Loading...
06/15/1995GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION +` MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUNE 15, 1995 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 June 15, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jimmy Sims. PRESENT: Jimmy Sims, Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moire Huss, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Pat Peterson, Community Development Secretary ABSENT: Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner PLEDGE: Matthew Addington, Commissioner 6:45 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Associate Planner addressed Commission regarding status of the budget for next fiscal year. Although preliminarily approved there is still another City Council meeting on June 22 for final review. General Plan Task Force will make progress report to Planning Commission on July 6, seeking their comments. Community Development Director will appear in court on June 16, for arraignment on the Larry Halstead code enforcement case. Counsel for Mr. Halstead has requested a continuance to June 30. General discussion regarding microphone volume and transcription difficulties. 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 7:00 p.m. CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING/SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 1, 1995 Chairman Sims pointed out that on page 3 of minutes, there is an entry that applicant, Ali Yasin addressed the Commission, however the minutes do not reflect what he stated. Associate Planner agreed this will be done. Associate Planner advised Commission there have been some recent changes made to page 7. 1. Paragraph 6; Addition to Commissioner Garcia's remarks that this was accepted as re -wording of condition #1. 2. Paragraph 7; Added to Commissioner Addington's comments that this was accepted by the Commission and Director. 3. Paragraph 8; Director suggested an additional sentence that this was accepted provided the HOP permit procedure is only required once to test performance of the HOP permittee. Commissioner Huss commented that on page 2, Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion instead of her. And on page 7, at the top, she felt it was a comment by Commissioner Garcia, as Commissioner Huss did not agree with the wording of the definition of "employee". Chairman Sims expressed concern that there are portions lacking in the minutes. Associate Planner and Chairman Sims agreed minutes of June 1, should be tabled until the Planning Commission meeting July 6, with review of June 15 minutes. Commissioner Garcia suggested Staff request a summary statement of agreements for clarification purposes to be sure there is consensus among all members. Chairman Sims asked if there is anything omitted from the minutes which will affect what Commissioners will be looking at tonight. (no response from Commission members) MOTION PCM-95-18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 1, 1995 Motion by Chairman Sims to table the minutes of June 1, 1995 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Addington. 2 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the motions are summarized for the minutes. Associate Planner said we do not do verbatim nor action minutes. We do summary minutes. Some discussion items may be omitted, however the actual consensus on major issues is reflected. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-18 Motion carried. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Munson absent. ITEM #2 Z-95-03/E-95-07 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AN APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.06 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA. Associate Planner summarized the report of meeting of June 1st Planning Commission workshop, on this proposal to study the feasibility of the Home Occupation Permit Procedures. The Planning Commission's discussion items and consensus agreed upon topics have been incorporated in the now -proposed amendments and ordinance. An amended page 5 supersedes the previous page 5 in their packets. It has been re -worded to correctly reflect June 1 discussions. The Negative Declaration and formal proposal of the amended code incorporating Commission's consensus statement is also before the Commission. This concludes staff report. Commissioner Garcia asked who suggested the wording for the definition of "employee". Associate Planner said it is based on comments from Commission, with direction by the City Attorney, John Harper. Commissioners Garcia and Addington are not satisfied with the definition of "employee" as suggested in the proposed amendment. 7:15 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING - NO PARTICIPATION. 7:15 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Addington commented that on page 4, item A is defined under 5.06.010a, "office uses such as contracting and consulting with the residence is used for the sole purpose of receiving mail, telephone and bookkeeping". He said this wording is confusing. Chairman Sims asked staff the intent of using the phrase "the sole". Associate Planner stated she reviewed ordinances from other cities and that specific wording appeared in those ordinances. Commissioner Garcia asked if part of the intent is to preclude meetings held at the home. Staff answered in the affirmative. 3 MOTION PCM-95-19 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Addington that item A of 5.06.010a be amended to read as follows: "office uses, such as contracting and consulting, when the residence is used for purposes of receiving mail, telephone calls and bookkeeping", eliminating the words "the sole". Seconded by Chairman Sims. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-19 Motion carried. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Munson absent. Commissioner Addington pointed out that a long discussion took place about page 5, the terms "sub -contractor" or "sub -consultant". On item A, 5.06.040 the second and third paragraphs were of concern. In his opinion the third paragraph should be stricken and the second paragraph should read "in the case of sub -consultants and sub -contractors who are not members of the household, may not perform any duties or services on the premises." He felt the letter of agreement is too complicated and harsh, and that it should be written in a simplified form. He suggested simply stating "they can't work there if they do not live at the residence. " Staff pointed out the 6-month self -monitoring has been deleted from the current proposal. Chairman Sims re -stated the intent of the second paragraph: It would require the HOP applicant to provide a letter to the City guaranteeing outside employees, sub -contractors or sub -consultants will not be accessing the home site. The third paragraph means if they do have sub -contractors or sub -contractors there would be an additional approval required in connection with the business license (pro -rated). He asked what the procedure would be if they violate the letter of commitment. Staff explained this would be a tool for code enforcement. Staff explained that sub -contractors and sub -consultants have never been allowed to provide services for an HOP permittee so this would allow the City to maintain some degree of control while still offering this new flexibility. The annual check on that new HOP would occur if HOP letters are sent out to neighbors and wait two weeks to see if we receive any negative impact responses. Chairman Sims said that this process seems redundant, or is there something missing in the current code enforcement in relationship to this HOP permit. Associate Planner explained that it could be similar to a CUP that is signed acknowledging an understanding of the conditions of the project, benefit to the City and applicant. 4 Commissioner Garcia related her personal experience in applying for an HOP and explained she did receive and sign a list of guidelines. Associate Planner explained this condition would be aimed specifically at those HOP's with sub -contractors and sub - consultants. Commissioner Garcia said it is inconsistent to say "the ONLY people who can work for an HOP are members of the household who reside in the residence. " A sub -contractor does work for the business. Commissioner Addington agreed. Commissioner Van Gelder was concerned with monitoring of the letter of agreement which is one more thing someone will have to monitor and deal with when the complaints do come in. She agreed with Commissioner Addington that it would be simpler to state who can work for the HOP. Commissioner Huss said she prefers the letter of intent signed, acknowledging an understanding by the applicant that sub -contractors and sub -consultants will not be allowed to come to the home. She felt if the applicant were required to handwrite it in their own words it would have more impact on them. She urged aggressive preventive measures in lieu of code enforcement actions after the neighbors are already upset. Associate Planner explained this would make the HOP applicant responsible for the sub- contractors and sub -consultants. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the "commitment letter" would be prepared by staff or would the applicants write it themselves? Staff indicated there has been no decision as yet. Commissioner Addington noted that in response to Commissioner Huss' comment regarding code enforcement being complaint -driven, he felt at least half of the City ordinances are complaint -driven. In speaking with attorneys he has found that is a common procedure. With regard to the letter of agreement, he asked staff if developers on projects are required to sign conditions of approval. He feels requiring a letter of intent is too strict. Staff reiterated that we want to give additional flexibility in allowing subs but that we may need to address this group. There are many categories (like landscaping) who will never go to the home because they only go to job locations. Chairman Sims said he felt the desire is to make it more flexible under certain conditions to allow activities to happen from outside the home. We don't want to create the situation where there is an influx of people who don't live in the home to disturb the neighbors. The message we want to put out is that we will allow you to have other people who don't live in your house to come in and facilitate and propagate your business so that you can be successful, but you have to agree in writing to us that you are not going to allow them to come in and disrupt the neighborhood. Possibly the term "agreement" is too formal. A commitment letter is not as formal as an agreement. Since we are trying to build relationships with people -we're not trying to push down the small guy as compared to the big developer. The intent is to help people in these tough economic times to run the business out of the home. He suggested changing the wording instead of eliminating paragraphs to preserve the intent. Commissioner Addington suggested striking the 3 paragraphs and replace with: "The only people that can work on the premises for a HOP are the members who reside on the premises and in the case of sub -contractors or sub -consultants who are not members of the household, they may not perform any duties or services on the premises. " MOTION PCM-95-20 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Addington to amend page 5, of the amendment proposal, Section 5.06.040a, by striking the proposed first three underlined bolded paragraphs and replace them with one paragraph which states, "The only people that can work on the premises for a HOP are the members of the household who reside on the premises, and in the case of sub -contractors and sub -consultants who are not members of that household, they may not perform any duties or services on the premises of the HOP. " Seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. Chairman Sims clarified that Commissioner Addington's proposal would eliminate the first three underlined proposed paragraphs under section A, and replace it with the above wording. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-20 Motion carried. 4-1-2-0. Chairman Sims voted no. Vice -Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Munson absent. Commissioner Huss asked for clarification regarding the HOP renewal/review process. Chairman Sims said that proposed review language had been eliminated by the last motion which carried. He suggested she could make a motion to add that language. Commissioner Huss said she feels it is a good idea to do the one -time -only re -notice and review process with the neighbors at the end of the initial 12 months. Commissioner Addington asked if HOP's are required to have a business license. He suggested that if there is an enforcement problem we can elect not to renew the business license. Staff explained that all HOP's are required to have a business license and through previous research we have determined that we may not necessarily choose not to renew the business license because it is under a different law altogether. r-i Chairman Sims asked staff if all HOP's are required to have a business license, are all business licenses renewed every year, and are the businesses evaluated to determine of the City has received complaints? Staff explained that HOP's are required to have business licenses. Business licenses are renewed every year. There is no complaint review process in place where the surrounding neighbors are mailed a letter prior to renewal of business licenses. Staff pointed out that the HOP approval process is currently at one-time process and not connected with the annual business permit renewal process. Staff told the Commission the paragraph just eliminated in connection with the business license was put there in an attempt to evaluate if there had been any problems with the HOP (sub -contractors and/or sub -consultants). It is the only means of getting communication back on that conditional approval if there had been some impact on the neighborhood. This review process would tie into the business permit renewal process only one time and only in the case where sub -contractors and sub -consultants are working with the HOP. Chairman Sims said if we want to tie the HOP into the business license, the staff -proposed paragraph doesn't do it. Different wording will be needed. We want to be able to address if there are violations or if people are unhappy that it's there. Code enforcement does not necessarily do that unless there is a complaint. Commissioner Garcia shared her experience in setting up a business license program for a newly incorporated community. They had a purely revenue -generating business license program, as are 80-90% of all business license programs. The fact a business license is issued does not mean the business is to code. There is no regulatory element to the business license process. If there is to be any regulatory "teeth" in the HOP beyond the one time initial review it needs to create it in this ordinance otherwise it will not exist. Chairman Sims felt the need to attach the review process to the business license is irrelevant because there is no code enforcement attached to it. Commissioner Addington brought up the idea of attaching a two-year expiration date to the HOP at date of issuance. Staff said that may not apply to HOP's but we can do some research. The HOP currently never gets reevaluated as long as there are no changes in the type of business, owner and address. Any of these changes would trigger a reevaluation. Commissioner Huss brought up the fact that neighbors may be directing their complaints to the wrong agency (i.e. they may be calling the Sheriff's Dept.) instead of contacting the City to initiate code enforcement action, so we may not be aware there are problems. She recently read an article in the local paper by a resident who felt complaint -driven code enforcement is horrible way to run the City. She agreed with the citizen, and suggested we start to review at least the new HOP's. Associate Planner clarified letters would be sent out to the contiguous property owners as part of the one-year review as our outreach. The intent is not to add something more cumbersome but because this is a new segment to allow some flexibility we need to make some evaluations. 7 Chairman Sims inquired of staff if it is the intent, in the case of sub -contractors and sub - consultants attached to the HOP, to place a conditional approval on a yearly basis so that an evaluation could be conducted sending out letters to the surrounding community to determine if they have experienced problems during the past year and attempt to create a situation where they would be denied their permit? Staff responded the intent is to evaluate the situation by reaching the contiguous property owners notifying them of the type of business and that the applicant is applying for a temporary HOP and in one year they would be reevaluated to see if there has been any negative impact. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if this evaluation would take place only at the end of the first year. Staff responded yes. MOTION PCM-95-21 Motion by Commissioner Huss to amend the HOP procedure to perform the re -notice procedure at the first renewal of the business license to reevaluate the HOP in the case where sub -contractors and sub -consultants who are not members of the household. This would be attached as paragraph to 5.06.040a. Motion died for lack of second. Commissioner Garcia asked staff what is the anticipated problem with sub -contractors. Staff responded in the past we have seen problems with contractors and real estate persons. The in and out vehicle activity has been problematic in the past. Commissioner Garcia asked if HOP's will be required to list sub -contractors to ensure that those sub -contractors will be required to pay for business licenses. This can generate a significant amount of additional revenue. Staff responded that we currently require licenses for sub -contractors through our permit procedures. Chairman Sims asked about the insertion definition of "employee" in section 5.06.010a. Commissioner Addington asked where the word "employee" is found in the HOP text. A review of the amended text did not reveal the word "employee", since it was already removed by Commissioner Addington's motion. Commissioner Addington suggested in the definition of "employee" that after the word "location" add "and includes sub -consultants". This will accommodate those who work off site. Chairman Sims said since the word "people" has replaced "employees" in section 5.06.040, a motion must be made to delete the "employee" definition also. 8 MOTION PCM-95-22 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Addington to delete the "employee" definition as an insertion of section 5.06.010a. Seconded by Chairman Sims. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-22 Motion carried. 5-0-2-0. Vice Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Munson absent. Commissioner Addington commended staff for doing a good job writing Section 5.06.080, and it gives anyone ample opportunity for appeal. Chairman Sims brought the Commission's attention to the vehicle policy criteria in Attachment B. He asked staff if extensive changes are anticipated from the City Attorney. Associate Planner explained this is intended to be merely a policy such as the overhead deck policy. He City Attorney just has not yet finished his review and made final comments. MOTION PCM-95-23 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Garcia to approve Z-95-03 and E-95-07 as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Addington. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-23 Motion carried. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Wilson and Commissioner Munson absent. Commissioner Garcia advised staff and Commission she will be unable to attend the August 17, 1995 meeting. She will be attending the Economic Development conference in Long Beach. Staff advised Commission there was a good turn out at the Grand Terrace Days Parade. Various civic groups were represented on the community shuttle, including Vice -Chairman Doug Wilson and Task Force member JoAnn Johnson. 9 Commissioner Van Gelder explained she regretted that she could not participate in the parade on behalf of the Commission however, she had a previously scheduled personal engagement involving her granddaughter's musical production. 8:40 P.M. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JULY 69 1995. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Maria Muett Jimmy W Associate Planner Planning 1 06-28-95: pp c:\wp5l\planning\minutes\06-15-95.m 311 C-1 , Chairman 10