Loading...
06/06/1991GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING TUNE 6, 1991 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 6, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Ron Wright, Commissioner Alan Burns, City Attorney Maria C. Muett, Acting Community Development Director Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner PLEDGE: Jim Sims, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 1991 MOTION PCM-91-110 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 16, 1991 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-110 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to approve the May 16, 1991 minutes. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Commissioner Hargrave abstained. ITEM #2 DU-91-01 AMARJIT SINGH/GURINDER P. SINGH 22488 BARTON ROAD, SUITE 101 G.T. DETERMINATION OF USE FOR A TENANT USE IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL SUBAREA OF THE BARTON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. GURINDER SINGH AMARJIT SINGH 1701 SIRRINE DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 Chairman Hawkinson stated that they have moved in the right direction, but he will not vote in favor of what has been submitted as long as the restrooms and storage area are at the front of the building. Commissioner Sims asked what the room is to be right next to the dressing room. Mr. G. Singh said this will be a utility room. Commissioner Sims asked why the restrooms cannot be on the other side. 2 JERRY DOWD LA MANCHA DEVELOPMENT 22722 CENTRE DRIVE, SUITE B EL TORO Mr. Dowd said the building was approved with all of the restrooms for all of the units in the front of the building. Chairman Hawkinson said that no plumbing trees have been put down as of yesterday. The Acting Community Development Director stated that interior floor plans go through the regular building permit process with the center itself, and the applicant would be coming in to the Planning Department for tenant improvements. Commissioner Sims said they did not see any plans showing restrooms, plumbing or interior wall placement, and stated that he assumed that the Building Department has approved restroom locations, and to move them now would be difficult. He asked why they didn't know about this at the last meeting. The Acting Community Development Director said they normally wouldn't be seeing this, unless they had a tenant that came in with that major project showing all the specifics. She said they normally wouldn't be seeing tenant improvements, but due to the delicate situation of this unit, staff felt it appropriate to bring this item to the commission. Mr. Dowd said they have met with staff and came up with these ideas, and another idea was additional displays along the south wall and where they have the required storage area. He said there are numerous requirements from different agencies as far as storage and dressing areas, and they still need to maintain a display where the business will be profitable. Chairman Hawkinson said they will not get his vote until he can see the emphasis for the traffic coming through the front door and the restrooms are moved to the rear of the building. Mr. Dowd said the restrooms cannot be moved. Chairman Hawkinson disagreed as the plumbing trees are not in yet. The City Attorney stated that the matter for their determination is whether or not this is a use consistent with the Barton Road Specific Plan. He said 3 that although the commission may not normally get involved on interior design of a structure, when you are determining what form of animal this is, you can take into consideration the layout. He said it may not be proper on determining as a matter of architectural or planning purposes what their product mix is, but they have to be confident that what they are approving is a gourmet shop and not a fast food place. Commissioner Sims felt the original layout hasn't changed, and he wasn't convinced it wouldn't be a fast food type of scenario. The Acting Community Development Director stated that she would have to check with the City Engineer for clarification. Mr. Dowd said the question is the determination of a use consistent with the General Plan, and it is not a question of the location of restrooms. Commissioner Sims felt they were taking the front entrance concept and coming back into a restroom area. Mr. Dowd said that every restroom approved for the shopping center is located in the front of the building. Commissioner Sims said if he had known this at the last meeting, he would have said that something has gone awry with City communications about this issue and it should have been stopped at the last meeting. Vice -Chairman Buchanan shared a lot of the same concerns regarding the orientation shift to the front of the building. He wasn't so concerned with the existence of the restroom at the front part of the store, as he could see a modification with a relocation of the storage area, dressing room and utility room, and a shifting of the deli case and salad up into that location. He said the location of the cash register shows that the orientation is to bring people in and out through the back door next to the parking lot. Mr. Dowd said that we are in an automobile -oriented society, and to get people out of the car, you have to have residential located there as well as development across the street, which is not there. The Acting Community Development Director stated that windows are flexible. She suggested moving the electrical panel to a corner location and moving counter and cash register to main entrance. Chairman Hawkinson asked about the dressing room. 4 Mr. Dowd stated that this is a health department requirement and is for the employees. Commissioner Hargrave asked how many bathrooms there would be and what type of door would be used. Mr. Dowd stated that there will be one, unisex bathroom for the employees and will have a handicapped door with a label. Commissioner Hargrave asked if this restroom has to be available to the public. Mr. Dowd said it does not, and it does not have to be marked. Commissioner Wright asked if the plumbing in the utility room was approved. Mr. A. Singh said it was not as of yet. Commissioner Wright suggested moving the utility and dressing room to the back. Mr. Dowd said that the way the plans were approved through the Planning Commission was with glass along the southwest property line. Commissioner Sims said they approved it, but they didn't know what was happening inside. He asked if the plumbing was going to Mt. Vernon or Barton Road. The Acting Community Development Director said staff could obtain some clarification. Chairman Hawkinson felt it was important to see the interior on any future development. Mr. Dowd stated that they sat down with staff and worked out an agreeable layout, and the commission is here to vote on determination as far as consistency of use. The City Attorney stated that the commission had to be convinced that this use would be a specialty shops use and not turn into a 7-Eleven" type of store, and the applicant has the burden of persuading the commission that this is in fact the case. Commissioner Sims asked if they have nothing to say about the interior on 5 this project. The City Attorney said that normally they would not be involved in floor layouts, but there was a genuine concern about what type of use this was going to be, and layout of an interior can tell you what kind of use it is going to be as well as product mix. Chairman Hawkinson said that what he is seeing is not a gourmet store, if you have to walk past a restroom to go past the main entrance. Mr. Dowd said that the building plans were approved with all of the restrooms in the front of the building. He said that from a practical standpoint, he has a hard time saying that 95% of the traffic wouldn't come from the parking lot. Chairman Hawkinson stated that the whole concept from the Barton Road Specific Plan is the pedestrian traffic. He stated that this is the key location within the City. Mr. Dowd said that to create pedestrian traffic demands development on all four comers that will get people to do that. Chairman Hawkinson said they recognize that and took this into consideration at the time the Barton Road Specific Plan was approved, and they also know it won't happen overnight. He suggested that the restroom stays where it is and the storage room, dressing room and utility room are relocated, and they shifted some of the marketing furniture closer to the front, asking if this would be workable. Mr. Dowd said that he and staff sat down for 2 1/2 hours trying to come up with different alternatives, and to the best of their efforts, they got it. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said that people will park in the parking lot and come in from the back whether it draws them in or not, and pedestrian traffic will have to be drawn in, and he would like to see the front treatment encourage and draw people in. Mr. Dowd felt that the window display would draw people in. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said the biggest problem he has is the hallway effect in the left side of the building, which is created by the storage room, dressing room and utility room at that location. He said they need to open up the front area. T Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was a building code requirement for the size of the restroom. Mr. Dowd said it has to be handicapped size. Chairman Hawkinson suggested moving the storage room and making the door at a 90 degree angle to open up the front area. The Acting Community Development Director stated that staff had done some measurements to relocate the storage room in the right comer, and depending upon the placement, they wouldn't want it to be too close to the opening doors of the refrigerator unit. Mr. Dowd stated that the commission wanted the window openings along Barton Road, and he is hearing something different today. He said that one of their original plans was to take the cooler, move it all the way to the west of the property, make it longer so he is not losing the doors and then there might be room to relocate the storage area to an area next to the coolers. He said that they would then have coolers, storage areas, sink area and dressing room all against one wall. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the windows illustrated on this floor plan were consistent with the way they saw this when the building itself came through Site and Architectural Review. The Acting Community Development Director stated that the applicant came in and they did some adjustment with the refrigeration, and they moved the three windows down. She said that if they used Vice -Chairman Buchanan's alternative, they may use one on Barton Road and one on the parking lot side. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they put in false windows in the front and one true window, would they be destroying the theme. The Acting Community Development Director stated that the intent was to have some visibility from Barton Road into the store. Commissioner Wright said that he is not familiar with the elevation of how the building was approved, but from the corner, he felt they should be very careful about the window treatment across the front, and he wouldn't want to see removal of any more windows and would probably want to see it more opened up across the front from the standpoint of natural surveillance into the business. He said the clerk may not be particularly obvious from the street, and he sees this as a hazard. 7 Commissioner Hargrave suggested moving the storage area next to the back entrance by the parking lot and shift all the displays and salad bar down but leave the windows alone. The Acting Community Development Director stated that there are two possible alternatives they are looking at: as Vice -Chairman Buchanan suggested, moving the storage area to the southwest side or as the applicant proposed, moving the refrigerator unit down to the comer and moving the storage area into that area so all of the utility services and refrigeration unit will be in line. She said false windows are another alternative. Mr. Dowd said he didn't want to destroy the window effect, and the tenant wants people to be able to look in from the street. Commissioner Sims stated that his alternative is to move the storage room to the right end of the building, move the entrance at the right end of the building to the left. 8:15 P.M. TO 8:25 P.M. - RECESS Commissioner Sims stated that his alternative is to move the storage room from the left side to the right, lower corner, which will move the entrance on the parking lot side to the left between the edge of the storage room and the wall of the building which would be going north on Mt. Vernon; take the counter and wall shelving and self -serve drink station and move it all to the left until it abuts the existing restroom wall, which will open up the whole front end; take the wall of the existing restroom, and instead of having it perpendicular to the Mt. Vernon wall, come in at an angle, if possible, perpendicular off of the front entrance wall, and open up the front; modify the display arrangement to fit. He said they will satisfy the storage requirements they are concerned about and leave the dressing room and utility room basically in the location it is now. The City Attorney said there would be nothing improper about any of the commissioners doing a sketch and making it an exhibit to the minutes. Chairman Hawkinson stated that Vice -Chairman Buchanan has suggested that possibly the self -serve drink station is inappropriate for a gourmet type of store. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that, in reviewing the marketing plan, he is comfortable with goals and product mix, but he would like to see a higher percentage of imported beers, but there are very good domestic beers as well, but the only thing that concerns him other than the floor plan is that the most convenience store -like feature is the self -serve drink station. Mr. Dowd said the applicant has no problem eliminating that. Chairman Hawkinson stated that this provides an additional 10' of floor space. Commissioner Hargrave stated that if they use Commissioner Sims' alternative, they will lose one window on the west side at the parking lot entrance. Commissioner Sims suggested moving the windows down to the south. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that, with the elimination of the drink station, another possibility is shifting either the dressing room or the prep room down to the north side next to the restroom. He felt the prep room tucked up against the deli case may make more sense, and it could open up the two windows against Barton Road that are now being blocked. Commissioner Sims said he would be happy to give his sketch to staff. The Acting Community Development Director stated that staff would suggest that whatever alternative is agreed upon, they have some type of summation decision agreed upon by the applicant for the record. The commissioners agreed on eliminating the self -serve drink station. Mr. Dowd asked if the Commission would be opposed to eliminating the self - serve drink station and moving the storage area there, then withdrew his suggestion. He suggested moving the dressing room to the location of the self -serve drink station. Chairman Hawkinson responded in the negative. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that moving either the dressing room or the prep room to free up the window area makes sense. Mr. Dowd said that there is room to move the prep room over and open up those windows. Vice -Chairman Buchanan suggested shifting the storage room up to the upper comer as it keeps it out of the way. He said that his biggest concern is moving the prep room down and tuck it into that comer and push the deli case and counter up against that. He said that the deli case then, instead of being angled down, would be angled up, and the access to the prep room 9 MOTION PCM-91-111 DU-91-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-111 could be from behind the counter and not even up out into the hallway. Discussion of the alternatives continued. Commissioner Munson stated that no matter what type of store this is, he would like to see an open area, and he agreed with Commissioner Sims' alternative. Chairman Hawkinson said that once they determine the use is appropriate, this would be the last time they would see this. Commissioner Wright said that Commissioner Sims had the alternative of moving the storage to the rear; he said an offshoot of that alternative is what side of the rear to locate it. He said that the applicant suggested the walk-in cooler could be narrowed down and the storage area could be put up at the upper left in combination with the cooler. He said that eliminating the soft drink area and moving the prep area and dressing room down to the wall next to the rest room would open up the area to the front. Commissioner Sims said perhaps the applicant could work these alternatives and they could bring this back to the next meeting. The Acting Planning Director stated that this would be acceptable by staff. Commissioner Sims and Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated they were willing to sit in on a workshop. Mr. Dowd said that he has no problem continuing the item. Chairman Hargrave made a motion to continue DU-91-01 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. 10 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:55 P.M. ITEM #3 SA-91-09 KENNETH COX 22720 BLUEBIRD LANE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PATIO AND OVERHEAD DECK IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT MOTION PCM-91-112 SA-91-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-112 Chairman Hawkinson stated that the applicant has requested this item be continued to the July 18, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue SA-91-09 to the July 18, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. ITEM #4 SA-91-10 MARGARET C. AND MARLYN L. HANSEN 122254 STONEWOOD DRIVE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF MASTER BEDROOM AND BATH, CHILD'S BEDROOM, STUDY AND LAUNDRY ROOM ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there were any multi -family dwellings on this street. The Acting Community Development Director stated they were primarily single family residences. 11 Commissioner Hargrave asked if they are under sprinkler requirements if this is approved. The Acting Community Development Director stated that recently they adopted the County Fire Warden's ordinance and, for certain buildings to come up to code, the Fire Warden is requiring fire sprinklers, but not necessarily for all new construction. She said that the Fire Warden's comments include F24, which refers to an automatic fire extinguishing system. Commissioner Hargrave asked, regarding condition F11 and the requirement for a fire hydrant, if the applicant is responsible. The Acting Community Development Director said they would need to get clarification from the Fire Warden's office. Commissioner Wright said that it may very well be that the fire hydrant is there and that it is marked, but they check that requirement so there is no misunderstanding that if it is not there, there will be one. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if there is a lot coverage issue involved here. The Acting Community Development Director said it is 50% lot coverage. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. MARLYN HANSEN 12254 STONEWOOD DRIVE G.T. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the applicant's idea is for adding 1300 sq. ft. Mr. Hansen said they have seven in the family, and they want each child to have a bedroom, and they would like to have a second living area. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there were any plans to move additional members of his indirect family into his home. Mr. Hansen said this is just for his immediate family. He stated that there is a fire hydrant right across the street, but he asked about the fire sprinkler requirement. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the Fire Warden's biggest concern is that the rear portions of this relatively large addition are going to be almost 12 inaccessible, as they have the pre-existing 5' setback along the side and it is a fairly deep lot. He said that due to poor access to this portion, they want it sprinklered as they are not sure they can get back there with hoses if there was a fire. He said that the applicant has the opportunity to meet with them and attempt to convince them there is access available. The Acting Community Development Director instructed the applicant to contact Captain Erny Jones of the Fire Warden's Office. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING - 9:12 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING - 9:12 P.M. MOTION PCM-91-113 SA-91-10 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-113 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-91-10 with additional condition noted by staff during the staff report with regard to the Fire Warden's report and conditions. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. ITEM #5 SA-91-12 CHARLES W. BURROWS 22954 VICTORIA STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A WORKSHOP FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-10 DISTRICT The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. She added an additional condition, that due to the fact this is a hobby use and a large structure that is being proposed, to assure that this is going to maintained for hobby use and not be converted to some type of business use. She said that staff recommends, upon agreement by the applicant, a condition that the applicant agrees that they use this for hobby use only, unless he applies for a home occupation permit in accordance with Grand Terrace Municipal Code Ordinance Chapter 5.06. 13 Commissioner Hargrave asked if there were any comments from surrounding property owners, to which the Acting Community Development Director responded in the negative. Commissioner Hargrave stated that to the east of the applicant's property, it is vacant land, which is where the Petta tract will be, so they have no idea what the color scheme will be. The Acting Community Development Director stated this was correct, and also, in one of the maps, there was some condition as to visual interference, but unfortunately that property owner was not present this evening. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. CHARLES BURROWS 22954 VICTORIA G.T. Vice -Chairman Buchanan expressed concern about the field east of this project that is in the process of the development stage for a custom home tract, and one of his concerns is this structure will be located about 5' from the property line and it is huge. He said it is about 1,800 square feet and what could be considered a two-story structure. He asked what the applicant was envisioning to use this structure for. Mr. Burrows said he has always dreamed of having a workshop next to his residence. He said he currently leases a 1400 sq. ft. industrial building for $460/month within the City of Colton, where he is a police officer. He said that he and his family spend several evenings a week at the shop working on various projects. He said he has an office within this shop where they pay bills and have their family computer. He said that each family member has a quad -cycle, they have a ski boat, bicycles, toys, dolls, dollhouses, videoing and still photography equipment and auto maintenance for his several 4-wheel drive vehicles. He said they use various businesses within the City of Colton since it is convenient, and all of this would be brought back to Grand Terrace. He said he is working with the Fire Warden's Office to get their approval. He said that due to the Petta and Churchwell projects going in to the east, he wants to improve his property to match or exceed those going into the new project. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked the applicant to clarify if this was only for personal use. Mr. Burrows promised that there will be nothing for profit going on. He said 14 that he does some wood -working, but has never done it for anyone else or sold any. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said that his biggest concern is the height of the structure. Mr. Burrows said that when the Petta project's houses are brought up to level, the ground level will be nearly as high as that building. He said the shop should not bother their view of the valley. He said that his shop will be to the rear of those houses. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked the reason for the height other than the upstairs office. Mr. Burrows said that there are no enclosed offices or rooms upstairs, and it is only for storage and hobby work. He said he went this high as they have the same cost of concrete and roof in one story or two, so he can get more usable area for his dollar. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the vehicles he will be working on need a lot of clearance. Mr. Burrows said he does have a four wheel drive van used for camping, and it does not go into any standard garage door, so he has submitted a 10' by 10' roll -up door. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he needed the entire upstairs area for storage. Mr. Burrows stated that the upper deck is only around the perimeter of two sides, and is roughly 1/3 of the whole building. He said he has windows up high for safety reasons so people cannot break into them. Commissioner Hargrave asked if any windows were proposed on the east and west sides of the building. Mr. Burrows said there are no windows on the east or the north sides. Commissioner Hargrave said that from the material board presented along with the renderings, it appears that there isn't any architectural relief other than the windows on the west side. He expressed concern for the 20' height and stated that a building this size is too large for the zone from a planning perspective. 15 Mr. Burrows stated that directly to the west there is a building of equivalent height. He felt that once the area is built up, this will match the surrounding area as it will be a semi -rural setting with the oversized lots. Commissioner Hargrave stated he would like to see some architectural relief on the east and west sides of the building. Commissioner Wright asked if the current noise ordinance would apply to this property. The City Attorney said that he is sure the noise ordinance would apply and stated he would look through the code book to verify this. Mr. Burrows said that being a police officer, they are often dispatched to Penal Code 415 calls, for any disturbing noise to anybody at any time of the day. He stated that he also parks his police unit in his garage which takes up all of the garage space. Commissioner Sims said this is a big building, and stated that T1-11 is just a wood exterior subject to warping. He felt that is a covering of a building, it has its limited uses. He had a problem with the architectural relief and with composition shingle roof on a huge roof. He was very concerned with the exterior of the building. Mr. Burrows said he went with the siding with that trim and those colors is because the house next to him with a shop built similar to this one is wood siding with the blue trim and the dark shingles. He stated that his father built a shop 12 years ago using T1-11, which was used with a penetrating stain at that time and hasn't been repainted since, and there is absolutely no warping or deterioration. The City Attorney responded to Commissioner Wright, stating that they do have a noise ordinance that provides, "No person shall do automotive repair, automotive body or fender or other work on metal objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., in or adjacent to any residential district so as to cause loud and excessive noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of a residential neighborhood". Commissioner Wright asked the size of the shop on the property to the west. The Acting Community Development Director said there is a longer setback area before that particular structure starts. Mr. Burrows stated that the house is the same distance from the street as his, 16 MOTION PCM-91-114 SA-91-12 and their garage sits to the side of their house, closer to the front of the property than his would, as his will be directly behind his house. Commissioner Hargrave suggested staff work with Mr. Burrows to get some architectural relief and perhaps come up with something more architecturally pleasing on the roofing. Mr. Burrows asked what type of roofing they would be comfortable with, comparably priced. Commissioner Sims said it does come to a matter of economics. Mr. Burrows said he chose this as this is what his house and the two buildings next to him have. Commissioner Sims also recommended some sort of overhang, positioning of the windows in association with a stucco treatment alternating. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said he would like to see the building smaller, but could live with the 30' by 60' dimensions if there were some architectural relief. He said he would like to see the structure not exceed 15' in height, and he could still have the 10' roll -up door and a lot of overhead storage. Commissioner Hargrave suggested putting up little towers at both ends of the roof line to break up the roof line architecturally. Mr. Burrows said then they would get into a height problem, and to bring it down to 15', they would really be hurting economically. Commissioner Sims asked if he needed such a high ceiling area. Mr. Burrows said that a small portion will be dead air space. Commissioner Sims suggested two different roof characteristics. Mr. Burrows agreed and said skylights would break up the roof line and add lighting. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that his preference was to continue this item and the public hearing. 17 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-114 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue SA-91-12 to the July 18, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. 10:05 P.M. TO 10:15 P.M. - RECESS ITEM #6 SA-91-01 BRUCE W. HALSTEAD, M.D. 23000 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Hargrave asked which buildings were Building B, C and D. The Acting Community Development Director stated that Building B is for the research facility, Building C is the second residential unit and Building D is the proposed storage structure. Vice -Chairman Buchanan was unsure as to what they are doing procedurally. He said they made a series of determinations as to what various structures on the property were in terms of either being legal or illegal and conforming or non -conforming. He said this was a preliminary stage to the consideration of the Site and Architectural applications submitted with regard to the treehouse and proposed storage facility. He said they had made determinations regarding Buildings B and C and made a determination that the proposed use of Building D was associated with the residential use in Building A and not the research facility. He said they made the decision that the next step would be to bring the property into compliance as it now exists before they moved on for proposed projects, which required a correction with regard to Building C, as they had determined Building C to be an illegal, non -conforming structure. He said they do not have an application before them tonight for a Conditional Use Permit or Site and Architectural Review approval of Building C. 18 The Acting Community Development Director stated that the applicant had been directed to return with a solution to Building C, and whatever that solution was, they were to hear it at the same time as the Site and Architectural for the proposed structure and treehouse to eliminate the time period. She said that before they were to do that, they were going to make a decision as to bringing Building C into compliance. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that this was to be either through removal, a granny -flat application or a variance. The Acting Community Development Director stated that they had a time period to have a decision made on that and brought back to their body. She said that they set aside so that either they would be hearing the Site and Architectural alone if they decided to demolish Building C, or if they decided to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review for Building C, they were coming back tonight with that as well as the proposed storage facility and treehouse. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the issue of Building C has not been resolved, and what they have before them tonight is the applicant's request for further discussion regarding Building C. The Acting Community Development Director stated they are requesting clarification on the determination by the commission of Building C as well as additional public hearing time. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked from a procedural standpoint, what context are they hearing this. He said that somebody could make a motion for reconsideration of their initial determination, and asked if their were any other alternatives. The City Attorney stated that a motion to reconsider is accurate. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if, procedurally, the rules they have adopted put some kind of time limit on reconsideration of a project. He said there is normally a ten-day appeal period and asked if this would apply to a reconsideration period. The City Attorney stated that since a motion of reconsideration is not recognized under the code, but if they are going to be strict with Robert's Rules of Order, he believes a motion to reconsider must be made that meeting or the very next meeting. He said they would be on firm ground if they decided not to reconsider, but if they were to hear what the applicant has to say, they could go short of re -hearing the whole issue and first hear what 19 MOTION PCM-91-115 SA-91-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-115 the applicant has to say to make a determination as to whether they want to hear it again. He said that this may involve re -noticing Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if this was noticed as a public hearing. The Acting Community Development Director stated that all Site and Architectural Reviews are public hearings. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that they would be within their authority to say they have already considered and they are not going to reconsider it on the issues they have already discussed. He asked if they were on solid ground in reconsidering it. The City Attorney stated that it has been publicly noticed once, and anyone interested would have shown up and found out it was to be returned back. He said there is no State Law requirement that this kind of determination be noticed as is a subdivision approval or zone ordinance approval. He felt they would be on solid ground with either option, but there could be some slight risk if there was someone out there who was against this and argued they didn't get noticed. Commissioner Sims clarified that they are being asked to hear some more testimony about the Building C issue, and he felt this sounded like an appeal, and shouldn't that be taken to City Council. The City Attorney said a motion to reconsideration is taken to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hargrave suggested hearing the reason from the applicant to readdress this issue, and if the commission determines they want to hear further information, they can decide for or against. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to allow the applicant to address the Site and Architectural Review Board as to the items that they wish to discuss. Commissioner Sims second. ME Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. TERRY HALSTEAD 21891 VIVIENDA AVENUE G.T. Ms. Halstead stated that Building C was not intended as a residential unit. She said the concept was a sleeping porch. She said she would let her husband tell the whole story about the people that came from the City to inspect it as he spent almost 2 1/2 hours with them. She said that the issue is that they felt the municipality told them they didn't need any permits for that structure and are wondering why it is being called illegal, non -conforming when it was told to them that it was not illegal at the time. She said she would like to see it a legal, non -conforming structure like the other structures on the property where they could have it inspected and they could bring anything out of place up to code. The City Attorney said the first item would be to determine whether or not they are going to reconsider the issue. Chairman Hawkinson said that if they are going to do that, this item should be continued and they should go through the public hearing process. The City Attorney said that this would be the most appropriate thing to do. BRUCE HALSTEAD 21891 VIVIENDA AVENUE G.T. Dr. Halstead said that when he started to construct Building C, the City Building Inspector, who wore a badge on his belt, and his associate came over to examine the building, and he asked him at that time, since he considered this a temporary building, if what he was doing conformed to the Building Code and the permit requirements of the City. He said that the inspector and his associate measured the building, went underneath it, measured the pipes, examined the electricity, and he asked if they were violating any rule or if there was a permit required for this type of structure. He said the inspector indicated quite clearly it was a temporary building, and no permit was required. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked when this took place. 21 Dr. Halstead stated this was 5 1/2 years ago. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said that what was said before was said before, and maybe now there is a new perspective or a different interpretation. Dr. Halstead said this is why they followed the same procedure when they started to do Building D. He said they put it up on stilts, and they have a total of about 24 bolts holding it up, and they thought they were building another temporary building. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked what they should consider in terms of reliance on verbal statements and how binding this is for the City. The City Attorney stated that there are two theories the applicant could bring to establish a right. He said the first would be that it is a legal, non- conforming use, but to be this, it would have to have been legal at some time, in other words, a permit was not required at some time it was built, and later, a law was passed requiring the permit, but he was grandfathered in. He said this is not the situation as he understands it. He said as he understands it, he needed a permit or an approval, and at the time he built this, the City Inspector came out and told him he didn't need one and he relied upon that, and therefore the City can't now tell him it is illegal. He said that is not a legal, non -conforming use issue. He said the City represented something, the other person relied to his detriment, and against a public entity, you have to also show, therefore it shouldn't be enforced against him and it is also in the public's interest that it not be enforced. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked the relation of this structure to the Edison easement. The Acting Community Development Director stated that she hadn't received anything at this time. Chairman Hawkinson asked if a continuance would be appropriate. The Acting Community Development Director stated that whatever their decision is on the issue, the other items still remain, and she would suggest a time limit in regards to hearing the projects themselves. The City Attorney said the first decision they need to make is whether or not to hear the new evidence and reconsider the matter. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said his recollection is that the applicant had presented this story at the last meeting, and he believed the body had fully 22 considered the issue of the status of Building C at the initial hearing, and he has not heard any additional information presented in the applicant's request that would lead him to believe that additional consideration would lead to a different result, so he will not support a motion for reconsideration of the determination as to the status of Building C. He felt the applicant needs to decide what they want to do with Building C in terms of bringing it into conformance and part of that will depend upon the Edison easement. He said that the status of Building C as being a temporary structure had been brought up at a previous hearing. He said that if it is temporary, then he doesn't want to give some approval that it is now permanent and legal, as it was never legally approved as a permanent structure. He didn't feel they needed to reconsider it. DIES FOR LACK OF MOTION MOTION PCM-91-116 SA-91-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-116 Chairman Hawkinson asked if anything had come before the City to indicate any movement at all toward resolving Building C. The Acting Community Development Director said that the applicant had made contact with staff as to Site and Architectural and Conditional Use Permit procedures. She said that staff sent a reminder letter as to what the application deadline would be for those applications. She requested from the commission some reasonable time frame for the applicant as well as staff. She stated that, at this point, they are looking into bringing Building C into compliance, and the applicant has that responsibility, but this should be settled prior to hearing their other application dealing with the proposed structure and the treehouse. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue SA-91-01 to the August 1, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Van Gelder absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M. 23 NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD JUNE 2% 1991. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, i � C/� �L 4t, �Obz�� Maria C. Muett kinson Acting Community Development Director gh3:an, Planning Commission 06-28-91 C. 24