements were, and was there a cutoff in the Ordinance? Planning Technician Gollihar replied that the street tree requirements are a minimum of 50 feet with at least one tree located in the frontage. Mr. Schmidt added that the landscape plan has not been provided to the Commission, and explained that on the north side of the street of the proposed residence, there will be a small grove of trees planted in the area, to provide a more rustic appearance for the area. Vice Chair Addington asked Planning Technician Gollihar with regard to the requirement for one tree, does the requirement say that the tree has to be to the center of the lot, or can the required tree be shifted to the edge of the lot where the tree will clear the other utilities? Planning Technician Gollihar replied that the requirement does not specify where the tree can be located, it just specifies to have a tree every fifty feet along the street, in the right of way. If the tree was moved back to avoid the utilities, it may be acceptable to avoid future water utility problems. Vice Chair Addington asked if the City has guidelines as to what types of trees can be planted in the parkway. 8 Associate Planner Lampe answered that there are a list of approved trees that may be planted. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant so that he may meet the requirements. Mr. Schmidt claimed that he has not seen the report from the Fire Department, and stated that as per the requirements of the fire department, a fire hydrant has been installed. Chair Wilson asked if the circular driveway was proposed for a fire turnaround, or was it-designed for decorative purposes. Mr. Schmidt replied that the circular driveway is more for decorative purposes, and he believes that it does meet the standards for the fire department. Chair Wilson asked. Planning Technician Gollihar what the Code was in relation to agricultural use in a residential zone so far as fruit bearing trees. Planning Associate Lampe answered Chair Wilson by stating that the property is located in the agricultural overlay, and does entitle the property owner to utilize the property for agricultural purposes. Commissioner Bidney asked Mr. Schmidt if he was requestion to exclude`the tree in the parkway. Mr. Schmidt replied that he would like for the Commission to exclude the tree placement as suggested, or possibly move the tree farther into the frontage of the property. Chair Wilson invited the public to speak for or against the project. Tom Alley 6304 Satis Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes Mr. Alley reported that he owns the property directly across the street from the subject site and feels that he has no objection to the project. Michael Lee 23081 Grand Terrace Road Mr. Lee stated that he shares Mr. Schmidt's concern with regard to the tree in the frontage road. Mr. Lee's sewer line runs down the property line where the proposed tree would be planted and feels that this tree would pose as a future problem to the existing sewer lines. As for the elevation of the structure, Mr. Lee states that the front of his residence would look out over the home and is not sure how high the residence would be in relation to his residence. 9 Chair Wilson asked Planning Technician Gollihar if the plot plan addressed the issue _ of finished surface plus roof on top of roof. And what was the elevation of the adjacent parcel to the east? Planning Technician Gollihar replied that the pad is at 1,170 feet from pad to roof line. The top of the roof line measures 20 feet, six inches which would make it at 1,190 feet. The adjacent parcel at the east is 1-,170 feet at the highest point. Mr. Lee wanted to know what normal distances are between a property line and the residence. He has been made aware that the property line for the proposed residence and his home to the proposed residence's garage would be 14 feet. Chair Wilson asked Staff what the requirement was on the R1-10 Zone. Planning Technician Gollihar responded that the minimum area requirement for the smallest side yard is five feet. The side with a garage would be 10 feet. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for comment. Commissioner Comstock had a question with regard to the ornamental street light that has been required to be installed. How far off the street is the staff requiring the light to be placed? Planning Technician Gollihar replied that it would be within the right of way near the - curb where a sidewalk may be recommended. Warren Schmidt-Owner/Builder Stonewood Construction 7325 Harding Court, Highland Mr. Schmidt felt that he should not be installing the street light in front of the property. Mr. Schmidt feels that the city should have installed a street light along with the recent improvements that were made. Commissioner Comstock asked staff if other properties in the surrounding neighborhood were required to put a street light. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the only street light that was installed within the proximity of the proposed residence was a.street light at the new bicycle staging area. The City's Municipal Code does require that if one were to build a house, there would have to be proper street lighting installed in the right of way. Associate Planner Lampe replied that one of the common , complaints is that residential streets are not well.lighted, and there is a necessary need for additional street lighting. 10 Commissioner Bidney felt that street lighting should not be part of an applicant's requirements in building a residence. r` MOTION: PC-25-2002 Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve SA-02- 05 and E-02-06, as conditioned. Chair Wilson seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: PC-25-2002 Approved 4-0-0-1 Commissioner Bidney abstained 8:20 P.M. -ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Information from Commissioners Vice Chair Addington had a question with regard to the block wall at the front corner of the ztation. What were the plans for the block wall? Planning Associate Lampe replied that the.Staff is currently collecting bids for a City identification sign for the wall. Commissioner Comstock complimented staff on the current City identification signs that have been built recently. • Information to Commissioners Chair Wilson asked Associate Planner Lampe with regard to the information that he had requested with regard to the speed limits reduction along Barton Road. Planning Associate Lampe replied that he had spoken with the City Traffic Consultant, in which the traffic consultant thought that the speed limit should be raised rather than lowered along Barton Road. Mr. Lampe also advised Chair Wilson that he has the phone number of the Lieutenant should he wishes to speak with him on the matter. Chair Wilson advised that he had called the Sheriff's Department in which they had advised that if a radar survey was performed, the jurisdiction that serves this community cannot use radar to be able to determine what the overage is on the speed limit. Vice Chair Addington advised that he will be on vacation next month, and will not be attending the meeting as scheduled on August 15. 11 Community Development Director Koontz introduced himself to the Commission. Mr. Koontz welcomed the Commission to give him a call, should they have any questions, and may periodically attend meetings on an as needed basis. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION: 8:30 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 16. 2002 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, Jo li Lampe, Associate Planner - ou ilso,, Ch ifman PI ning Commission Gary Koontz, Comte nity Development Director 12