Loading...
08/03/1995GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 3, 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 July 6, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman, Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Vice -Chairman Matthew Addington, Commissioner LeeAnn Garcia, Commissioner Moira Huss, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Community Development Director Maria Muett, Senior Planner Pat Peterson, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Jimmy Sims, Chairman 6:45 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION * Information/comments from staff Change in Zoning Amendments scheduled for Public Hearing * Information/comments from commissioners -Report by Commissioner Addington on Planning Commissioner Orientation Seminar on July 22, 1995. -Discussion about A -Frame signs on Barton Road and code enforcement. -Discussion about City sign on the freeway and property maintenance by Caltrans at entrance of the City (Barton Rd./I-215). 7:05 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 7:05 P.M. CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING c * Call to Order * Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Huss * Roll Call * Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Community Development Director. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JULY 6, 1995 MOTION PCM-95-27 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JULY 69 1995 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the July 6, 1995 minutes. Commissioner Munson seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-27 Motion carried. 5-0-1-1. Chairman Sims absent and Commissioner Addington abstained. ITEM #2 TASK FORCE REPORT General Plan Update Task Force Progress Report. Task Force Members Present: LeeAnn Garcia Herman Hilkey JoAnn Johnson Jim Singley Doug Wilson Absent: Tamara Avila Phyllis Ann Forbes Sternberg Mary Trainor Director proposed to the Planning Commission the following procedure for review of the General Plan Task Force progress report: ° Director to give summary of each element. ° Assigned Commissioner to give his/her comments. Comments/Questions by balance of Commission to Task Force Members and Staff. ° Only 2 or 3 elements will be reviewed per meeting in order to be less material and be faster to read by all Commissioners. Director recommended this change in procedure as requested by the Task Force Members. The Task Force Members would like all Planning Commissioners to read and be responsible for each element for input; not only provide feedback on the assigned Commissioner's comments but on the text itself. They want input from every Commissioner on every element. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT/URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT Summary of Proposed Changes by Director: Director summarized the three major concepts suggested by the Task Force from the perspective of staff: 1) Need to create a cultural identity for the City and a place to celebrate that identity. Search for a symbol to identify Grand Terrace. Develop a place for public events, arts, cultural exhibits, entertainment, a downtown mini -park. 2) Preserve and enhance aesthetic scenes, improve City entries with streetscape, along all major corridors including the freeway. Carry the City logo or theme throughout the whole City. 3) Conduct a feasibility study for a Ogymnasium. Incorporate Blue Mountain private trails into the City right of way. Director said the Open Space Element should be cross-referenced with the Parks & Recreation Element drafted by Randy Anstine, the previous Assistant City Manager. The Urban Design Element, an optional element, is also very interrelated. The major purpose of this element is to perpetuate the urban design principles of the Barton Road Specific Plan. The Specific Plan may eventually be revised or rejected by these design guidelines will always remain in the General Plan to help create a pedestrian village atmosphere. The only new item in the Urban Design Element is that it proposes interior streets along the narrow lots of Barton Road to facilitate pedestrian circulation. The possibility of the City building a mini -park using one or more of those long, narrow lots was discussed by the Task Force. They envisioned this park as a place with benches, a fountain, a place to walk, possibly with an amphitheater to hold outdoor music events. They saw it surrounded by a mixed -use of commercial tenants and residential as well. The commercial parcels would be small and easily sold to the small commercial developers such as dentists and other retailers. Vice-chairman Wilson asked about current subdivision practices of the long, narrow lots along Barton Road. Director explained subdivision is currently not allowed, the Barton Road Specific Plan actually encourages consolidation of lots for developments for larger Barton Road frontage lots. A Master Plan is required for development of these lots. A list of Cal Poly students has been developed with the idea of recruiting them for Master Planning to help develop and market those properties. C Task Force Member/Commissioner LeeAnn Garcia's comments on the Open Space Element: She was responsible for the Open Space and the Urban Design Element. She commented that in Action 3P b) of the Open Space Element she felt that language was narrow in scope. She suggested it could be re -worded to say "Develop an area for regular art exhibit activity in coordination with Recreation Department and other City and community organizations." In the future a community -based group could get started to encourage art exhibits. The combination of resources could really unite the community. Commissioner Garcia strongly believes in the City beautification program and suggested it be detailed out with all the different elements involved. What do we already have and want can be done to "beef it up" even more? Under section 2P a) of the "Proposed Aesthetic Resources Policies and Actions" she suggested it be worded in the broader sense to state "The City shall work with Caltrans and transportation organizations and others in the establishment of a Highway Beautification Program. " She suggested it might be possible to work with community groups and/or do fund raising to do some capital improvements to help the image of the community as a whole. In section 1P b) of "Proposed Cultural Resources Policies and Actions", she suggested additional wording to broaden the policy thereby making it read "Propose to the Historical and Cultural, and Parks and Recreation Committees a campaign to promote the City as a convention or meeting site. " She added the meeting site is more feasible at this point in time than a convention center. Urban Design Element comments by Task Force Member/Commission LeeAnn Garcia: In Policies 1, she suggested refining the wording regarding the public plaza/public meeting place to reflect "create a public plaza defined by the location of the buildings that are surrounding it. She suggested it doesn't have to be only one location within the City. We could have several nice "gathering places." She strongly endorsed the education action under Policy 2 which suggests Barton Road Specific Plan workshops on design guidelines to be attended by local architects, engineers, brokers and developers to educate the public about the aesthetic goals of the community. She suggested stronger language to protect all trees under Policy 6, "Require that new development be sensitive to significant mature trees and views of natural landforms, such as Blue Mountain." Having many large trees really adds to a residential community. Policy 7 addresses the landscape and hardscape treatments of the City. She suggested having City flower and/or tree programs promoting drought -tolerant, low -maintenance foliage suited to our smoggy and sometimes -windy conditions. These themes could be carried through to the beautification program of the corridors as well as new development projects and individuals' home landscaping. 4 Commissioner Garcia liked Policy 13, "Encourage lighted sculpture gardens, fountains and tables, benches and any other feature to attract pedestrians. " She felt it would be a good idea to require developers to pay into a City funding account, in lieu of provision of art. She felt Policy 16 is very important, "Limit and/or consolidate access points onto Barton Road. " Comments/questions by Planning Commissioners Commissioner Addington asked Director for clarification as to the balance of the comment and direction process by the Planning Commission. Director explained the Commission should discuss each element after initial comments by the Commissioner responsible for presenting that Element. Members of the Task Force were present to answer inquiries by the Commissioners. If any Commissioner disagrees with anything presented thus far, now is the time to bring it up and discuss with other Commissioners so the Commission can tell the Task Force Members they either agree or disagree with the direction in which they are headed. Commissioner Van Gelder said she would like to see the Master Plan of the Barton Road Specific Plan area using whatever means the City has available to do that. She expressed concern about it being a "hodge podge" of different things without them being coordinated together. Commissioner Addington expressed concern about the cost of maintenance (due to graffiti and other vandalism) of future artwork and about the addition of the proposed "art -related" fees to developers. He suggested analysis of the fees currently assessed to new home developers before making the decision to require a new "art" fee. Commissioner Garcia suggested the need for a "Neighborhood Watch Project" within the City, including our public areas. This could discourage graffiti and other vandalism of artwork. Commissioner Huss suggested the City have a 24-hr. answering machine to report graffiti. Councilman/Task Force Member Singley suggested that residents call the Sheriff's dispatch at 356-3805 to report non -emergencies such as graffiti. Commissioner Huss suggested larger, drought -resistant trees along Barton Road might look nicer than the medium-sized trees currently there. She also suggested islands to help with traffic control around the Town & Country Center. Director said we are in the process of requesting the a City Engineer to do a traffic/circulation study in that area and to make recommendations. Commissioner Garcia said the Task Force has given alot of thought while discussing parks to discover and plan for many kinds of activities and events which can be held in the parks. Commissioner Huss suggested in the first action under Policy #1 of the Urban Design Element that bike trails be included in future master planning of the south side of Barton Road involving the long, narrow lots. Vice -Chairman Wilson commented that regardless of the Master Plan put together for development within the Barton Road Specific Plan he feels it is worthy to note in the Urban Design Element that those specific areas (the hillside areas and Barton Road Corridor) should consider circulation integral. Realistically we can't create a circumstance with a Master Plan that doesn't consider circulation with Barton Road. It's realistic to think you have to have interior streets that lead onto another less arterial road or we would have to have some sort of a parallel road to make access along that area and be able to utilize it in any combination use. It's not practical to bring driveways off of Barton Road. Director said the current concept of Master Planning and encouragement of consolidation of lots is for the purpose of decreasing entries onto Barton Road. With the use of consolidation and reciprocal parking agreements you can have one driveway instead of three. For some of the Master Planning areas of the Barton Road Specific Plan it proposes one or two entries for an area with six or seven lots. It shows interior parking circulation. There is an extension of Reed St. that goes through to Barton Road but they do not have any road parallel to it. There is only a street connecting south of the 600' to Barton Road, running north/south. There is no street parallel to Barton Road that subdivides the lots. The idea was never marketed. The plan has good principles but it was never developed. Task Force Members' Comments Meeting was opened for Task Force Member participation by Vice -Chairman Wilson. No comments were made by Task Force Members, but to confirm Task Force proposed additions to the General Plan. General Discussion of Items of Controversy/Concern Director suggested further discussion of Commissioner Addington's concern over the proposed future artwork. Should the future artwork issue be agreed upon by the Planning Commission and Task Force and passed on as a recommendation, or should there be some type of data collection and bring it back later for further discussion? She inquired if the Planning Commission wished to accept the recommendation as is or request more studies. Commissioner Addington stated he felt art guidelines should be established for the City. Commissioner Munson asked for staff's personal opinion/recommendation. Director said in her past experience the requirement for future developers to contribute to an art fund worked very well. Through the negotiation process of project review this is a typical item of negotiation where the developer can be given parking credits, credits in terms of development standards and in exchange they can give something (artwork) to the City. In summary, Director endorsed the developer -sponsored provision for artwork in the City. Commissioner Van Gelder clarified that this is a long-range plan of 20 years or more. Also, that not one developer would be responsible for providing the artwork. They would merely contribute to a fund and then the City would decide what kind of artwork and it's placement. G Director explained that the General Plan is typically a 20 to 25 year document. When the General Plan update is completed the action policies will then be implemented into the Zoning Code. The developer -sponsored artwork fund could become a reality in 1-1/2 to 2 years. The Commission and City Council would make specific policy decisions and ordinance amendments. Commissioner Garcia expressed the desire to be sure space for public art is planned and set aside during the development/review phase of new projects. At some later date the City could then place artwork in that space. She envisions a combination of public and private funds with groups joining together to reach art goals by fund raising, art grants and contributions from the business community. Vice -Chairman Wilson explained how the "Arts and Development Fee" works for the City of Los Angeles and some Orange County jurisdictions. The fee is usually keyed off of a commercial building area of square footage. There is a cap as to how much must be contributed and may also be based on the improvement valuation. He expressed doubt that this type of formula would work in Grand Terrace because of the size of project that would be required. He also explained the cafeteria -style 13 point system employed by the City of Simi Valley. He suggested this would probably be a key way of negotiating improvements. He agreed with Commissioner Addington's desire to avoid adding another fee to developers' costs. He feels that the community as a whole would be behind the artwork concept and for that reason the entire burden should not be placed only on developers. He felt it should be a point system plan which would involve the community. This would also include major remodeling projects. These kinds of things can generate improvements as have been discussed a little piece at a time. Director restated for clarification her understand of Vice -Chairman Wilson's position: "Basically, you were saying you are not against the art idea; you feel it needs to be shared among the community, not just the commercial developers. Included would be the residential developers, the residents who remodel and everyone in the community. Instead of being in for form of a fee, it could be in the form of a point system in the negotiation process. Vice -Chairman Wilson stated this would make more of a community pride situation and could be a great marketing tool for business. Vice -Chairman Wilson was asked by Commissioner Huss to give more detail about the City of Simi Valley point system concept. He explained that in many cities when a commercial project begins the planning process there is a list of certain improvements to choose from which are tied to that specific plan. The developer can then choose any 13 of those to get the project approved, thereby giving more flexibility to the developer, but would get the improvements done that we want to do in the City. Director pointed out that some of those options could include a fountain or garden in the development or a decorative block trash enclosure. Vice -Chairman Wilson said this is a more subtle way of accomplishing improvements we want. A consensus was reached by the Planning Commission to transfer Vice -Chairman Wilson's point system proposal to the Task Force for inclusion in the Urban Design Element. 7 Director said the issue of addressing the long, narrow lots along Barton Road would come before the Planning Commission at a later date. It was just addressed by the Task Force at the most recent meeting. All issues of concern were addressed completing discussion on scheduled elements. 8:25 p.m. Planning Commission recessed for five minutes. 8:30 p.m. Planning Commission reconvened. ITEM #3 Z-95-03/E-95-07 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.06 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA. Staff report by Senior Planner, Maria Muett. At the last meeting on August 3, 1995, the Planning Commission accepted option to do further research and report on past code enforcement of HOPs in the City, and policies of other cities regarding HOPs with sub- contractors. The purpose of this research and report is to show the potential impact of the ordinance amendment made by the Commission on June 15. Staff explained the table (attachment A) represents the number of HOPs issued per year, number of complaints, street locations, types of HOP -related complaints and the relationship of HOPs with employees, sub -contractors or sub -consultants. The number of complaints related to HOP activity was very significant. Most of them dealt with traffic and pedestrian impact to adjacent properties. Many of the HOP activities which created problems were discovered through code enforcement to have employees. They were subject to code enforcement either because they were not aware of the rules or because they had an HOP permit and were violating the rules. The current proposal of staff is to allow small scale HOPs without sub -contractors to be considered "Type 1". Those with sub -contractors would be designated as "Type 2". Type 2 HOPS would have a stricter process for review. This would allow flexibility to home businesses and would be consistent with our Air Quality, Trip Reduction Plan and reduce some of the code enforcement activities in the neighborhood. Procedures for Type 2 would include: Requirement to submit list of sub -contractors and license types. Review HOP at time of business license renewal only at end of first year of operation. Planning Commission options at this meeting were 1) to approve the Zoning Amendment as proposed by Commission on June 15. 2) Alter the Zoning Amendment as a result of the research done and direct staff to amend the text of the ordinance accordingly to a) include definition of Type 1 vs. Type 2 HOPs; b) to require list of sub -contractors and their licenses; and c) to require review of Type 2 HOPs at time of business license renewal for the first year. 3) Any other option as determined by the Planning Commission. Staff recommended Option 2. Director explained that in the table prepared by staff of past HOP -related code enforcement activities 11 of 32 cases revealed these HOPs had employees or sub -contractors. 8 more likely had employees or sub -contractors, but there was no proof. That means that 60% of the HOP - related complaints involved those with employees or sub -contractors. There is a very strong tendency to have citizen complaints on those HOPs with sub -contractors and employees. Although staff originally proposed approval of some HOPs with employees, that proposal included stricter monitoring due to the potential of severe neighborhood impact. Of the 32 HOPs in the table only 8 actually got permits because they accepted the strict conditions imposed by staff to avoid further citizen complaints. Director explained why she recommends Option 2. The review/approval procedure for Type 1 HOPs with no sub -contractors would remain as is currently. Type 2 HOPs would follow a different procedure involving renewal of the HOP after the first year of operation to give staff the opportunity to reevaluate whether they have created traffic or other neighborhood problems during that first year of operation without the benefit of a complaint. Usually complaints come after years of neighborhood impact. MOTION PCM-95-28 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Huss to approve Option 2 as proposed by staff, but eliminating the section a. Motion seconded by Commissioner Munson for discussion purposes. A discussion followed between Commissioners Addington, Munson and Huss, and the Director to clarify Commissioner Huss's motion. The Chairman asked Commissioner Huss to re- state the motion. Motion re -stated by Commissioner Huss to approve Option 2 with requirements a) and c) only. Section b) would be eliminated. Motion seconded again by Commissioner Munson. Commissioners Munson and Huss discussed eliminating section b) of Option 2. Commissioner Huss said she did not feel it is necessary to have HOPs disclose sub -contractors and their licenses because they change periodically. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the research of HOP policies of other cities done by staff. She pointed out there is no other city who asks for the listing of sub- contractors. She asked Director if these other cities do a review at the end of the first year of operation. Director stated most of the other cities do not allow any type of employees/sub-contractors at all. Commissioner Van Gelder asked Director to explain 6 the process of the one year review. Director said the HOP would expire at the end of one year so they would need to come in for renewal. When application for renewal is made the notices would be sent out again to contiguous property owners/residents as done when application was initially made. The neighbors would then have the opportunity to advise planning if the HOP has created problems in the neighborhood. It would be the initiative of the City, not waiting for the residents to complain. This renewal process would happen only at the end of the first year. Assuming no complaints at the first -year renewal review code enforcement would then occur on a complaint driven basis. Director explained the first -year renewal is a security or safety measure. If the HOP does not comply during the first year then we have the option of not renewing the HOP. Commissioner Huss said she feels it is good for the City to try something new (allowing sub -contractors) but thinks it is a good idea to build in precautionary measures just in case we find HOPs creating problems for neighbors. Director said the amendment may specify "renewal" vs. "expiration" which would mean the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee for the first -year review. Commissioner Van Gelder asked why Grand Terrace is proposing this change to approve sub -contractors when other cities don't approve HOPs with sub -contractors. Director explained there are two reasons. She said some of the small businesses working in the City Rehab Program could not be approved for HOPs because they had employees. For instance, yard maintenance companies which have 1 or 2 employees and meet them at the job site. The other reason is the City's Air Quality Ordinance. We are promoting telecommuting and people working at home. To implement the Trip Reduction Ordinance we need to promote the ability of people to work at home, so on the other hand how can we restrict them from doing just that? Vice -Chairman Wilson summarized by saying the concept as proposed by staff would place greater restrictions on those HOPs with employees/sub-contractors but would allow them. It is also centered around the idea of encouraging the Trip Reduction program in relation to transportation ordinances. We need to expand our horizons. If we're going to allow HOPS with sub -contractors we want to be sure it doesn't impact the neighborhoods. We need to determine what impact we may run into and whether it can be properly monitored. Director clarified that under current HOP guidelines any small business run from a home is not eligible for an HOP permit if they have any employees or sub -contractors. The only persons allowed to work for the HOP are family members who reside at the location. She explained John Harper, the City Attorney, feels that the definition of "employees" includes sub -contractors and sub -consultants. If we are going to allow sub- contractors and sub -consultants to make our current policy more flexible it must be stated in the ordinance. Director stated she spoke with John Harper regarding the current proposed amendment by the Commission. He is against the amendment and feels it will be a "can of worms" and very difficult to monitor. 10 Commissioner Addington asked for the definition of "first -year review" to be incorporated into the proposed amendment of Chapter 5.06 for review and approval of Attorney Harper and the Commissioners. Commissioner Garcia asked for a description of the procedures involving the "first -year review. " Specifically, is the permittee required to pay again or so anything to initiate the "first -year review"? Her concern is not only the monetary factor but that of time as well. Director explained the process will be triggered by a tickler file. A call would be made to the permittee to advise the process will take place. Letters would be mailed to contiguous properties and if no negative response within two weeks the permittee will receive another call to advise the review is complete. Director explained the whole review process is detailed in the Municipal Code, Chapter 5.06.050. The work staff does is ministerial in nature unless complaints are received from residents. Director said in case option #2 is approved, this subject will be brought to the Commission one more time with the proposed changes to the ordinance text with strike- out and underlining (of the new proposal) to be sure it complies with what the Commission members want. Vice -Chairman Wilson asked Commissioner Huss to repeat her motion. MOTION PCM-95-28 Z-95-03/E-95-07 Motion by Commissioner Huss with Option #2a & 2c. (Striking #2b.) Seconded by Commissioner Munson for discussion purposes. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-28 Motion did not pass. 3-3-0-1. Commissioners Munson, Van Gelder and Wilson voted "no". Chairman Sims absent. MOTION PCM-95-29 Motion by Vice -Chairman Wilson to approve Option #1. Seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. 11 Commissioner Garcia verified with Director that disclosure is to identify sub -contractors doing business in the City for the purpose of collecting business license fees. MOTION VOTE PCM-95-29 Motion carried. 4-2-0-1. Commissioners Huss and Garcia voted "no". Chairman Sims absent. 9:00 P.M. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 17, 1995. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Community Development Director 08-30-95:pp c:\wp5l\planning\minutes\08-03-95.M 12 Approved by, Doug Wilson Vice -Chairman, Planning Commission