Loading...
08/05/1993GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 5, 1993 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 August 5, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Doug Wilson, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Jim Sims, Vice -Chairman Moire Huss, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner PLEDGE: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 6:40 P.M. Discussion took place regarding the outdoor dining issue. Chairman Buchanan felt outdoor dining fits in with the "Village Pedestrian" atmosphere. The Planning Director stated that she would like to propose in the future that if owners want to put up tables with umbrellas, perhaps they can put inventory on the valance of the umbrellas. . e Community Development Director stated that the draft packet for Sign Code Enforcement is completed. Items 2 and 3 were reversed due to the possible lengthy discussion of Item 3. Staff and the Commission discussed the Resolution regarding playhouses/accessory structures, as the elevated decks issue was not clearly resolved. Discussion to continue after Planning Commission Meeting adjourned. C TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 7:14 P.M. CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:14 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: ED FLANAGAN, PRESIDENT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Flanagan stated that he brought the Executive Director, John Eliot with him, and they know they are having a review on the Sign Ordinance, and the Community Development Director sent them a summary of the sign regulations and procedures. He said he would like staff to know they are willing to help solve any problems staff may have by talking to the violators of the sign code. He said they would like to talk to some of the people that are having problems, stating they would like to see the ordinance become beneficial to all concerned. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1993 Chairman Buchanan requested that the minutes reflect that he excused himself from the discussion regarding Item 3 on page 2. MOTION PCM-93-45 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1993 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-45 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the July 15, 1993 minutes. Commissioner Addington seconded. Motion carries. 4-0-3-0. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioners Huss and Munson absent. 2 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:17 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AT 7:17 P.M. ITEM #3 SA-93-04 FRANK AND LORI ANN POPE 23080 HAMPTON COURT G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A ROOM ADDITION - GARAGE CONVERSION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Associate Planner presented the staff report. 7:26 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING RANDY HAMERLY 11008 EVANS STREET LOMA LINDA Mr. Hamerly explained that the purpose of the proposed project was to expand the home to fit the family. 7:32 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-93-46 SA-93-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-46 C Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve SA-93-04. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. Motion carries. 4-0-3-0. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioners Huss and Munson absent. 3 ITEM #2 SA-92-11 FRANK DRECHSLER 22696-2208 MC CLARREN G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THREE DUPLEXES (TOTAL OF SIX ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS) IN THE R2 DISTRICT The Associate Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Buchanan asked for clarification about the parking and fire access issues, asking where they get 14 parking spaces. He said each of the six garages count as a space and there are three in the center. The Community Development Director said originally the applicant was counting the garages and the driveways, but staff expressed very strongly to him that the driveways can not be parking stalls, and also, in the parking turnaround, he can not have parking spaces. Chairman Buchanan said they have two at the west end, the six garages, the three just above the fire turnaround, and two at the east end and one close to the entry. The Community Development Director said the applicant did manage to put the fourteen stalls there. Chairman Buchanan asked if the Fire Department went along with the configuration for the turnaround in the center. The Community Development Director said originally they would have liked to have a larger cul-de-sac at the end, but apparently it was not feasible for the applicant as he would need to reduce either one or two units or have two stories. She stated that the Fire Department did apprr,-T it. Chairman Buchanan said he noted the requirement that either Configuration A or D be used, and it didn't look like either one to him. The Community Development Director said she thought the same thing, but apparently it got the approval of the Fire Department. Chairman Buchanan said the cover sheet for the architectural site plan does show the actual lot, which includes the existing residence to the south. He said where it says "concrete pad and trash enclosure", as part of what he 4 assumes is an asphalt driveway, they are putting a concrete pad and insetting into the backyard of the existing structure. The Community Development Director said the concrete pad is to protect the asphalt, because the trash truck eats up the asphalt very quickly where it starts, so this is a requirement. She said the applicant proposed to put it here so they could keep their 14 parking stalls. Chairman Buchanan said he doesn't have a particular concern about it being in that location. He said if they were talking about throwing money into this to make everything nicer, then some of staff's recommendations would be feasible, and they could put it in a nice spot someplace, but he understands when they are building low-cost housing, the emphasis is on "low-cost". He said he isn't sure the concrete pad is in the right spot, as the trash trucks don't stop in front of the bin; they stop down the road from it, pull it out, drive forward, lift it up and dump it. The Community Development Director said the City Inspector should let staff know in terms of standards how big it should be. Chairman Buchanan said the cover sheet shows an existing 6' wooden fence along the south, and the grading plan shows existing fencing to be removed. The Associate Planner said they will be replacing the fencing. Chairman Buchanan asked if wood fencing would be acceptable around the trash enclosure or if it should be block. The Community Development Director said they do not have that requirement for residential, but they can always request the applicant to put it in. Chairman Buchanan said he doesn't know that the people living in the existing structure would want the neighborhood trash dumpster to be in their backyard unless it was we» -screened. He asked if the fencing along Canal would continue all the way up to the edge of the sidewalk. The Associate Planner said on the grading plan it shows fencing going straight down, closer to Mc Clarren, and they just need a clarification that this isn't fencing in the front yard setback that exceeds three feet in height, because there would be a visual problem going in and out of the driveway there. The Community Development Director said this separates the new units from the old units, and she doesn't know if, from the perspective of the Planning 5 Commission, that this is desirable, because it would be nice if these units had more open space available. She said the whole comer is green area, and it could be a liability for the landlord because there are more kids around and it is close to the street, but on the other hand, there would be more open space. Chairman Buchanan said on cover page A-1, on the east edge, there is a line with an X in the middle and the notation "6' block wall with stucco". The Associate Planner said the applicant is making patios with individual enclosures around them. Chairman Buchanan asked if these were block walls with stucco to divide the backyards or if it is wood fencing. The Community Development Director said it is a block wall, and they would almost be like little rooms. Chairman Buchanan said it would be like an atrium. The Community Development Director said originally staff had proposed to the applicant to do a retaining wall and planters, but apparently there would be a liability for him in terms of children falling down, so it was not feasible. She said there really wasn't space, and they would have lost landscaping in front to increase the areas in the back. Commissioner Van Gelder said in the narrative portion of the landscaping, staff talks about the landscaping items including 15 gallon trees, but in Condition 4, they are still waiting for submission of the landscape and irrigation plans indicating types and sizes and quantities. The Associate Planner said the applicant hasn't listed them in the specs, but he is putting in Liquid Amber street trees. Commissioner Van Gelder said she would like to push for the 15 gallon trees, but they have been through this before, and she would like to say 15 gallon developed trees, heavy stock. Commissioner Addington said along the north property line where there is the existing wood fence, they are going to make a vertical cut for that wall. He asked if there is any provision to protect that fence in place so it doesn't slip off. 6 The Community Development Director said there is a condition from the City Engineer. Commissioner Addington asked if there were any setbacks behind the buildings that the trash enclosure could be encroaching within. The Community Development Director said there is a 20' setback requirement. The Associate Planner said they have 22'. The Community Development Director said that the rear setback is technically the side of the house, so he does not need those 20' on the actual rear of the house but on the other side. Chairman Buchanan said the trash enclosure is sitting on the property line and asked if this was acceptable. The Community Development Director said there is no property line between the new area and the old area. Chairman Buchanan said the property line makes a 90 degree turn and the edge of the trash container is sitting on the property line. The Community Development Director said she doesn't think they have a problem with that, as this is one, legal lot. She said they could interpret it as an accessory structure and move it 10' from the property line. Chairman Buchanan didn't feel it needed to be an accessory structure. He said he is leaning toward wanting to see a block wall around the enclosure. Commissioner Addington asked for clarification on the setbacks. He said the 20' rear setback is on the side of Unit C and the 10' and 11' side setbacks are behind all the units. He felt this seemed reversed. The Community Development Director said they have a 20' front yard setback and a 20' rear, and 10' and 5' on the sides in relation to the property itself. She said when you have a lot, the narrowest property line is the frontage. She said this lot is a long rectangle, so they determine that Canal Street is the frontage and the rear is on the west side and the sides are the north and the south, so they are requiring 25' in the front on Canal and 20' in the rear, 5' behind the patios and 10' in the front, so he meets all the setbacks. Commissioner Addington said the orientation of the buildings is irrelevant. 7 The Community Development Director said this is a technical definition, and this is the way the Code orients them to do it this time, since it is one lot. She said it would be completely different if there were three or four lots. Chairman Buchanan asked how the heating and air conditioning is planned for these units. The Associate Planner said the applicant would have to address this. Commission Addington said on sheet A-1, in front of Units C and B, there is a concrete pad in front of the building out near the garage. The Associate Planner said this is for pedestrian access. 8:04 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING FRANK DRECHSLER 9140 EL AZUL CIRCLE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 Chairman Buchanan asked what the plans were for the air conditioning units. Mr. Drechsler said they had not made a final decision, but he thinks they will be in the rear on the side in the patios. 0 Chairman Buchanan asked if both ends of the patios would have walls. Mr. Drechsler said the architect hasn't decided what would be the best. Chairman Buchanan said he would assume he would want a block wall between each unit to separate their back yard or patio area. Mr. Drechsler said they have not yet discussed a block wall but thought first a wooden fence, but he is not sure if they will stay with that. The Community Development Director said the plans show block wall. Mr. Drechsler said he didn't think it does show that. He said in order to move something through there, then they would have to be specific on the opening, and if anything, a wooden fence could be easily removed to move anything back and forth, but a block wall would be much harder, so he would like to go with a wooden fence. 8 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if this was the area the Community Development Director was recommending 3' high instead of 6' high. The Community Development Director said no, the area they are recommending is at the end of the existing residence. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they have approved 6' fencing or wall between each section. The Community Development Director said this is what they thought he had indicated, and they were trying to raise the quality of the units a little bit, but she feels they can go either way. Chairman Buchanan didn't see a need for concrete block wall with stucco dividing patios. He said he was trying to figure out if the other end of each patio was going to be fenced, and if that was the case, what happens to the area at the far west end of the property and at the end of the 10' breezeway. He said it looks like it is blocked off at the northwest comer of Unit CR and at the southwest comer of Unit CR, and he doesn't understand what is going on with the interior fencing. Mr. Drechsler said he was not clear with what area he was discussing. The Community Development Director said this was an area of conflict, as they never wanted the patios to be so narrow, and they give a tunnel effect, and this has not really been resolved. He said he has seen several housing developments that have this tunnel effect, and that doesn't justify they should have one here, however, it has not been resolved very well. She said she understands he has either block walls or fences between all the patios separating the patios, and the house at the end would have a larger backyard. Chairman Buchanan said there is a little concern about what is going to happen in the 10' breezeway. He said it is covered and serves as a little walkway, but it goes nowhere, and he assumes it is going to turn into a storage area. The Community Development Director said it is also the rear entry of the houses in some way, as they can go in the house through the backyard. Commissioner Van Gelder said it is also a crime waiting to happen. The Community Development Director said he is there everyday, though, checking it out. 9 Commissioner Wilson said he sees a patio and a 2% slope back to the wall, but he doesn't see anything going east or west in order for the patio to drain. The Community Development Director said it is coming through the inside of the breezeway to the street, which is going westward and the drainage of the street is into the easement like a pipe that goes underneath the first duplexes to Mc Clarren. Commissioner Wilson said when he looks at Unit CR's patio, he sees on the west side a drainage swale starting at the top of Wall 27, but it appears that there is a slight arrow all the way at the retaining wall. He asked if the intention is that the water is going to drain from the roof back to the face of the wall. He said they're not showing any grading in there which may be part of the problem. The Community Development Director asked if he was concerned there was not enough slope for the water to run. Commissioner Wilson said he doesn't not see a clear path, and it seems to him they will end up with sheet flow. He said right now, they have an 11' deep swimming pool, with a sliding glass door face on it, and he sees a potential for problem there and he would like to see a little better detail about how the whole thing is going to work. The Community Development Director asked if he was saying that all the patios are going to build up water, and they all should flow down to this final drain at the west side of the property, and maybe just a swale through the rear portion of the lot is not sufficient. Commissioner Wilson said this isn't really what he was thinking; he was thinking of each individual patio, and they have a 2% swale going along the back and he is not convinced that 2% for 10' and back around the back side. He said it is difficult to get concrete done right, and he would feel more comfortable with a yard drain at the high point. Mr. Drechsler said they want to drain half from one side and the other half to the breezeway, and they want to lower the back enough to accommodate the flow. The Community Development Director said the grading plan is reviewed by the City Engineer, who doesn't review precisely until he really gets into the grading permit, and that is when he really checks it very carefully, but the direction of the flow of the water is not separating the flow, everything is going westward. She said she doesn't see any split. 10 Mr. Drechsler said they left the breezeway to accommodate the water to run out into the street, which will carry it down. He said if they put it together in one, then everything would come down to the end and that would really create a problem; this way they solve the problem by the breezeway on the front of the right side and also through the backyard to the back lot, so there are three places to drain. Commissioner Wilson asked how this has worked for him before, as he has built this kind of unit before. Mr. Drechsler said it works the same way: they drain one side and then let it run out to the street, and they will try to do the same thing on this project, as they have had no problem at all so far. He said the units in the front have the same identical thing. The Community Development Director said the Planning Commission can make recommendations for the City Engineer to look into it. BOB URIBE 22230 MC CLARREN G.T. Mr. Uribe expressed concern about the drainage, as his front yard right now has constant water flow from the property, so if they put three more back there, he will have more water in his front yard. Chairman Buchanan asked which property he lives at. Mr. Uribe said he lives two lots west of the applicant's property. The Community Development Director said at the end of his property, there will be an easement and a pipe, so the water will not go through; it will go to the street through his other lot, basically. She said it goes straight west and then turns south. Chairman Buchanan said Mr. Uribe said he lives downstream on Mc Clarren and he already has a lot of water. Mr. Uribe said he has to mow his curb every week. He said he is concerned with water on the street. He said he gets about three inches of water and puddles. The Community Development Director said there are usually some little basins that relieve the water. 11 Mr. Uribe said there is not much parking there, and there are people parking on the streets from the existing units, and there is no parking for guests. Chairman Buchanan said these are legitimate concerns. The Community Development Director said the applicant is meeting the code, and he has guest parking. Mr. Uribe said there are single homes there, too, and it's like a Tijuana project with 10,000 houses in the corner, and they must consider there are homes all around there. 8:20 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board for discussion and action. He said that the City Engineer, in his letter dated July 17, 1992, Condition 8, said, "Provide and easement across Parcel 1 for the benefit of Parcel 3", and he doesn't know which parcel is which because the maps the Commission has are not numbered. He said, "It appears that the post -drainage facilities from Parcel 3 to Mc Clarren Street cross into the property immediately adjacent to the west; this will not be permitted". He asked what this means and how it is resolved. He said he thought he saw somewhere where the City Engineer was concerned, that he did not want additional drainage going onto Mc Clarren. Commissioner Van Gelder thought he deleted Condition 8. Chairman Buchanan said he did; on July 27, 1993 it says, "Comments in Item 8 regarding drainage across the adjacent property to the west should not be considered". The Community Development Director said the only thing she remembers from the City Engineer was that he was concerned with the drainage coming through from the subject property through his front lot. She said originally it was also going through the adjacent neighbor's, and he wanted an area that would be just on his own property and would be underground piped water. She said apparently what the applicant provided here satisfied the City Engineer, who did not raise an issue of increasing water on the street to a point that the street system couldn't handle it. Chairman Buchanan said when they were discussing the Pico Park site, a lot of people came in very concerned about the amount of water that comes down Pico and how the existing facilities are not adequate and their front yards and garages get flooded every time there is a heavy rain. He said they 12 were obviously concerned about it, although the project they were looking at was downstream from that, so the park had nothing to do with any of that, except that the park would be subject to the same kind of flooding and debris problems. He said here we have a downstream neighbor who is saying the existing curb and gutter and drainage facilities are not adequate to handle the drainage coming down Mc Clarren now, and he has water coming up into his front yard when there is a heavy run-off and he is concerned about this acre of property now adding that additional run-off. He asked how much of this property is draining onto Mc Clarren. The Community Development Director said the whole property is draining onto Mc Clarren. She said she is not so familiar with the drainage system on Mc Clarren, and whether it is surface drainage or if they have basins and drainage pipes underneath. She said if there was a basin there, probably the water would go inside the basin before it would reach Mr. Uribe's house. Chairman Buchanan said he thinks it is all surface drainage. Mr. Drechsler said presently the lot is draining into the backyards of the present units and is carried out to Mc Clarren Street, so whatever water already is accumulated is going to Mc Clarren Street, and it is a surface flow. Chairman Buchanan said from a practical standpoint, when you take it from dirt to concrete, asphalt and roofs, a lot more water ends up running off, because a lot less of it gets soaked in. Mr. Drechsler said the street is so deep it already provides for the drainage, and a lot of water is also added from the Pines apartment, so his would be actually minimal compared to what comes from above. The Community Development Director said the Associate Planner has received this complaint before and she spoke with the City Engineer, who was pretty confident that the drainage was taking care of its own responsibilities and would not add any surface run-off, so the Associate Planner was thinking that maybe some of this water will be underneath the street; not just sheet flow. She said at this point, they need clarification from the City Engineer, or some type of condition to mitigate this situation. Chairman Buchanan said if you manage to take some of the water off to Canal, and Canal simply drains back onto Mc Clarren, they haven't added anything with that solution. He said if there is no underground storm system in that area, there is no place to put it other than into the street. 13 The Community Development Director said one of the alternatives that Gene Mc Means always mentions is that sometimes our drainage patterns go all to the street, and we should try to absorb at least 10-15% of the water on -site and decrease the drainage to the street so we decrease pollution in the water as well. She said she does not think the City Engineer has ever considered on -site absorption rates to be increased. She said perhaps they can add a condition to suggest to the City Engineer to consider some higher absorption rates on site through special landscaping or swales on -site so they can retain a little bit of the water and let it soak through the site instead of letting it go to the street. Chairman Buchanan said, on the one hand, it is not fair to the applicant to deny or heavily burden a project because down the street there are not adequate run-off facilities, but on the other hand, it is not fair to the people who live down the street and are dealing with run-off problems to exacerbate those if they have some alternatives here. He felt it was a good idea to have the City Engineer look at this and see what needs to be done. He said maybe a higher curb or something could be looked at along Mc Clarren or some way of dealing with that. The Community Development Director said one way it would be good, only for the long run, is to raise capital improvement fees since they are so low and they are not able to pay for any capital improvements, and this is why the City's drainage system is so terrible. Mr. Drechsler asked if he could clarify something. Chairman Buchanan said the public hearing is already closed, but if he has some specific clarification on this particular problem, he could go ahead. Mr. Drechsler said on his side, when he improved the properties in 1979, he made the curbs and gutters so deep that they could easily carry the water no matter what. He said down the street, where his property ends, it is unimproved, and there is no :curb and gutter down the street, and this is why there is a problem with overflow into the other properties, so if this would be improved, then there shouldn't be any question at all, and it could easily carry the water. Chairman Buchanan said that is a problem, when upstream development efficiently handles water flow, and you get the unimproved frontage down below which bears the brunt of it. The Community Development Director felt it was a good idea to ask the City Engineer to look into it and see what kind of mitigation measures there can 14 MOTION PCM-93-47 SA-92-11 be. She said it is unfair to burden one property owner, but maybe they could share the cost of some improvements. Commissioner Wilson said it might be appropriate to ask the City Engineer if it would be practical that if that area is actually unimproved down below, considering the fact that this project will more than likely have to be at least finish -graded, that if it would help the drainage down the street where the problem is, perhaps some minor, remedial grading might take place, one-half hour's worth of time, would probably buy a great deal of good relations with the people adjacent to the project. He said he's got to think that if off -site drainage is a concern, then it would be worth it to the City to have the City Engineer check to see if some remedial grading might be appropriate, or if the applicant might be willing to contribute a little bit of remedial grading to help take care of the problem. The Community Development Director asked if he meant instead of building curb and sidewalk. Commissioner Wilson agreed. He said one of these days, the permanent improvements will go in, but for the time being, there might be a little bit of remedial grading that might be able to be arranged. Mr. Drechsler said it was impossible. Commissioner Wilson said he wanted to direct staff to investigate the situation to see if some remedial off -site grading might be required. The Community Development Director stated that every time there is a permit or one of these residences needs a patio cover, but usually for room additions, anything that requires a public hearing or a Conditional Use Permit, then they are required to put in the improvements. She said otherwise, it would not happen, because the City does not have the funds now to improve those areas unless there is an emergency situation. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to amend Condition of Approval #7 to include that any external air conditioning/heating units shall be ground - mounted in the rear portion of the unit. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. Commissioner Addington stated this would reduce the patio area significantly by the time the required fencing is around it plus any access that may be 15 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-47 MOTION PCM-93-48 SA-92-11 required for fire access. Chairman Buchanan said this is why he specified rear rather than patio in phrasing this, as he could see there are areas along the sides of the patios at the backs of the units that may be appropriate locations that could be ground - mounted and adequately fenced or shielded that wouldn't actually be within the patio area, so that there is an option to do that as well. Commissioner Addington said if they are in the breezeway between Units C and BR, and those items stick 4' out from the buildings, they will have a 2' walkway if they are on the sides near the rear of the building. Commissioner Van Gelder said the patio is not the best area for it, but it is better than the front yard or on the roof. Commissioner Addington was concerned that this condition may be inhibiting fire access. Commissioner Van Gelder said it wouldn't interfere if it was on the patio. She asked where he suggested they be. Commissioner Addington suggested the roof. Motion carries. 3-1-3-0. Commissioner Addington voted no. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioners Huss and Munson absent. Chairman Buchanan said he was trying to think of whether or not there is anything they need to do to condition the breezeway between the B and C units, and so far he hasn't come up with any good ideas, but he is concerned about it. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add to Condition 2 that the trash enclosure be in either decorative block or block wall with matching stucco treatment. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. 16 x MOTION VOTE PCM-93-48 Motion carries. 3-1-3-0. Commissioner Wilson voted no. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioners Huss and Munson absent. The Community Development Director said, with regard to the breezeway problem, if the applicant applied for a variance for the rear yard setback, then there could be 20' between the buildings and separate them. She said this way he is meeting code. She said originally they wanted him to have amenities in the back with a little barbecue and some benches for all of the units. She thinks he prefers to enclose and have a larger back yard there, but staffs idea was for that area to be an amenities area. She said since he is not putting any amenities, then it could be 10' there and 20' between the buildings. She said in order to approve a variance they would need to find State findings and substantiate, and the only thing is the irregular shaped lot and he has to build a retention wall, so it is a little bit pushy. Chairman Buchanan asked if there was any restriction from Fire Ordinance whether or not there is a gate at the front of the breezeway. He asked if one of the reasons for requiring 20' between building was for fire access and he isn't sure what connecting the roof of the two buildings and moving them even closer does to satisfy that. The Community Development Director said they do have the requirement of 20', but having one roof makes it one building. She said she isn't sure if this is a Fire requirement. The Associate Planner said it is a combination of the Code because of the density they are dealing with. Commissioner Van Gelder asked why it is covered The Community Development Director said it is considered only one structure this way so he doesn't need to provide 20' separation. Commissioner Van Gelder suggested it be well -lit as a crime deterrent. She said the 10' doesn't serve any purpose. Chairman Buchanan said the only purpose it serves is that the occupants of these two units would have a way to get back into their patio without going through the house. He said if it were gated at the front of it, at least the only people going back would be the two unit owners, unless the fire department 17 MOTION PCM-93-49 SA-92-11 wouldn't let them. O The Community Development Director said the requirements are in our Code, not Fire or Building. Commissioner Van Gelder said unless they put a roof -high fence there, they won't keep anybody out. Chairman Buchanan said he can't keep anybody out of his back yard that wants in it either, but at least if it were gated, it wouldn't be visible, so if it inevitably gets used for storage, such as bikes and barbecues and boxes, they might as well have it screened. The Community Development Director said it would also look more like a single family house with a back yard. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as a condition requirement for a gate arrangement acceptable to the Planning Director at the southern entrance to the breezeway between Units B and C. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND. MOTION PCM-93-50 SA-92-11 The Community Development Director asked if they wanted to add the condition of drainage for the patios that Commissioner Wilson had brought up. Commissioner Wilson didn't see a use for a formal motion, only direction, as he believes it is included in the recommendations. Chairman Buchanan said in #4 of the City Engineer's repci L, it says, 'Provide hydrology study and adequate facilities", and he thinks as long as the City Engineer is aware that adequate drainage facilities in the Commission's minds means not only on -site but off -site that he needs to review. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to approve SA-92-11 as conditioned, including amendments approved tonight. Commissioner Van Gelder 18 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-50 MOTION PCM-93-51 SA-92-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-93-51 seconded. Motion fails due to lack of majority. 2-2-3-0. Commissioners Addington and Wilson voted no. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioners Huss and Munson absent. The Community Development Director asked if they could have action for a continuance. Chairman Buchanan said someone could make a motion to deny the application, but he would suspect it would receive the same 2-2 vote. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue SA-92-11 to the next Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Wilson seconded. Motion carries. 4-0-3-0. Vice -Chairman Sims and Commissioners Munson and Huss absent. The Community Development Director asked for some direction from the Commission on how to improve the project or how to have the Commissioners come to a decision. Chairman Buchanan said first of all, the absent Commissioners have not heard the testimony and they have closed the public hearing. He said in the absence of completely re -opening the public hearing and re -taking testimony on this project, none of the absent Commissioners are qualified to vote on the project at the next meeting either. The Community Development Director asked if verbatim minutes would help. Chairman Buchanan said it is his understanding, and staff would need to check with the City Attorney on this, but it is his understanding that it is 19 sufficient for the Commissioners to listen to the tapes of the meeting. He didn't know if a verbatim transcript of those would qualify, but it is his understanding that if a Commissioner listens to the tape in its entirety on this project, that they would then be eligible to vote having heard the testimony. He suggested checking with the City Attorney on this point. The Community Development Director said they could advertise the meeting again and have another public hearing. She said it is continued but they closed the public hearing. She asked for some direction in terms of improvement of the project if possible. Chairman Buchanan asked if Commissioners Addington and Wilson if they had any comments to add. They had no comments. Chairman Buchanan suggested taking a 15 minute break so staff could confer with the applicant. He said the other possibility is that if the applicant's desire was to have this project acted on tonight, even if that meant a denial so he could take it to the City Council through the appeal process, he is sure one of the two of them could be swayed to vote for denial of the project and the applicant could then go on. Commissioner Van Gelder said she feels very sorry for the applicant in this case, as she doesn't think the Commission has indicated to him a lot of concrete things they don't like that he could fix if he wanted to. She said they don't like the 10' breezeway, and apparently there is nothing they can do about that and drainage and all these things they don't have answers for anyway, so she is sure he is wondering what they want him to do differently, and they haven't told him anything to do differently. The Community Development Director said they can bring the City Engineer the next time to address the drainage. 8:56 P.M. TO 9:06 P.M. - BREAK Chairman Buchanan asked the Community Zevelopment Director for direction on how to proceed. He said technically, at this point in time, they have continued the hearing on this matter until the next scheduled meeting. He said they have closed the public hearing, but he is not sure that if they continued to a date certain that they wouldn't be allowed to reopen the public hearing. The Community Development Director said they can readvertise or reopen. 20 Chairman Buchanan said they can announce at this meeting that this is being done. He said at this point, discussion about this project is probably out of order because they have already taken a vote on the continuance. The Community Development Director asked if he was thinking in terms of some direction if anybody has any suggestions of improvements. Chairman Buchanan said he was wondering if they should just end the meeting at this point since they have continued it if staff has some recommendation or if the applicant conveys to them a desire for some definitive action, even if it is denial so that he can exercise his appeal rights. The Community Development Director said the applicant prefers continuance. Chairman Buchanan said the public hearing will be re -opened at the next meeting because of the circumstances in the absence of any objection. He asked staff to contact the City Attorney regarding the parameters regarding Participation by the absent Commissioners and assuming that they end up at the next meeting with a similar 2-2 situation, what kind of recommendation he has for some definitive action. He said he doesn't know whether a project that can't get enough votes for approval or denial is being denied. He stated he hates to see a situation where legally the City didn't take timely action and is therefore deemed approved, as that obviously is not the intent of the body here. Commissioner Van Gelder suggested that the City Engineer be here. Chairman Buchanan said it might be helpful if the City Engineer is at the next meeting to answer questions, and it might also be helpful if the applicant resolves some of the questions they had. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AT 9:11 P.M. RECONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 9:11 P.M. Discussion continued regarding accessory structures and Administrative Site and Architectural Review. The Community Development Director suggested a Land Use Approval application be required for all new construction that does not require administrative review or Site and Architectural Review, then she'll have official authorization to review the playhouses and elevated decks, etc. She 21 said the decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission and if she feels she doesn't have the power to decide, she can bring the project to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Van Gelder felt it would be fair for the other Commissioners to have a chance to be a part of this discussion. Chairman Buchanan said they could continue this discussion at the next workshop. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 9:48 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 19, 1993. Respectfully submitted, ()�AAAkot atrizia Materassi Community Development Director 08-12-93:ma c:\wp51\planning\minutes\08-05-93.m 22 Approved by, Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission