Loading...
09/15/1994GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 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 September 15, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jimmy W. Sims. PRESENT: Jimmy W. Sims, Chairman Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moire Huss, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner. ABSENT: None. PLEDGE: LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner 6:30 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION The Community Development Director informed the Commission of the City of Fontana Workshop for Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Addington informed the Commission that the Chamber of Commerce received five letters of resignation, including his own as president. Commissioner Munson asked what could be done with the property at 11695 Canal. The Director said this has been an ongoing problem. The problems clear and then they start all over again. She said she is trying to amend the City's code enforcement to include some of San Luis Obispo's measures, which help to address repeat offenders. Commissioner Garcia presented a summary of the Planning Commissioners' Workshop she attended. She mentioned one suggestion presented, which was to hold an annual meeting with the City Council to discuss issues of mutual concern and look at the vision for the City. Another suggestion she mentioned was to have a staff member or Commissioner attend workshops and share the information. She also suggested a workshop with the City Attorney and the Commission with regard to the legal responsibility of the Commission. It was a consensus of the Commission to request a meeting with the City Attorney when an agenda is put together including Planning Commission responsibility regarding Economic Development, Code Enforcement and other issues. It was a consensus of the Commission to recommend to the City Council than an annual meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council be held to discuss a vision for the City and other issues as related to upcoming General Plan amendment. 7:00 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP MEETING 7:00 P.M. CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1, 1994 MOTION PCM-94-40 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1, 1"4 MOTION VOTE PCM-94-40 Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve the September 1, 1994 minutes. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. 7:05 P.M. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:05 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 2 ITEM #2 SA-94-06 VICKI BAILS/DOUG LETH 12713 BLUE MOUNTAIN COURT G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A DETACHED DECK AND BLOCK WALL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE The Associate Planner presented the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING DOUG LETH 12713 BLUE MOUNTAIN COURT G.T. Mr. Leth said his letter summarizes his intent. ERIC CHRISTIANSEN - REPRESENTING OWNERS OF 22830 RAVEN G.T. Mr. Christiansen presented pictures which he stated show the obstruction of the view and the invasion of privacy from this deck. He said the cover will go an additional 8' higher. The Associate Planner said there is a lattice cover proposed. Commissioner Huss asked when the City became involved. The Director said that when the complaint was received, the City Inspector was sent to stop construction. Vice -Chairman Wilson asked what percentage of the view is being obstructed by this deck. Mr. Christiansen said about 5% is obstructed. He pointed out that, speaking as a general contractor, the deck can be relocated. He stated that this deck can be placed just about anywhere around the pool. Mr. Leth said the only thing the neighbor is going to see is the front of the deck, and they don't propose to build a cover on the front of the deck. `�' 3 Chairman Sims asked if he would be willing to plant some additional trees to buffer. 0 Mr. Leth said they have no objection to this. Mr. Christiansen said trees are not acceptable, as they would obstruct the view as well. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-94-41 SA-94-06 Chairman Sims made a motion to amend Condition #2, to state that applicant is to submit landscaping plans to plant a buffering row of trees adjacent to the Raven Way property, with a type of material that will not seriously obstruct view of property on Raven Way anymore than it is at this time, to be coordinated with both adjacent property owners and approved by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. MOTION VOTE PCM-94-41 0 Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Vice -Chairman Wilson voted no. MOTION PCM-94-42 SA-94-06 Vice -Chairman Wilson made a motion to amend conditions to include a requirement that the midway western portion of the deck be lowered three feet with step to be created in deck that would more closely conform to the natural topography. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND. MOTION PCM-94-43 SA-94-06 Chairman Munson made a motion to approve SA-94-06 as amended. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. o MOTION VOTE PCM-94-43 Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Vice -Chairman Wilson voted no. ITEM #3 SA-94-03R1 AZURE HILLS CHURCH/COLE & FRICK ARCHITECTS REPRESENTATIVE: DR. JACK BOOKER 22577 CENTER CITY COURT G.T. AN APPLICATION REQUESTING REVISION OF CONDITION #5 (BLOCK WALL HEIGHT AND LOCATION ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES) AND OTHER MINOR REVISIONS OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR AN EDUCATIONAL CENTER Chairman Sims stated that Commissioner Addington was abstaining from this item due to a potential conflict of interest. The Associate Planner presented the staff report, and the Director presented the latest findings. Discussion took place regarding the height of the wall, which is being required for sound abatement and children's safety. Chairman Sims wondered if the site could be lowered to reduce some of the wall's impact. The City Engineer said this would mean hauling some dirt away, and the footings that have been poured were poured in conjunction with (inaudible). He said if the Planning Commission decides they want to modify the elevations of the site, the south property line wall footings would not be affected. He stated that with regard to the westerly property line, adjacent to Mr. DeBenedet's property, the grading occurred across the property line, and after the grading was completed, a footing was dug for a six foot wall. He said if the grade was to be lowered at that westerly property line, all of the steel would have to be removed. He said the with regard to the grading that is there, something has to be done -- either removed and supported by a retaining wall or Mr. DeBenedet has to express his satisfaction with the conditions. Chairman Sims summarized the issues, stating that along the south side, there are some large walls that would be in place if the people on the south side would tear down all of their landscaping and all of their existing walls or 5 fencing, and if they were to take all of that out, they would see a 12' wall. He also expressed concern about the west side. 0 8:30 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING GERALD COLE 4195 CHESTNUT RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 Mr. Cole said the work that has been done has been done to meet the conditions that have already been approved, and if the Commission asked for no changes to the south wall, it would not affect what they have done. He said the footing is in place for an 8' high wall, which was asked for, and the footing is in place for 6' where this was called for. He said they are suggesting they not build that, and staff is recommending the 5' high wall because the property owners adjacent will wind up with an 11 or 12' high wall. He said along the west wall, this is a problem. He stated they agree with either scenario that staff is recommending, depending upon what Mr. DeBenedet decides to do. Chairman Sims asked if the grading can be charged to help the situation. Mr. Cole said they have to take all the water on the site forward and out onto Center City Court, so the back of the property has to be built up for drainage. He said they may be able to lower it a small amount, perhaps one foot, but he didn't see a possibility of lowering it to eliminate the four feet. DR. JACK BOOKER 11785 MT. VERNON G.T. Dr. Booker said in the original proposal of 6' and 8', he was also under the understanding that it would be from the applicant's side and the property owner's side, but he can see now that it does require a very tall wall on the property owner's side. He stated that the first five property owner's on the southwest were all in favor of a wall, and he is sure they were under the understanding that it would be a 6' wall on their side. He indicated that at the 22570 property, there are 20' high Italian Cypress trees which would block out the wall, however, if a subsequent owner were to tear out the trees, there the wall would be. He said 22580 already has a masonry block wall, which they want to remain, so all of the new slumpstone construction is on the applicant's property -- none on the property line or on the neighbor's property. He said there is a wooden fence on 22950, and all of those with 6 0 wooden fences were under the concept of them removing their fences once the wall is up. Dr. Booker said 22618 had a new fence erected about one month prior to the letter being presented for signatures, and he was anxious to have the block slumpstone wall and subsequently tore out his new fence to give to his brother-in-law. He feels that all of the property owners want the wall, but he is not so sure they will be happy with a height of 10' to 13'. Dr. Booker said, regarding the southeast section where the oleanders are, there was only one resident, at 22638, who signed that he would prefer the block wall. MAMIEW ADDINGTON, CIVIL ENGINEER 22737 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Addington pointed out that when the preliminary grading plan was submitted to the City and the Planning Commission, it was not the intention to 'boondoggle" the Commission or City staff. Mr. Addington said the purpose of this design was to attempt to balance the site with earthwork so as to minimise export from the site. He said if the building pad was lowered, there would be a substantial cost to the church. The City Engineer said the preliminary grading plan was approved by the Planning Commission, and he looks at it from the standpoint of whether or not it will drain and if there will be any problems. He said it may be worthwhile to take a look at the cost of the retaining walls as they are required versus the potential export and adjustment of the pad. He said at the northwest comer of the parcel, the contours are fairly steep, so it may be worth looking at from the economic standpoint. The Director responded with regard to the Commission approving a 12' block wall, stating that the Code says the maximum height of a fence or wall, solid or otherwise, shall be 8' from the surface of the ground, and the permitted height of a fence or wall may be increased or reduced if the Director of Building and Safety determines such an increase or reduction is necessary to maintain proper vehicular and pedestrian safety; the Community Development Director, through the Administrative Site and Architectural Review may approve a greater or lesser height, however, where a grade differential exists between building sites, the height of the fence or wall shall be measured from the higher grade. She said in this case, the higher grade is the church, so they can approve it without a variance. She pointed out that on Lot 1, there is an 8' fence already and 20' Cypress, so if the property owner agrees to a 6' block wall, it will not make much difference. She said 22580 has a 7 1/2' block wall and lots of landscaping, so to have an 8' block wall would be very similar. 7 She said from there, the fences go down to about 6'. She said on the west side, she sees a big problem, but on the south side she does not see a problem if they move to the 5' block wall. Chairman Sims expressed confusion since the grading plans do not show the need to have a retaining wall along the west side. The Director said while there is a permit from the City Engineer on the grading, there is not a final. The City Engineer said from the engineering standpoint, existing contours are shown just west of the westerly property line, and the proposed contours and the flow line elevations running north/south. 8:55 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Garcia was concerned about the wrought iron being around the young children. The City Engineer said the U.B.C. addresses wrought iron with regard to safety and separation between the verticals. Vice -Chairman Wilson said he didn't feel the conditions of approval really provide for mitigation of noise, and he would like to see a covenant that would be recorded against the property stating that the church promises to maintain the sound level or respond to complaints. He felt before Certificate of Occupancy is issued or six months after in a mitigation circumstance, there would be a requirement of measuring the sound to make sure it is within the 55 dBs. Discussion took place regarding interpretation of the Code with regard to wall height. The Director said with the noise issue, in past projects, they have waited for complaints to come, as noise tests are sometimes 4,000 to 5,000 dollars. She said the church has given a letter of commitment that they will comply. Vice -Chairman Wilson said this sounds like a good concept. He asked if the applicant is trying to obtain an agreement from the adjacent property owner with regard to the height of the wall and/or the off -site grading. The Director said the property owner is not here right now, so the applicant would probably like to wait until he comes back. She said there is a lease agreement that says the property owner will have a 6' block wall on his 93 MOTION PCM-94-44 SA-94-03R1 property, so in order to build a 12' block wall, they will need his permission. Mr. Cole said the worst condition of retaining is about 4 1/2', so the worst condition they would have would be an 11' high wall, and obviously they do not want the 11' high wall, so they would like to have the 4 1/2' or 5' retaining. The Director showed various alternative wall sketches to the architect. Discussion continued on the wall. Chairman Sims said had he known there was going to be a 13' high wall, he would have said "no". He said he feels this is poor design, stating that you don't take property that is relatively flat, create an artificial surface, and then come back and tell the Commission that they did what the Commission told them to do. The City Engineer said this is why they are here today, to call it to the Commission's attention. Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to continue this item to the next Planning Commission Meeting, requesting that the Community Development Director come back with a revised form so they are not looking at several pieces of material, and in the meantime the Director can talk with the applicant. She said they certainly know what the Commission's wishes are, and perhaps they can come back with a better plan. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND Chairman Sims said if there is some physical constraint that will not allow the 13' wall to be lowered, then he would like to see that. The Director said the important thing is to keep the noise from the playground concealed. The City Engineer said he is recommending that they look at lowering pad elevation, decreasing the height of the walls, and if that happens, both the west wall will be decreased and the wall along the southwest comer of the property will likewise be decreased, and it will eventually go back and vary in height to the southerly extension of the southeast corner of that building. I MOTION Chairman Sims felt they should set a maximum limit on the west wall. PCM-94-45 SA-94-03R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-94-45 Chairman Sims made a motion to eliminate Condition #2 and replace it with a motion to construct a 6' high block wall on the west property line with 6' height to be measured from both sides of the property line. The City Engineer asked if the Commission would consider providing for a 6' wall facing the westerly (Mr. DeBenedet's) property and provide whatever conditional safeguards are necessary, i.e. wrought iron be made safe for the children. Chairman Sims felt they should be able to change the grading to be able to get what they want. Commissioner Garcia wondered what happened to Commissioner Van Gelder's motion to continue this item earlier. The Director said it died for lack of second. Chairman Sims restated his motion. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. Commissioner Huss said she was considering 6' on Mr. De Benedet's side with 5' on the applicant's side. Chairman Sims amended the motion as such, with the second concurring. Motion carries. 4-1-1-1. Vice -Chairman Wilson voted no. Commissioner Munson absent. Commissioner Addington abstained. Commissioner Huss said if the applicant ends up not being able to meet this condition, they probably should be speaking with the adjacent landowner before they come back here again. 10 MOTION PCM-94-46 SA-94-03R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-94-46 Vice -Chairman Wilson made a motion to continue this item to the next Planning Commission Meeting, directing Planning staff to work with the applicant to solve the situation so far as to the definition of finish grade and come to a viable solution on the wall heights. Commissioner Van Gelder said there has already been a motion regarding limiting the wall. Vice -Chairman item to the nt seconded. Wilson clarified his motion to state simply to continue this xt Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Garcia Motion carries. 5-1-0-1. Chairman Sims voted no. Commissioner Addington abstained. Chairman Sims recognized a gentleman at the podium and gave him the opportunity to speak. RAY KEENEY 11478 POPLAR LOMA LINDA, CA Mr. Keeney said he is a member of the Azure Hills Church. He said what he is hearing tonight is almost impossible, considering the slope of the ground, which has a considerable slope from the east end down to the tennis court looking at the chart on the wall. He said the tennis court is level and they have a 6' bank down to the tennis court, and at the west side of the tennis court, where the parking lot begins, there is another 4' cut down to the parking lot, then the building site is just about level with the adjoining grade, and in order to get the building in there, they would have to put a retaining wall on the east side of the building because of the slope. He said the building pad is level, then they slope down quickly to the property line. He indicated the top of the footing on the plan, stating that it is maybe 3' above the curb on the circle, which would give them 3' of bank if they sloped from that onto Mr. De Benedet's property. He said if they brought this down onto a 6' wall on each side, the east comer of the building would be about 5' lower than it is than the parking lot. Chairman Sims recommended trying to come up with a new plan, and if 6' doesn't work, then give the Commission a reason, and perhaps they can change the condition. The Director asked if the Commission would consider a reconsideration motion. Commissioner Van Gelder said they are not fighting the issues, and they are objecting to anything other than the wall height. She said they just didn't have enough time to read all the new material that was in front of them this evening. Vice -Chairman Wilson said he does not believe current ordinance provides for approval of a 13' block wall without a variance, and what they approved previously on this project did not include a 13' block wall being built. The Director said she believes staff's conditions would bring the block wall to a maximum of 9' on the south side, and on the west side, if there is a reevaluation of grades, the block wall could be significantly lowered. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 6, 1994. Respectfully submitted, 01,4w - .- Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director 09-28-94:ma c:\wp5l\planning\minutes\09-15-94.m Approved by, W. Commission 12 Q)