Loading...
03/20/2003 F! 0 GRAND TERR CE Community and Economic Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2003 The reaular 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 21, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairman Matthew Addington, Vice Chairman Brian Whitley, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Michelle Boustedt, CEDD Secretary ABSENT: None 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Addington • 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 • (909) 824-6621 ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2003 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION: PC-1 0-2003 Vice Chair Addington made a,motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 20, 2003. Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion. ACTION: Approved 5-0-0-0 2. DISCUSSION ITEM: Discussion of the future development of 2 acres. APPLICANT: Barney Karger LOCATION: North side of De Berry Avenue generally between the Gage Canal and Mt. Vernon Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: Open discussion, receive information from staff, and provide guidance to property owner and staff as to future development of subject site. Associate Planner Lampe reported that the applicant had approached Staff with regard to his parcel on the north side of De Berry Street between Mt. Vernon and the Gage Canal on the west. The vacant site is two separate parcels measuring two acres in size. The first parcel has a north south depth of 100 feet and an east west depth of almost 800 feet. The second parcel is located west of Mirado Street and measures about 9,900 square feet. The properties to the north are duplexes, triplexes, apartment complexes and mixed single family residential. The site in question is located in the MDR, or the Medium Density Residential category of the City's General Plan, which allows up to 12 Units per acre. Allowable density bonuses include off-site improvements and by providing affordable type housing for a portion of the project. The site is presently zoned R-3 Medium Density Residential. A standard requirement is 12,000 square foot minimum lot sizes with lot width of a minimum of 60-feet for interior lots, front yard -25 feet, and side yards at 10-feet. Mr. Karger presented two concept plans to the Staff. One of the larger parcels, consisting of 800 X 100 square feet, shows an 1,800 square foot home with a 400 foot 2 garage with access through an alley way that runs along the northerly boundary of the parcel. The garage will be set in 4-feet from the property line. Mr. Karger is providing five-foot side yards on both sides of the house with a 20-foot front yard set-back. The proposed home on the corner will have a 15' side yard next to the street. Most lots will measure a little less than 5,000 square feet with a corner lot slightly over, 5,900 square feet. The property west of Mirado Street is designed so that the garage access will be from the front of the home taking access off of Mirado Street. The homes in this area will be slightly smaller consisting of 1,550 square feet but with similar set-backs as the previous plan. At the present time, there is no particular zone that would accommodate a development such as this. Staff has concerns with regard to the appearance of the future development with lots measuring less than 50 feet in width, reduced front yards and no variety in front setbacks. Because of the size and shape of the property, the Staff does recognize that this is a difficult piece of property to develop. Three possible alternatives were presented to the Commission. Alternative 1 would be to come up with a new development code. It would take Staff a great deal of time to prepare such a new code. Alternative 2 would be to rezone the property to single-family residential at R-1 7.2 zone with a development that would meet same standards but not others such as the minimum area requirement. Alternative 3 would be to develop the property under an option that would be consistent with the R-3 Zone such as a townhouse project. One entity would be responsible for common area maintenance; would allow for increased density of the downtown area; and would also match the surrounding multiple-family development. If the Commission were in agreement with any of the alternatives presented, it would be Mr. Karger's best interest to receive suggestions from the Commission as to what would be deemed acceptable for the development of this property. Chair Wilson commented that there is a development in the City of Newport Beach that had a similar situation. Rather than building an undesirable project, they created a project where an alley was utilized in the rear. It provided for a craftsman style front to the house that appeared to be a small front entrance but it was a fagade only with true access into the units on the rear off the alley. Planning Director Koontz replied that the current trend in land development is to utilize smaller lots. If done properly, a small residential development would benefit the community. Vice Chair Addington added that he had worked on small lots such as the lots in question, and liked the applicant's idea of access off of the alley way, but did not like the two-foot setback. A zipper lot or a 'Y' shaped lot seems to be another suggestion 3 that the applicant may want to consider, he would also like for the applicant to consider some landscape monumentation or trees at the corner of Mt. Vernon and De Berry. He also added that he would like to see the piece of land developed out, but not to utilize Alternative Number One as presented. Commissioner Bidney asked what the objection to Alternative 3 with regard to townhouses or condominiums. Planning Director Koontz replied that the applicant does not feel that town homes will be marketable; but has suggested that some type of common area maintenance should be done towards the front of the property. Commissioner Comstock said that he was against Alternative 1 and has concerns with regard to rezoning and giving variances. He feels that there will be others who will use the property as an example and want to do the same. Commissioner Comstock feels that the lot sizes should be kept up to a 7,200 square foot standard. Chair Wilson added that he was also against Alternative 1 and is in agreement with the applicant of Alternative 3 as far as marketing for condos or town homes. Vice Chair Addington agreed with Commissioner Comstock with regard to keeping the lot sizes at a 7,200 square foot standard. Chair Wilson invited the applicant/owner to speak before the Commission. Barney Karger 11668 Bernardo Way Mr. Karger reports that he has owned the piece of property for about 43 years. Mr. Karger is not interested in building apartments, condos, or town homes. Instead, he would like to build something a little more appealing for the area. He indicated that the reason for 25 foot front yards is to have access to park in front of the proposed homes. Without a garage in front, a 25 foot setback would not be required. Mr. Karger stated that there will be only two homes that will have front garage access. The rest of the proposed homes will have garage access through the alleyway to the rear. He will be the developer of the proposed project and his son will be the builder. Mr. Karger said he is open to suggestions by the Planning Commission. Chair Wilson suggested that if a two-foot distance from the property line to the garage will be utilized, there would not be enough room to install a gate. Mr. Karger replied that he thought a two foot setback will allow for roof access or if a homeowner wanted to paint the side of the home, they would have proper access. If the Commission would like a three-foot setback, then it would be acceptable to him. 4 Vice Chair Addington commented that he liked the idea of having a zero-foot offset. There is an easement granted to allow for access for the fire department from past projects that he had worked on. Commissioner Whitley agreed with the Commission with regard to Alternative Two which seemed to be the best alternative for the project. Commissioner Bidney commented that he was not in favor of a zero foot lot line. If one homeowner were to plant flowers, the neighbor may object because of boundary lines,.and was not in favor for a two-foot lot line. Mr. Karger replied that he would be in agreement to do a three foot wide lot line if the Commission so wished. Commissioner Comstock commented that a 10,000 square foot lot was approved at a previous Planning Commission meeting. His concern was to set precedent with the lots and to try to keep the lot sizes at 7,200 square feet. His other concern was the-3 foot set back, and feels that the fire department would have to be contacted with regard to what they would require. Chair Wilson confirmed with Mr. Karger that the two-foot set-back that would be on the side of the garage area, which would be considered unusable, and five foot side yards could be possible. Mr. Karger replied that the more usable yard space the better. That way, families can have more yard space for children. Vice Chair Addington informed Mr. Karger that he was in favor of the project, noting he had no objectives to the 20 foot front yards. Chair Wilson added that he had no objection to the 20 foot front yard setback, along with the access from the rear of each home. Chair Wilson also added that he would like for Mr. Karger to do something with the corner of De Berry and Mt. Vernon Avenue as far as common area landscaping or a monument type of landscaping. ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:55 CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Barton Road Specific Plan Associate Planner Lampe presented the report to the Planning Commission with regard to the Barton Road Specific Plan. The Barton Road Specific Plan had been adopted in 1989 with the goal to bring a comprehensive planning approach to the development of the Barton Road commercial corridor. The Specific Plan runs along 5 both sides of Barton Road to Preston Street including the parcel that is owned by Tony Petta at Preston Street and Barton Road. The City's business community has developed a negative attitude toward the plan. The business owners feel that the Barton Road Specific plan is not a business friendly document and tends to discourage new business in the city. The Plan is divided into four major subdivisions. The first is to create a village concept. Staff feels that this remains valid and proper for the City. The Plan contains land use maps that layout the various commercial uses throughout the City. The west end of the Plan is the General Commercial category, which runs from the west side of the I- 215 Freeway to Canal Street, which provides for heavier types of commercial uses close to freeway proximity. From Canal Street on the west side to the Seventh Day Adventist Church is considered the Village Commercial Category which allows for lighter uses which are designed to compliment the village core concept of the Plan. From the Seventh Day Adventist Church east to Preston Street is the Administrative Professional category which is for various types of office uses. Also included within the regulatory framework are various so-called master plan areas. Mater Plan Area 1 is located on the southerly side of Barton Road. Master Plan 2 is on the north side of Barton Road. Master Plans 3 and 4 are located at the intersection of Mt. Vernon and Barton Roads. In the entire fourteen year tenure of the Plan, a master plan has not been materialized to develop the Master Plan areas. The building on the northwest corner, otherwise known as the La Mancha Building has come the closest with the reverse corner layout with parking in the rear. The second major category of the Barton Road Specific Plan is the development regulations. This particular part of the plan acts as the zoning code for the Specific Plan. In certain instances where a particular use is not listed, the applicant has in the past pursued their application by coming before the Planning Commission with what is a Determination of Use in which the Staff analyses the request, with a finding from the Commission. This process has been considered to be bothersome to potential business owners. Also included in the development regulations of the Specific Plan are development standards or zoning standards for the Plan. These standards tend to be more restrictive than the general zoning standards with the Citywide General Commercial Zone. There have also been requirements where the parking be setback in the Village Commercial 30-feet from property line, whereas General Commercial Citywide is a five foot setback. Overall, the standards tend to have higher requirements than Citywide. 6 The final part of the Barton Road Specific Plan contains discussion regarding design guidelines. It is Staff's opinion that although the overall goals are laudable, there should be some language added to provide flexibility to the current Plan. It is Staffs suggestion that while we maintain original idea and thrust the Specific Plan to provide for quality development in the Village Concept, there is work to be done to modify the Plan to update it and make it more business friendly. Planning Associate Lampe completed his report and invited the Commission's opinion. ChairWilson commented that he was in the General Plan Task Force, and suggested that a red line version should be made and compare them to neighboring similar cities. Vice Chair Addington commented that he was in agreement for a change in the Plan. Commissioner Addington suggested that Civic Center Court should be changed as a designation for Azure Hills Church. Planning Director Koontz replied that the parcels that Commissioner Addington was referring to have been zoned for offices. He feels that there should be a designation for mixed uses in that area, so that other multiple family uses similar to those existing can be built in that area. Commissioner Comstock suggested that the Staff put together a "wish list" of changes, so that the Commission can assist in making such changes to the Specific Plan. Planning Director Koontz replied that the Staff has been working with the Plan and would like to have a little more leeway at the Staff level for appropriate uses. In terms of the development standards, some may be too stringent and it is in the Staffs best interest to bring in good quality projects that will benefit the community. Chair Wilson feels that the four to six week process seems to be feasible with regard to the review of a proposed business and feels that businesses that are opposed to such a time frame may not be thinking seriously of their business. Planning Director Koontz informed the Commission what direction that they would like Staff to take as far what needs to be modernized. Vice Chair Addington likes the Village concept in the Cape Cod architecture styling and feels that the area could be more pedestrian oriented. Planning Director Koontz replied that in order to make the area pedestrian oriented, the City will have to spend a lot of money re-doing the street as a village access type of roadway. Planning Director Koontz informed the Commission that the Sign Ordinance for Grand Terrace needs to be simplified. He feels that there should be one sign ordinance instead of two sign ordinances that would be easy to understand. 7 Commissioner Whitley asked how much of the Barton Road Redevelopment area zoned? Planning Director Koontz replied that the entire City is within the redevelopment areas. Commissioner Whitley has a concern with regard to the master development planned areas. The Towne Center area seems to be appropriate, but feels that there are others that he feels that do not seem appropriate. Planning Director Koontz reported that the Staff will start to work on the Barton Road Specific Plan revision that the Staff will feel comfortable presenting to the Commission. A workshop with the business owners will also be held, so that Staff may receive input from them as well. Planning Director Koontz reported that a fence has been installed around Rollins Park to start the grading process. There will be a ground breaking ceremony on March 29tn The park will be completed by the end of the year. Planning Director Koontz reported that the Van Buren tract is currently up for bid. The housing products submitted in the proposals are very attractive. • Information from Commissioners Commissioner Bidney reported that the trucking company off of Michigan Avenue is proceeding with the street work, and seems to be looking very good. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:30 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON APRIL 17. 2003 Respectfully Submitted, Approved , Johh Uhmpe'�,'Associag Planner Doug Wilson, Chairman vI Planning Commission Gary Koontz, Community Development Director 8