08/19/2004 c�TY
0
GRAND TEW CE Community and Economic Development
Department
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINTUES OF REGULAR MEETING
August 19, 2004
The reciular meetinq of the Grand Terrace Planninq Commission was called to
order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace,
California, on Auqust 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Douq Wilson
Addinqton
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, Planning Secretary
l ABSENT: None
7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bidney
• Roll Call
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION:
Jeffrey McConnell
21758 Walnut
Mr. McConnell expressed his concern with regard to the recent behavior that has been
displayed at recent City Council Meetings as well as Planning Commission Meetings.
Mr. McConnell played an excerpt from a previous City Council Meeting whereas he
alleges a well known resident made derogatory and false remarks towards himl. Mr.
McConnell also stated that he has made this item an issue at the next City Council
meeting and is in hopes that citizens will attend this meeting and make comments with
regard to how meetings have recently been out of control by boisterous citizens.
22795 Barton Road• Grand Terrace, CalArnia 92313-5295 • (909) 824-6621
Julianne Hendrix
11978 La Crosse
Ms. Hendrix wanted to express her concern with regard to the way some citizens have
been conducting themselves towards each other during the Planning Commission and
City Council meetings and feels that order should be restored for the integrity of this
small community.
ITEMS:
1. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning
Commission
MOTION PC-18-2004: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to nominate and elect
_ Chair Wilson as Chairman for the next term.
Commissioner Bidney Seconded the motion
Chair Wilson nominated Vice Chair Addington as Vice
Chairman for the next term.
Commissioner Whitley seconded-the motion.
MOTION VOTE
PC-18-2004 Approved 4-0-0-1
Commissioner Comstock Absent
2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
June 3, 2004
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
MOTION PC-19-2004: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes
with correction on page 7 with regard to the 2nd paragraph
to strike the word "sewage
Chair Wilson wanted to add that on Page 13, the 6th
paragraph, should read "did the railroad noise at any given
time measure above 55 decibels near the raceway."
Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion.
MOTION VOTE
PC-19-2004: Approved 5-0-0-0
3. SP-04-02, SA-04-02
SA-04-03, SA-04-04
SA=04-05, SA-04-06
TTM-04-01, E-04-01: Construction of a total of 16 lots, 15 to be developed with
single family detached type units on individual lots ranging in
size from 4,460 square feet to 5,914 square feet. The 16th
lot of 12,007 square feet to be developed into a 4-plex type
apartment building.
2
APPLICANT: Massaro &Welsh, Civil Engineers-Land Surveyors on behalf
of Barney Karger
LOCATION: Approximately 2 acre vacant area located generally on the
north side of De Berry Street between Gage Canal right-of-
way on the west and Mt. Vernon Avenue on the east.
RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing; receive the staff report and
testimony. The Staff is making no recommendation for this
proposal; however, the Planning Commission may wish to
consider three possible actions, as listed in the Staff. Report.
Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his staff report. The
subject site consists of 2 parcels located on the northerly side of De Berry Street
between Gage Canal on the west and Mt. Vernon Avenue on the east.
The size of the subject site is slightly over 2 acres. One parcel has a 100 foot depth
with an 800 foot frontage. It is a long linear parcel which is difficult to develop. The
second parcel is located on the corner of Mirado Drive and De Berry Street, consisting
of about 9,900 square feet.
The surrounding area is developed with a mixture of single family residential duplexes
and small apartment buildings to the north of the subject site and farther to the north is
Cape Terrace Town home development. To the immediate south of the subject site is
"The Crest Apartment" project with over 250 units. Farther to the west is the 55 unit
condominium project in which the tract map will soon be brought before the City Council
for consideration and recommendation for approval.
Properties to the southwest of the site consist of Single Family Residential Zone R-1, as
are properties on the east side of Mt. Vernon which are also Single Family Residential
R-1.
De Berry Street is classified as a 66-foot wide two lane collector road. There are curbs
and gutters along the subject site, but there are no sidewalks. Mirado is a 60-foot local
street, and does have curbs, gutters and sidewalks. In addition, there is a 20 foot wide
public alleyway running along the northerly side of subject site. This alleyway provides
access to the rear of the property from the Mirado Drive frontage. The westerly parcel
does not have the alleyway for access.
The subject site is located in the Medium Density category of the General Plan and is
Zoned R3, as are most of the other properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject
site.
The proposed project will consist of a total of 16 residential lots. The 15 westerly lots of
this proposal will be developed with one story residential homes. There will 15 single
family residential lots including the parcel on the west side of Mirado Drive which will be
divided into two residential lots. The 16th lot will be developed as a two-story four-plex
apartment building.
The lot sizes for this project will range from 4,460 square feet to 12,000 square feet.
The typical lot size of the lots will be about 5,000 square feet in size. Because the City
3
does not have the zoning classification at the present time to accommodate this project,
the Applicant has filed what is called a Specific Plan. In order to be allowed to
subdivide this property as proposed, a Specific Plan is a mechanism allowed by State
Law for allowance to take the place of standard zoning and allow of special
development standards that address unique situations for a specific site.
Together.with a Specific Plan, the Applicant has filed for a Tentative Tract Map. The
Specific Plan must meet the requirements for the City's subdivision Ordinance.
Therefore, the necessity of the tentative map to divide the property into 16 separate lots.
The Applicant has also filed for five Site and Architectural Review Applications, one for
each proposed floor plan of the project.
There will be four floor plans for single family detached housing, and a separate floor
plan for the two-story, four-plex apartment building. The Applicant has summarized his
request in a Letter of Intent that was included in the Staff Report.
The Site Plan includes the footprint of the residential structures. Each of the single-
family residential lots does show the proposed footprint of the residential structure. A
typical layout will consist of a 5,000 square foot lot measuring 50 x 100 feet. Front
yards will measure 20 feet with 5 foot side yards. Most of the lots will take access for
their garages off of the 20 foot alleyway running along the northerly side of the
development. The garages will be setback 6 feet from the alley beginning the additional
turnaround and backup distance to maneuver in and out of the garages also to reflect
that there is a six foot Edison Easement running across the northerly side of the
property.
All of the single-family homes fronting on De Berry will have a 20-foot setback and will
-- be lined up in a row fronting on De Berry Street. However, the two lots on the west side
of Mirado do not have an alley in the back for access; the garages will be in the front
with driveways directly off of Mirado Drive.
The four-plex will be located at the end on the 12,000 square foot lot. This will consist
of two stories in height with tuck under parking in the back of the apartment building.
Access into the garages from the back of the apartment will be by means off of the
alleyway. In order to gain a 20 foot width to gain access into the proposed garages, an
easement is being proposed over portions of two adjacent lots.
Backup distances and the maneuvering area appear to be somewhat inadequate except
for small vehicles with limited turning radius. Additional questions raised were how the
trash pickup takes place in such a small restricted area.
All of the proposed homes on De Berry will have a 20-foot set-back. Walkways will be
provided in the front of the homes provided pedestrian access to a new sidewalk which
will be put in along the northerly side of DeBerry Street.
There is a series of floor plans for each of the proposed housing products that the
applicant is proposing. For example, the floor plan for Plan 1 consists of a one-story
single family home containing about 1,623 square feet consisting of three bedrooms
and two baths. All floor plans will range in size from slightly over 1,700 square feet to
1,850 square feet. They are similar to the first floor plan with the garage access off the
alleyway running along the northerly center of the project.
4
The front elevation of Plan 1 shows that the home will have a mostly contemporary
design with a Spanish influence with the use of arches and tile roofs. The other three
plans will have a similar architectural style with the exception that the garage will be
placed in the rear of the residence.
The apartment building located on the corner of Mt. Vernon and DeBerry will have a
different appearance with a general contemporary design with a composition roof, and
does not seem to have any architectural embellishments.
The Applicant did provide in his package, preliminary landscaping plan showing a
generalized plant palate including trees, shrubs, and ground cover in various locations
for future planning of the project.
There will be a variety of trees planted in front yards of the single family homes. The
four-plex rear and side yards will not be planted except for the corner side yards. There
were no special treatments planned for the corner of Mt. Vernon and DeBerry. It was
noted that during the workshop with regard to this particular item, it was suggested that
some type of landscape treatment should be added
The tract map shows the existing utilities and sewers as well as adjacent streets,
including the 20-foot alley running along the northerly side of the property. The
proposed easements, street improvements and the location of the Gage Canal and the
existing 48 inch drainage pipe running along the De Berry Street frontage of the
property.
The Applicant also provided Staff with a colored materials board containing beige and
darker beige with a sample of a roof tile that would be used for the proposed
residences.
The Applicant also provided Staff with a Specific Plan Booklet. It is Staffs opinion that
this specific plan document does not meet the requirements of State Law. The
Government Code of State Law does require a bit of detail what needs to be included in
a Specific Plan. Staff does not feel that what was submitted would not pass the test of
State Law.
In March of 2004, the Applicant was sent an Incomplete Letter. In the letter, there were
about 20 items that needed to be included in the Specific Plan document to make it an
adequate document to meet the test of State Law. To date, the Applicant has not
modified the Specific Plan as originally requested.
In addition, the Staff did not complete the Environmental Review for the project because
the Applicant did not provided for additional studies requested by the Planning
Commission for this development. Three additional studies including the hydrology
study, acoustical study were specifically requested by the Commission in February of
2004 in order to review the project.
This site has had a long history of discussion with the City. In March of 2003, the
Planning Commission held a workshop with regard to this project. The developer
presented a proposal for single family residential on 5,000 square foot lots. At that time,
the City did not have a zoning district or classification that would accommodate his.
proposal; a Specific Plan would be the only mechanism that would allow the Applicant
to go forward. At the March 2003 meeting, the Staffs the majority of the Commission
5
thought that there would not be any problem with Single Family Development on lots
that are smaller than normally approved in our City. The Commission wanted to be sure
that the project was of high quality in terms of design and appearance.
In addition, one of the members of the Commission pointed out additional features such
as additional landscaping treatment on the corner of Mt. Vernon and De Berry Street.
E
In May of 2003, the Applicant and the Developer met with Staff to discuss what would
be required for the Specific Plan. The Developer was informed that as this is a
relatively small piece of land, an abbreviated version of a Specific Plan would be
acceptable but it must be a stand alone document that must meet all requirements of
State Law. It was also suggested that the Developer submit a preliminary plan of this
proposal for the City to review before moving too far forward with the project.
In July of 2003, the Developer did submit a preliminary set of plans consisting of a site
plan and floor plans and elevations that were basically the same that was presented at
the public hearing. Staff informed the developer that additional modifications were
necessary to meet the parameters established by the Planning Commission and the
comments that were made at the workshop.
It was suggested that an architect be hired to assist with the development of this small
site. The Developer then presented his proposal to the City Manager. In September of
2003, a letter was sent to the Developer outlining the potential compromise for the
project. In this letter, the City Manager discussed increasing the side yards of the non-
garage side from 5 feet to 10 feet, eliminating the two-story four-plex because of access
issues, and provide a greenbelt area with a small park to provide additional amenities
for this project given the fact that the lots would be relatively small. The Developer did
not follow this advice and rejected the compromise and decided to go forward with his
original proposal.
In February of 2004, the Applicant filed various applications, maps, drawing and exhibits
for his project. As mentioned, the Staff did come before the Commission in a workshop,
asking what additional supplement studies would be required for the review of this
project given the Commission's comments on the adjacent apartment project that was
heard earlier in October of 2003, where the Commission had asked for a hydrology
study. The Staff did feel that an acoustical study would be required because of the
contour lines of the noise study that showed that the easterly portion of the property
would be somewhat impacted by noise levels coming from traffic on Mt. Vernon.
In March of 2004, Staff wrote a detailed and rather long letter to the Applicant listing all
of the items that needed to be addressed to make the series of applications complete to
move forward. These items included revisions and additions to the Specific Plan,
compliance with State Law, respond to comments on a Tentative Tract Map Preliminary
grading plan, submit requested supplemental studies to complete the Environmental
Review of the project, pay the additional environmental fees as required by the City's
Fee Ordinance; and submit various additional drawings and exhibits. The Applicant and
Developer chose not to submit these additional requested items.
At this time, the Staff does not feel that the necessary documentation has been
obtained to make a specific recommendation for this project. The Applicant has been
provided with more than an adequate amount of time to provide these items. There
6
appears to be an "impasse" between the Applicant and the City in processing these
Applications.
In addition, the Owner/Developer did not modify his proposal after meeting with the
Planning Staff and the City Manager. In addition, Staff does believe that the current
proposal meets the intent of the Planning Commission when this project was discussed
the previous year. .
u.
F:f
Staff is offering the Planning Commission three possible actions for consideration. 1)
determine what information must be provided by the applicant to complete the process,
and to continue the matter off calendar until the items are provided by the Applicant. 2)
continue this matter to a date certain for approval. 3) continue this matter for a date
certain for denial.
Associate Planner Lampe completed his Staff Report.
Vice Chair Addington asked what the definition of an Environmental Impact Report was,
specifically what was enclosed within the Staff Report. Is an Environmental Impact
Report done "in house" or is this report done by an outside professional.
F
Associate Planner Lampe replied that there was only an Initial Study that was reviewed
and prepared by Staff. But without the additional studies as required by the Applicant,
Staff could not complete the Initial Study. An Environmental Impact report would be
prepared by a professional consultant under close supervision of the City.
Barney Karger
11668 Bernardo Way
Mr. Karger reported that he owned the land for quite some time. When the houses to
the immediate north were being sold, Mr. Karger promised the home buyers that he
would not build apartments on this site.
Mr. Karger had discussions with the previous Planning Director with regard to possibly
building condominiums on the site, but he felt that condominiums can easily be
committed to apartments.
Mr. Karger is proposing residential homes with small lots. The houses and apartments
will have tile roofs and will look excellent for the area. The landscaping design includes
weeping willows because he feels that they are beautiful trees and proposes that when
the proposed landscaping has matured, De Berry will become a beautiful tree lined
street.
The proposed apartments will be large three bedroom apartments and will consist of a
two story four-plex. The apartments will also have tile roofs with two car garages with
automatic garage door openers. The project has been designed to increase the value of
the surrounding area.
Chair Wilson asked Mr. Karger with regard to the missing items that were required by
the Staff to fulfill the initial environmental review, why were the items not provided.
Mr. Karger replied that he does not get along with the Staff, and feels that he does not
need to be given orders on how to do his project.
7
P
Chair Wilson replied that there is a list of requirements with regard to CEQA that must
be fulfilled.
r
Mr. Karger felt that he does not recognize all of the things that are necessarily required
t
from CEQA. Since the project west of this project was not required to perform a
hydrology study and/or a sewage study, he felt that he did not need to do these studies
either.
t.,
Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Karger if he remembered when the public workshop
was held last year with regard.to this project, it was the Commission's suggestion that a
zero lot line be considered. The current application is proposing 5 foot lot line.
Mr. Karger replied that he had built and lived in a residence that had a zero lot line. He
feels that he did not have adequate access to the side yard to do any repairs, and didn't
like the fact that he did not have access to that side yard.
Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Karger what types of amenities he is going to provide
for the homeowners for this project.
Mr. Karger replied that he is not proposing any types of amenities. The City Manager
had advised that a park like setting should be placed at the corner of Mt. Vernon and
DeBerry; he disagreed with this suggestion because he felt that the kids from the middle
school would converge there and loiter in that area.
4
Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Karger if the project will have a homeowner's
association.
Mr. Karger replied that if the Commission so requests a homeowner's association for
the project that he would have one established.
Commissioner Comstock asked Mr. Karger with regard to the Commission's desire to
see the lot sizes no less than 5,000 square feet, and there are lot sizes being proposed
at 4,460 square feet, why were the lots less than what was requested.
Mr. Karger replied that there is one parcel located on Mirado that is 99.92 feet by 99
feet. He feels that he cannot get two 5,000 square foot lots in that area. One of the lots
is 45 feet wide. The other lot is over 5,000 square feet. There will only be one lot less
than 5,000 square feet and he feels that it will fit well along with the other residences in
the neighborhood.
Commissioner Bidney wanted to know who built the alleyway to the rear of the subject
site.
Mr. Karger replied that his father as well as Lou Carhart were the builders of that alley,
and is 35 to 40 years old. The alley was dedicated to the County. The County did not
accept the alleyway for maintenance. No one has done maintenance on that alleyway
to date, and Mr. Karger is planning on improving that alleyway, should this project be
approved. The sewer and water lines will be installed in either side of the alley and all of
the asphalt will be removed and repaved.
8
Commissioner Bidney informed that the County may have accepted the alleyway map
wise, but they would not have accepted the alleyway for maintenance. Is this alley a
public alley with no maintenance?
r Mr. Karger replied that he was also unaware, but says that he may in fact, own the
%i alley, but he states that he has not been able to get a final decision from the Title
Company with regard to the ownership of the alleyway.
Chair Wilson explained that in this situation, the alleyway may be maintained by way of
a homeowner's association or otherwise considered a driveway. Should the alleyway
be 'classified as 'a driveway with no public dedication, then it will be up to the
homeowner's to maintain it, which can be included in the conditions.
Commissioner Whitley asked Mr. Karger how many spaces Mr. Karger proposes as far
as parking for the four-plex.
r,
Mr. Karger replied that there will be a two car garage for each unit and on the north side
of the unit that will be located on Mt. Vernon; there is an additional parking space. On
the westerly portion of the apartment, there will be an additional parking space.
+'. Commissioner Whitley asked what the standard parking space measurement would be.
Mr. Karger replied that the minimum parking spot is 8 foot by 20 foot, which would be
adequate for a standard compact car.
1, Commissioner Comstock asked Mr. Karger if the fire department will have enough
access to get through the alleyway from the Mt. Vernon entrance.
Mr. Karger replied that the trash trucks are currently able to go through the alley. The
trucks have damaged the alleyway over the years in which will need to be repaired.
is
Chair Wilson replied that the Fire Department will need to make comments with regard
to the alleyway.
Paul Welsh - Massaro Welsh
1572 North Waterman
San Bernardino
Mr. Welsh stated that he, is the engineer for the proposed project. Mr. Welsh reported
that he was unaware of a letter that was written to Mr. Karger from the City Manager
until recently. The project was designed with input from Mr. Karger and from the City
t Staff along with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Welsh will be happy to make any changes with regard to the grading plan and the
tentative tract map. However, he feels that the studies that are being required by the
Planning Commission and Staff do not seem to be necessary.
Chair Wilson disagreed with Mr. Welsh and feels that adequate direction was given to
the applicant as to what the Planning Commission felt was necessary to accept the
application for the proposed homes. Because this project is being proposed in an area
that is not specifically zoned for this type of development, a Specific Plan is necessary.
Chair Wilson asked Mr. Welsh which studies he feels are not necessary.
9
Mr. Welsh replied that the NPDES Study could be done after the project has been
approved.
Chair Wilson replied that a minimal hydrology study would have to be done to let Staff
know where the water will flow. The NPDES Study is required by State Law prior to
grading upon the property.
{y Planning Director Koontz reported that Staff is taking studies that were required by the
condominium project that was approved at the last meeting with regard to requiring a
hydrology study and preliminary analysis of storm water pollution protection plan. When
this project was being review some month back, the Commission was asked what types
of studies were required for this project, and those studies have been requested of the
applicant.
fl
Vice Chair Addington noted that in looking at the project at current, it didn't seem that
the project would have room for a bio swell or for a hydraulic separator to clean the
water. ,A maintenance agreement is also required for these types of conceptual studies
and plans.
Mr. Welsh felt that the acoustical study was not necessary.
a,
.; Chair Wilson replied that if there is an unusual amount of noise that is found, a lot or
setback may be lost. This is the reason for an acoustical study.
Planning Director Koontz reported that with regard to the sewer study, a Specific Plan
l„
has a requirement to show for adequate utilities. Mr. Welsh did call and ask if there was
an alternative to resolve the issue of this study, and Staff told him that something could
be worked out.
Vice Chair Addington asked if Mr. Welsh knew what the planning and zoning laws were
per the California Government Code.
�i
Mr. Welsh replied that he did have a copy of the Code books in his office, but was
unaware off hand. When he spoke to the Staff, he was told that a full blown specific
plan was not required.
Vice Chair Addington replied that the letter that was written by staff to the developer
indicated what was needed to complete the application. Vice Chair Addington also
asked with regard to a couple of the interior lots, there is a three foot difference in
elevation between two residences. What will be used to divide these up?
Mr. Welsh replied that small retaining walls will be used.
s
Vice Chair Addington wanted to know if there were any water issues with Riverside
( Highland Water Company.
Mr. Welsh replied that he had a meeting with Rich Haubert of the Riverside Highland
Water Company, and went through the issues, and seemed to reach an agreement.
t Vice Chair Addington asked with regard to the letter that was submitted to the Gage
i Canal Company, has the fence issue been resolved?
'' 10
Mr. Welsh replied that the water would be traveling to the east when the grading is
performed. The water will not flow on to the Gage Canal.
Vice Chair Addington asked if the Fire Department had been contacted with regard to
access near the proposed apartment complex.
h Mr. Welsh replied that the City Staff had sent a copy of the plan to the Fire Department,
and Mr. Welsh had not seen any comments.
Vice Chair Addington asked if any turn template have been laid out for the alleyway.
Mr. Welsh replied that if the trash trucks are making it, then the fire trucks should be
able to access the alleyway without a problem.
Commissioner Comstock asked with regard to the houses and their layout. It appears
that each house setback will be at the same dimension, and as he recalls that was
:s considered undesirable according to the Planning Commission. He also noticed that
the proposed trees were not followed according to the City's Code.
d`!
Barney Karger
11668 Bernardo Way
i Mr. Karger stated that he had chosen the landscape for the proposed development and
x.,
would be located in the front yard and not on the easement area. He does not believe
. that there is a six foot easement underneath the Edison property, and there is no
easement underneath the wiring.
Vice Chair Addington asked if Mr. Karger was proposing to keep the poles up instead of
under grounding the electric.
'. Mr. Karger replied that there would be no way to be able to underground the poles,
especially since the houses and apartments are being served by those poles.
d
Vice Chair Addington asked if he intended to keep those electrical lines over the
proposed housing project.
Mr. Karger replied that there is a six foot easement that is not actually easement. The
arm of the poles goes over the alleyway. All of the electrical wiring for the proposed
projects would have to be under grounded, but is unsure of how the other poles that are
serving the existing houses could be undergrounded. Mr. Karger responded with regard
i, to the turning radius for the apartment four-plex, the alleyway that is going north to
south.
Catherine Olson
22471 De Soto
Ms. Olson claims she has lived in Grand Terrace'for 27 years and had purchased one
{ of Mr. Karger's homes that he previously built. Ms. Olson lives on the corner house of
' De Soto and the alleyway in the tract with duplexes. The easement that he is speaking
of has to do with her driveway. Mr. Karger did not notify her that the property did not
`= belong to her. Many of the people in the area back up in her driveway and on to her
11
1'
bushes. There is only three feet of asphalt along with bushes that she had planted. Her
kitchen window measures about 5 feet from the alleyway. When people back out from
their garages, it gets to be a little scary, because she feels that if a vehicle may go into
her home.
Ms. Olson also feels that.the duplexes in the surrounding area are in need of repair.
h . Should Mr. Karger build any more homes within the area, and he is unable to take care
`-� of what current) exists, how he is going to repair additional homes that he intends on
k4: Y 9 9 p
' building. The trash trucks that travel through that area have a very hard time trying to
j get through the alleyway and constantly have to back up and pull forward to gain proper
access into the alleyway.
Kim Barnum
22458.De Soto
Mr. Barnum lives on the north side of De Soto Street. Three or four of the existing
N homes are accessed through the alleyway. At this time there is more than enough
'i traffic in the area, and the alleyway has not been maintained. Mr. Barnum also feels
that the•two story apartment complex will not look very aesthetically pleasing. There are
` also some willow trees that Mr. Karger has planted within the vicinity where the roots
have buckled the sidewalk which is in need of repair.
4
Cesar'Sabido
22471 De Soto
Mr. Sabido lives with Ms. Olson and feels that there are some gates and fences within
the area that are in disrepair. Much of the landscape within the duplexes is in bad
., shape, and no one has been around to repair or replace it.
Lois Jolly
22458 De Soto
Ms. Jolly is concerned with the parking problems on be Soto Street due to the existing
apartments. Should this project be built; it will cause more of a parking problem within
the surrounding neighborhood. Many of the current tenants use the site for parking, and
should the homes be built, those tenants will use the surrounding neighborhoods to park
4
their vehicles that they have been parking in the open field.
11 Chair Wilson brought the item back to the Commission for action and discussion.
Commissioner Bidney wanted clarification with regard to Vice Chair Addington's motion.
Does the motion include voting against the four-plex altogether.
A
f!
Vice Chair Addington stated that an alternative needs to be implemented with regard to
a vehicular access and fire access. The access that is being proposed does not seem to
Y
;t
be sufficient access.
t"
F Chair Wilson explained that the format of the Specific Plan needs to be corrected.
Questions should be answered and some studies can be provided as requested. As far
as the hydrology reports, traffic and drainage studies must be submitted to satisfy
' CEQA requirements that way the initial Environmental Impact Report can be completed.
�i
12
�r
1
r'
Commissioner Comstock commented that he cannot support the project with the
r:
proposed four-plex on the corner. Also, he feels that the City Code was not followed for
the landscaping plans, and various other issues.
Chair Wilson clarified that this motion would insure that a complete application must be
brought before the Planning Commission at another date, and those issues will be
addressed then.
MOTION PC-20-2004: Vice Chair wanted to make a motion to continue the item off
calendar until the following items are presented to the City:
Legal Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report,
s; Compliance with the March 2004 letter with regard to the
power poles. Compliance with NPDES, with a hydrology
study. An alternative for the four-plex as well as an outdoor
recreation amenity for the homeowners.
'• Chair Wilson seconded and amended Vice Chairman
Addington's motion to modify that sufficient conceptuals are
required to satisfy the Environmental Impact Report be
necessary.
MOTION VOTE
PC-20-2004: Approved 5-0-0-0
4. SA-04-11, E-04-06: Applications for a Site and Architecture, and Environmental
Review to construct a single story, 5,110 square foot custom
home and pool house with 3,205 square feet of livable
space, a 1,305 square foot 3 car garage and shop and a 600
square foot pool room, on a 1.67 acre lot located in the R1-
r 10 zone (single family residential minimum 10.,000 square
feet) with an agricultural overlay.
APPLICANT: Cole & Frick Architects
LOCATION: APN: 276-411-27 a vacant lot located at the east end of
Arliss Drive.
RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public
a:
Hearing and approve SA-04-11 and E-04-05 with Conditions.
Planning Technician greeted the Commission and gave his staff report. The application
is for a single-story 5,110 square foot custom home with 3,205 square feet of livable
space. It will be located on a 1.6 acre lot which does require an NPDES study due to
the lot size, the grading and would be consistent for the bio swells..
_. To the east of the property is a 100 foot easement from the California aqueduct; and to
the north of the project is single-family residential homes. The subject site is located in
� p 1 9 Y J
-r; an R1-10 with.a minimum of 10,000 square foot lot and is in an agricultural overlay.
The residence will cover 7% of the existing lot, which is under the 50% maximum that it
is allowed to cover. The residence will also have a three car garage and a 600 square
foot swimming pool. The garage will be set back to minimize the front elevation.
13
L#
The preliminary grading plan shows that the vacant lot presently slopes downward from
the rear of the lot to the front of the lot. The applicant wants to maintain that slope and
will modify the grade to allow for the residence to set within the side of slope and not on
s top of the hill which may obstruct views to other surrounding residences.
+.a
The proposed home will be a single story residence with a floor.plan consisting of three
bedrooms, two and half baths, great room, study, kitchen, dining room, workshop and a
laundry room.
K7
F,
The elevations illustrate a California Ranch style home with Spanish influence. The
k: front of the residence will be accented with archways and stone columns.
fie,!
f` The landscape plan shows that there will be a proposed efficient amount of landscaping
in the front yard. There will be three street trees as required in the final landscaping
plan that will need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to
N issuance of a permit. The side yard will has several large trees that will remain.
Planning Commission Gollihar completed his staff report.
Vice Chair Addington wanted to know some information about the half cul-de-sac that
exists on Arliss right in front of where the proposed residence will be.
Planning Technician Gollihar replied that a portion of the property located across the
street is actually a private drive. Many people get confused and think that it is actually a
public street. Only half of the cul-de-sac is actually a private drive. The lot line
adjustment shows that the area is actually a half cul-de-sac.
t' Chair Wilson added that the roadway was never completed on that street because in
order to have it completed, would cost about a quarter of a million dollars due to the
California Aqueduct.
Planning Director Koontz added that the cul-de-sac has been a topic of discussion at
the Planning Department. A few neighbors present have a concern with it. Public
�f
Works Director Glander reported that he is in a position to do some type of deferral
agreement in terms of the improvement that will not be put in at this time and do a
driveway without having to do a half cul-de-sac. In the future, should there be a need
and ability to get a full cul-de-sac or street in the area.
Vice Chair Addington asked if this item was placed in the Conditions.
:.f
t Planning Technician replied that the item was placed in Condition Four.
Chair Wilson opened up the public participation.
Gerold Cole - Cole & Frick Architects
4195 Chestnut Street
'r
Mr. Cole greeted the Commission and stated that the Conditions were reviewed and
have no concerns with them.
Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Cole with regard to a stucco wall that is located in the
s.; front of the house that is proposing no features in it.
14
n
;r Mr. Cole replied that the area will be a bedroom and they are not proposing a window
N:
for that room.
Keith Saeger
12330 Willet Court
V`s
Mr. Saeger reported that the Staff had brought up the issue with regard to the existing
eucalyptus trees that are located at the rear property line. Mr. Saeger will not disturb
.a the trees especially because there are many existing birds that currently use those trees
for nesting. The trees will only be trimmed during non-nesting seasons and will not be
` knocked down.
r,
r„
Fran Welsh
22926 Arliss Drive
nMrs. Welsh's main concern was to make sure that the applicant would leave the trees in
{ place.
Joseph Welsh
22926 Arliss Drive
,i
:P.
' Mr. Welsh states that his concerns were answered and is happy that the applicant will
leave the existing trees. Mr. Welsh commented that there is a NOT A THROUGH
i STREET that is located at the left of the intersection and at the dead end of the street.
Mr. Welsh feels that it should be moved to the right of intersection and in an area where
} motorists will see it and adhere to it before they cross in to the intersection.
Esther Del Rio
}? 11761 Preston Street
Ms. Del Rio reports that she lives at the northeast corner of Arliss Drive and Preston
Street, and has lived in Grand Terrace for eight years. Ms. Welsh has concerns with
regard to the cul-de-sac and,the traffic issue. She has young children that play in the
area and feels that it would be beneficial to move the sign further out so that vehicles
may avoid coming in to the cul-de-sac area.
3 Terry Martinez
22950 Arliss Drive
M1' Ms. Martinez reports that she is the homeowner of the private driveway at the end of
r Arliss Drive. She is in hopes that this stays the same, and enjoys the privacy of the half
cul-de-sac.
Maggie Alford
22940 Arliss Drive
Nq
Ms. Alford reports that she is Ms. Martinez next door neighbor. She is in agreement
with Ms. Martinez with regard to the half cul-de-sac remaining and is happy to hear the
.. applicant will be keeping the existing trees.
15
it
, i
Elizabeth Kennedy
11831 Preston Street
Mrs. Kennedy lives to the direct west of the proposed residence. She would like to look
t at the proposed grading plans when they become available. She is also concerned
about the times of construction. She would also like to know what the proposed
concrete would be as well as the fencing and the westerly property line. Mrs. Kennedy
also would like to know what types of trees are going to be planted at the westerly
property line of the property line.
Chair Wilson asked Mr. Cole to come before the podium and answer some of Mrs.
Kennedy's questions.
Gerold Cole-Cole & Frick Architects
f 4195 Chestnut Street Riverside
a Mr. Cole reported that the top of the slope at the westerly property line will remain as it
is at the present time. The grading will be done at the downhill side where the pad will
be placed. The setback distance is at 35-40 along the edge of the property.
Chair Wilson relayed that the majority of her questions can be answered between
herself and the applicant.
A
Romaine Schinnik
IJ 22935 Arliss Drive
iF
Mr. Schinnik has resided in Grand Terrace for 28 years. Mr. Schinnik is also happy to
_- hear that the existing trees will remain and has also reported to have watered them to
4
keep them alive and well watered. Mr. Schinnik was told that the iron steaks that are
located there are the actual dividing parcels. He would like to work out an agreement
's with regard to making sure. that the steaks are in fact the property line. There are a
' number of steaks that are there, that have been placed there over the years.
Warren Schmidt
23031 Grand Terrace Road
Mr. Schmidt is the former owner of the property. In reference to Mr. Schnnik's question
with regard to the property line, this parcel has been re assessed and has been marked
and re-marked since he has owned the property for the past four years.
�s
Dennis Kennedy .
` 11831 Preston Street
Mr. Kennedy feels that this is a well thought of plan and feels that this type of residence
that is very desirable in the neighborhood. Mr. Kennedy feels that the City needs to
' consider putting a four way stop sign at the intersection of Arliss and Preston Street.
Chair Wilson closed the public participation and brought the item back to the
r Commission for discussion.
16
MOTION PC-21-2004: Commissioner Bidney .. made a motion to
i approve SA-04-11 and E-04-05 with
r.A conditions.
Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion
with an amendment to change the wording on
+t} the City's Engineer's Condition Four to have a
deferral agreement for the cul-de-sac with
'x wording to be determined by staff and to
eliminate the half cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Bidney did not concur.
?' Vice Chair Addington withdrew his second.
MOTION PC-21-2004: Motion dies due to lack of a second.
MOTION PC-22-2004: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to reword
the City Engineer's Condition Four regarding
the half cul-de-sac to allow for a deferral
agreement and to add the wording,
"To Be Determined by Staff'.
Chair Wilson seconded the motion
MOTION VOTE PC-22-2004: Approved 5-0-0-0
MOTION PC-23-2004: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to
approve SA-04-11 and E-04-05 with the
!, amended condition.
Chair Wilson seconded the motion
MOTION VOTE PC 23-2004: Approved 5-0-0-0
5. SA-04-13, E-04-06: Applications for a Site and Architecture, and Environmental
'. Review to construct a new two-story, 4,521 square foot
f. custom home with 3,476 square feet of livable space, a
.f 1,045 square foot 3 car garage, shop and sound studio, on a
'r. .44 acre lot located in the R1-20 zone (single family
residential minimum 20,000 square feet).
APPLICANT: Donald Singh
-i LOCATION: Assessor's Parcel Number 276-252-08, a vacant lot located
three lots west of Barton Road on the south side of Glendora
,,
Drive.
RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony, close the Public
Hearing and approve SA-04-13 and E-04-06 with Conditions.
,f
t; 17
i
it
Planning Technician Gollihar presented his report with regard to an application for a
'.E two-story 3,476 square foot home with a three car garage and a sound studio on a .44
r acre lot.
A number of trees will be removed. A portion of the existing trees are dead at this time
r and will be removed and some of the existing trees will need to be removed to
r accommodate the property better.
The subject site is located on a low-density residential R1-20 also known as Single
Family residential with a minimum of 20,000 square feet.
The rear portion of the residence would be located close to the bottom of a hill. A large
portion of fill will be used to level the pad. A 25'foot existing drainage easement is also
located to the rear of the property with a grate at each end. There was concern with
regard to drainage on this property. The water will flow to the existing drain.
The landscape consists of many trees that will remain along with three street trees that
will be added. The landscape shows sufficient amount of landscaping and meets all
K:
landscaping qualifications.
The floor plan consists of two stories. The residence will have four bedrooms with a loft
along with two bath rooms. The first floor will consist of the kitchen, dining room, living
room and a sound studio. The sound studio will be designed to reduce any type of
`r4 sound.that would be heard to the exterior of the home.
Planning Technician Gollihar concluded his staff report.
Vice Chair Addington asked why there was a wall at the end of a ditch on the property.
Planning Technician Gollihar reported that he knew very little history with regard to the
property. The original owner thought about doing a split level home and the wall was
placed to possibly retain that portion of the property.
Vice Chair Addington asked if there were any habitat issues on the piece of property.
?:r Planning Technician Gollihar replied that he was unaware of any habitat issues.
Don Singh-Applicant
558 La Verne Street-Redlands
A./
Ka Mr. Singh greeted the Commission and was happy to work with the City Staff.
�k
Mr. Singh wanted to know if he were to place an access gate, would he have to request
7,
permission from the owners who currently utilize the access road.
Vice Chair Addington asked if the private drive was across his easement.
's Planning Technician Gollihar replied that at one time it was an easement but is now just
! a private drive.
Planning Director Koontz feels that this question should be addressed by a title
company and with the adjoining neighbor.
18 .
!s
�.t
r,
Commissioner Comstock asked what the applicant is proposing to keep the sound
't inside the sound studio.
' Mr. Singh replied that he is planning on using two layers of drywall and RC Channel
with triple pane window with a solid front door. The interior will also have soundproofing
to keep the sound contained inside of the studio.
MOTION PC-24-2004: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to
approve SA-04-13 and E-04-06.
3`
Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion.
MOTION VOTE PC-24-2004: Approved 5-0-0-0
ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING 9:40 PM
CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
• Information to Commissioners
Planning Director Koontz reported that the Public Hearing for the Outdoor
.Adventures Center has been scheduled for September 9, 2004.
The Richard Rollins Park has been completed. The official opening is
September 28, 2004. The lower field is having a small problem with water
_ pressure and it will be fixed with a new pump within the week.
• Information from Commissioners
Vice Chair Addington has reported that his business, fax and cell phone numbers
should have the (951).area code.
Vice Chair Addington asked for the status of the new Miguel's Jr.
Planning Director Koontz reported that they are currently in second plan check at
this time.
ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:50 PM
iY
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2004
Respectfully Submitted, A
` 2
Gary K6ontz, Plar6vthg Director Doug Wilson,Chairman
Planning Commission
19
;:i