Loading...
07/18/1991GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DULY 18, 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 July 18, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. by Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ron Wright, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman PLEDGE: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. Commissioner Van Gelder mentioned that the Britton Way street sign is gone and expressed concern regarding the graffiti at the GTI Market. She was also concerned about the lack of landscaping at the new senior center. The Planning Director stated that the landscaping will start to be installed shortly. Commissioner Van Gelder requested code enforcement action with regard to the signs on the windows in the Stater Bros. shopping center. 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 - JUNE 6, 1991 MOTION PCM-91-120 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1991 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-120 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve the June 6, 1991 minutes. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Commissioner Van Gelder abstained. ITEM #2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1991 MOTION PCM-91-121 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1991 MOTION PCM-91-121 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve the June 20, 1991 minutes. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Commissioner Wright absent. ITEM #3 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE 1991/92 SESSION Vice -Chairman Buchanan declared the floor open for nominations for Chairman. OA Commissioner Hargrave nominated Vice -Chairman Buchanan for Chairman, with Commissioner Sims concurring. Vice -Chairman Buchanan closed the nominations. VOTE 5-0-1-1. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. Vice -Chairman Buchanan declared the floor open for nominations for Vice - Chairman. Vice -Chairman Buchanan nominated Commissioner Hargrave for Vice - Chairman, with Commissioner Sims concurring. Vice -Chairman Buchanan closed the nominations. VOTE 5-0-1-1. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Commissioner Hargrave abstained. ITEM #4 DU-91-02 TIMOTHY AUSTIN MICHIGAN AVENUE (APN# 277-091-07) G.T. A REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION OF USE FOR AN IMPOUNDED VEHICLES STORAGE YARD IN THE COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING DISTRICT (CM) The Associate Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Wright asked if the surrounding property owners were notified. The Planning Director stated that with a Determination of Use, this is not a required procedure. Commissioner Hargrave asked, if this is approved, if this item will go to a Conditional Use Permit hearing. The Planning Director said that it is not required to go to a Conditional Use Permit unless the Commission requests. Commissioner Sims asked how the public becomes informed. 3 The Planning Director stated that the agenda is posted in the three legal spots, and the lot is already being used for that purpose, so the neighbors may even notice improvement. She stated that staff could notice the property owners as a condition of approval. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is concerned that the R1-7.2 Zone is right next to the CM Zone. He stated that planning books recommend the use of buffers and not having intermingling of uses. Commissioner Van Gelder felt that the proposed fences and oleanders would suffice as a buffer. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked why this project is not required to have a 6' high, decorative block wall. The Associate Planner said that is not a requirement in the City Code, and it has just become a policy of staff in heavy industrial areas to require a wall. Vice -Chairman Buchanan had the impression that certain projects require a block wall per the City Ordinance. He also asked if the residential property to the North was zoned residential. The Associate Planner stated that it is zoned residential. The Planning Director added that when they thought about whether or not this was a more or less intensive use than what is allowed in the surrounding area, staff decided it was a similar use to others allowed in the district. Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt the commission should take advantage of opportunities to place necessary conditions when projects come before them, as they cannot request these improvements later. He said he did not have a big problem with considering this use to be an acceptable use within this zone, however, he felt that this type of use presents problems for surrounding properties that other uses may not, for example, security and visual impact. He stated that chain link without barbed wire presents certain security problems, and he doesn't know how much security wood actually offers. He felt that the parked vehicles would be a real target for vandalism or theft. Commissioner Wright was concerned there would be wrecked cars brought into the lot that would be aging on the site until the insurance company determines they are totalled and they are towed, which brings to mind certain environmental situations as far as hazardous materials leaking onto the ground, battery acid, etc. He stated that he can understand the need for barbed wire as the vehicles would be a target for theft, as well as the radios and other high dollar items in the vehicles. He said that if this is to be an official storage lot, there may be some security requirements with regard to a contractual arrangement with the Sheriffs Department, so the barbed wire may be a requirement. Commissioner Hargrave asked the distance between the house on the east side of the project and the property line. The Associate Planner said the house is across the street, but the closest house is to the north, and it is approximately 15' to 16' from the house to the fence location. She said there is a house directly across the street on the comer of Mavis and Michigan which faces the site. Commissioner Sims asked what the permitted uses are in the CM Zone. The Associate Planner stated that the permitted uses are business support services, communication services, public storage facilities, research and development facilities, other uses which are permitted in the C2 District without a Conditional Use Permit and other uses which are determined by the Planning Commission to be similar in nature to a use listed in this section. The Planning Director stated that uses permitted without a Conditional Use Permit in the C2 District are antique shops, apparel stores, appliance stores, art, music, photography, athletic, health clubs, automotive related services including motorcycles, boats, recreational vehicles, trailers and campers, parts and supplies, bakeries, barber and beauty shops, bicycle shops, book, gift, stationery stores, camera shops, candy, confectionery, carpet, floor covering stores, china and glassware, cleaning and pressing establishments, computer software stores, convenience stores, curtain and drapery shops, delicatessens, drug stores, florist shops, furniture, grocery, hardware stores, hobby and craft shops, ice cream and yogurt shops, etc. Commissioner Sims felt these are sophisticated types of uses, and didn't feel the proposed use is similar enough. He was uncomfortable with setting a precedent by allowing this use. The Planning Director stated that several cities usually develop an area, i.e. and industrial park or business park, and require property owners to provide an outside greenbelt in order to allow these types of uses. Commissioner Sims said they are not requiring street improvements, and the solutions they are proposing, such as gravel, are economical, but he felt they would be short-changing the community. He said that oleanders tend not to be taken care of and wood fencing tends to deteriorate, and he feels this is 5 unattractive. Commissioner Van Gelder wondered if there was some requirement they could make regarding the frontage to cover it up from view. The Planning Director stated that it is up to the applicant to accept additional conditions at this point or choose a different location. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked, if they make the determination that this is a permitted use, if the applicant would have to come back with a site plan and go through Site and Architectural Review. The Planning Director stated that this would not be required, unless otherwise requested by the Planning Commission. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if they were able to make determinations of use conditioned on Site and Architectural issues, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. The Planning Director stated that staff is proposing approval subject to minor site improvements, but the Planning Commission may decide this use could be allowed in this zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that this would give the Commission more latitude in imposing restrictions and conditioning the type of use that goes on. The Associate Planner read from the text that, "The purpose of the Conditional Use Permit is to establish the Planning Commission's authority to issue and revoke Conditional Use Permits in order to ensure the community's health, safety and welfare by reviewing uses which may create objectionable or undesirable effects on nearby uses but may still be compatible with the property's zoning". Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt this described the proposed project. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the genesis of this application was due to potential enforcement action. The Planning Director responded in the negative, stating that the applicant came in on his own initiative. Vice -Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. E TIM AUSTIN 12711 DARWIN AVENUE G.T. Mr. Austin stated that he is not illegally using the property. He said that he has proposed to lease the property from the property owner, who is storing his vehicles there. He said that he removed the vehicles for him to a storage yard in Yucaipa. He stated that 90% of his towing is going to other agencies, but he does private property impounds. He said that he has a warehouse at O'Connell Drywall, where he keeps about five vehicles. He said that in the last thirty days, he has had to turn down about 16 cars, at a minimum of $60.00 a piece, as he has no place to store them. He said they are not wrecked cars but abandoned. He has already talked to the Sheriff's Department, and there are not that many wrecks as this is a small area. He stressed that the major part of his plan is to store abandoned vehicles until they clear lien sale, and 90% of them clear in 30 days. Mr. Austin said the north property owner was notified and said he had no problem with it, and he didn't see how this could affect anyone else in the area. There is someone working on semi -trucks behind his area. He mentioned that there are two tow companies operating on De Berry and Van Buren, and they are running a tow company out of their house. He said the cars being taken for the Sheriffs Department are either going to Highland Avenue or to Redlands. With regard to a block wall, his brother is a general contractor and would give it to him for cost which would be $6,500, which he cannot afford at this point. Mr. Austin felt that the Conditional Use Permit process would be long and drawn out and would require architectural drawings and a lot of money he cannot afford. He said that he is trying to make as soft an impact as possible on the City, and this type of service is needed in this town. He mentioned that the lots that are zoned for his type of use are all too big and too expensive, and the piece of property he wants to use is the only one within Grand Terrace or Highgrove obtainable by himself that will serve the purpose. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Sheriffs Department has given the applicant any direction with regard to requirements. Mr. Austin stated they have given him no specifics, but there are general requirements as far as the properties are concerned, as he needs to have an inside and outside storage area, which he has. The specific requirements pertain to the equipment, as they want to make sure he can take care of any accidents or impounds he may be called out to. He did not know if barbed 7 wire was a requirement of the Sheriff's Department or not. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Sheriff's Department has a list of requirements they can provide him with. Mr. Austin stated that they use the Highway Patrol's requirements but adapt them to their own use, but all that is mentioned is that they require a secure storage area. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the applicant has a way to take care of leaking oil or battery acid. Mr. Austin stated that this is a minor portion of the process, and that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) requires the ground be removed and backfilled. When a vehicle is involved in an accident, most of the fluids end up in the street, not in the storage area. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he has some liability as the lessee to clean up any oil or battery acid accumulated over five years, to which Mr. Austin responded in the positive. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he intended to have a five year lease. Mr. Austin stated that he did. He has a one year lease and a series of extension options. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he proposed lights in the lot. Mr. Austin stated he did not, and that the fences serve as security. Commissioner Hargrave asked his hours of operation. Mr. Austin stated his hours were 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., with an occasional emergency call. He said that if it comes to the point where complaints are received, he doesn't have to take any vehicles there between those hours, as he can take them to the warehouse temporarily. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he would be stacking cars, to which Mr. Austin responded in the negative. Commissioner Hargrave asked how the City of Grand Terrace would benefit, i.e. tax from impound fees. Mr. Austin stated that the only thing the City will get is a business license fee. Commissioner Munson asked how he gets rid of the abandoned vehicles. Mr. Austin stated that he puts them through lien sale and either sells them outright or scraps them. Commissioner Munson asked how long this takes. Mr. Austin indicated the minimum amount of time to be 35 days for a vehicle valued less than $1000. A vehicle with a value over $1000 would take 120 days. Commissioner Munson asked how the owner is notified when his vehicle is towed. Mr. Austin said they are notified through the lien sale process, but it depends upon whether it is taken by a public agency or if it is private property. If it is a public agency, the owner is notified right away, and if it is garbage, worth less than $300, the Sheriffs can issue a junk slip, and they can get rid of the vehicle after 15 days, but this only applies to something impounded by the Sheriffs Department. He said that if it a private property impound, he has to go through the 30 day lien sale process. After picking up the vehicle, he notifies the Sheriffs Department, who sends out a Notice of Stored Vehicle O to the registered owner and lienholder, and after five days, he files lien for it, and 30 days from that point is when it clears lien sale for values less than $1000, and he either scraps it or sells it. Commissioner Munson was concerned the vehicles would accumulate. Mr. Austin stated that the idea is turnover and that is how he makes his best profit. Commissioner Wright asked if the applicant planned on getting onto the Sheriff s rotation. Mr. Austin stated that he has already talked to a Sergeant at the Sheriffs Office Central Station, who said that as soon as it is approved to let him know. Commissioner Wright asked what areas he would be responsible for, and who else shares the rotation in those areas. Mr. Austin stated Grand Terrace and Loma Linda, which would be shared by L & L Towing in Redlands, Loma Linda Towing and Danny's Towing in San Bernardino. 9 Commissioner Wright asked if the applicant has looked at lots in Colton for his business. Mr. Austin stated that there are too many tow companies already, and the farther out he goes, the farther he is getting from his base of operation. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the facility would be open to the public to inspect vehicles before a lien sale. Mr. Austin said this is not the way lien sales are conducted. Commissioner Sims asked the purpose of the signage. Mr. Austin stated this notifies people this is an impound yard and not a place for them to look for parts. Commissioner Sims asked the purpose of the address and telephone number. Mr. Austin said he was trying to make it look as nice as possible and also for security reasons in case someone needs to contact him. Commissioner Sims asked if he would be selling parts, to which the applicant responded in the negative. Commissioner Sims expressed concern regarding the accumulation of oil and transmission fluid over time. Mr. Austin said that all he can go by is other tow yards, and they use either dirt or gravel. The Planning Director stated that the distribution of sawdust absorbs minor leaking and it can be raked up. She clarified that if this Determination of Use is approved, it doesn't mean that the Commission is setting a precedent as it is specific for this lot, and unless they pursue a Zoning Amendment to change the district regulations, this approval is only for this specific lot. Commissioner Hargrave asked how they would reverse the determination of use if so desired. The Planning Director stated she would have to check on this. 8:09 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Vice -Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Commission. 10 MOTION PCM-91-122 DU-91-02 Commissioner Munson stated that Recommendation 1 is to submit detailed landscaping and irrigation plans to the Planning Department, and he would like to add that the applicant maintain the same. Commissioner Sims asked what enforcement value this really has. The Planning Director stated that staff would go through the Nuisance Abatement Program if necessary. Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve DU-91-02 with the submitted three conditions. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND. MOTION PCM-91-123 DU-91-02 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to continue DU-91-02, as he would like to see from staff what revocation process is available by statute and have staff confirm with the Sheriffs Department what the requirements are for a storage yard and official letters going out to the R1-7.2 residents adjoining this property, even if not within 300'. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Sims suggested that the fencing be specified. Planning Director requested a clarification on the motion. In case the revocation is not possible what direction should we take? Commissioner Hargrave than responded that he would then move to a Conditional Use Permit hearing instead. Commissioner Wright saw this use as a transitory use in this area, so he didn't have a problem with the chain link fence. He felt a block wall may deter further development in the area. He asked if they would go through the Conditional Use Permit process, would they require curb and gutter and other on -site improvements. 11 The Planning Director said the Commission can request any conditions they want, and they don't need to be that extensive, but the Public Works Department would request standard conditions as this is how they operate. Commissioner Wright was concerned with the lack of notice to the property owners in the area due to the proposed use, and he had a problem with determining this as a permitted use within this area without a Conditional Use Permit as once it is in, they do not have control. He sees this as a transitory use and feels there may be better uses that will come along in this area. Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt the Conditional Use Permit is warranted in this situation, and if they can come back with additional information they will have some enforcement insurance. He felt it was worthwhile to get information from the Sheriff's Department as to what they are looking for and he believed it important to have adequate fencing and screening around the property. He was inclined to require that on the northern property line between commercial and residential, that there be a six foot decorative, block wall. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he needs more information to determine if this item should go through the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Director said that to send the project to outside agencies at this time, she will need to change the environmental assessment forms. She found it difficult to implement the motion and asked for more direction from the Planning Commission, as in this case, it seems easier to do a Conditional Use Permit because under a Determination of Use, it would be difficult to take care of all of the Commission's requests as it would be beyond the normal procedures. MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION PCM-91-124 DU-91-02 Commissioner Hargrave withdrew his motion. Commissioner Van Gelder concurred. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to make the determination that DU- 91-02 is a permitted use with a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Sims second for discussion. Commissioner Sims felt that by permitting this use they would be opening a door to allow other uses of a similar nature. 12 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-124 Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that he could make a finding that this is an acceptable use, but under the circumstances and based on the code, this is a situation where a Conditional Use Permit would be necessary. Commissioner Munson asked if the applicant has the right to appeal if this motion were to pass, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Munson asked how they will get back to the recommendations if it is appealed to the City Council. The Planning Director stated that staff can recommend the item be returned to the Planning Commission for Site and Architectural Review once the City Council has considered it. Usually, the Council does return items to the Planning Commission when there are site planning issues still to be resolved. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Sims voted no. Chairman Hawkinson absent. 8:30 P.M. ADJOURN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8:30 P.M. TO 8:45 P.M. - RECESS 8:45 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ITEM 5 SA-91-11 BOB HARDESTY/GERRY LUTTERS 22400 BARTON ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A MONUMENT SIGN FOR A SHOPPING CENTER AND DAY CARE IN THE BARTON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims asked if the City Engineer had any comments, to which �' 13 the Planning Director responded in the negative, stating that during the building permit process, the applicant will submit calculations, etc. Commissioners Sims and Hargrave requested they see this information at the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Sims said there seems to be an extensive amount of remodeling going on and he is seeing a lot of the exterior disappear. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that Commissioner Sims wasn't here for that item. Commissioner Sims asked if the exterior of the small sign was metal or painted wood. The Planning Director stated that the materials are up on the board and the applicant can further explain them. Commissioner Sims stated that the larger sign has a protective feature to keep the elements off of the sign itself, whereas the smaller sign is subject to the elements. Commissioner Hargrave asked why the renderings didn't show the Fire Department request to show the street number of the project on the sign. The Planning Director stated that the applicant prefers to put the address on the building unless the commission chooses to see it on the sign. Commissioner Hargrave requested the address numbers of the center be put on the monument entry sign. He asked if the applicant asked for a sign on Britton Way for the child care center, to which the Planning Director responded in the negative. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the signs could easily be changed for the new tenants. The Planning Director stated that the applicant will use a slider, so the signs can be changed easily, with no structural damage. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the roofing on the monument sign would match the roofing on the main building, and asked if the Planning Director liked this idea. The Planning Director stated that this is what is being proposed. She felt the 14 roofing of the monument sign matches architecturally and is appropriate with the scale of the sign. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the people using the Day Care Center would use the main entrance. The Planning Director felt they would use both entrances. Commissioner Van Gelder felt it important to have the address on the sign. She did not see the value of having the name of the center on the sign. She also would like to decrease the main sign in size. The Planning Director stated that the recommended maximum height according to the Barton Road Specific Plan is six feet, however, the signs in the area vary from six to twelve feet. She stated that since the street is so wide and the frontage is so wide, a higher sign is in proportion. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed concern regarding the height of this sign and of future signs along Barton Road. Vice -Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. BOB HARDESTY 22400 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Hardesty stated that when they submitted the plans for the shopping center, the designer included an 18' high sign as an architectural feature of the center. He said that the designer had 32' towers and a lot of river rock added to the shopping center. David Sawyer requested the Commission not approve the 18' high tower and that the applicant come back with signs at a later date, which is what they are doing now. He stated that the barber shop sign next door is 10' high. He stated that they have cut their tenants down from 12 to 6 on the sign. Commissioner Van Gelder mentioned she was not present the night this item was voted on. She asked what the express value was of having the name of the center on the sign. Mr. Hardesty stated that this is a code requirement. The Planning Director stated that the Barton Road Specific Plan allows a center identification and tenant sign. She said that one of the reasons for this may be that it is impossible to have all of the tenants identified on a sign, so 15 this gives the tenants some type of identification. Commissioner Van Gelder felt it would be more appropriate to list one more tenant than identifying the center. The Planning Director stated that they couldn't put more tenants on the sign per the code, unless the Commission directed a variation from the code, as the Barton Road Specific Plan recommends three tenant identifications per sign. Mr. Hardesty felt there was an advantage in naming the center, as they have done other centers that have become a social gathering place, and people call it by name. He said they have many pedestrian areas to sit and enjoy the landscaping and covered trellises and they hope to have patio dining, and it should become known as the Towne and County Center as opposed to 22400 Barton Road. 9:10 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Vice -Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Hargrave didn't feel the sign breaks it up enough to differentiate that this is the Towne and Country Center and in the center are the named tenants. Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt if they list the Towne and Country Center with the address directly below, this would serve as a separation. Mr. Hardesty stated that the top sign was devoted to the child care center and to name the center. He said that one of the signs is permitted to be 4' X 8', but they chose to make them 3' X 8' as this was sufficient. He said they were now planning on putting the address on the stone column facing Barton Road, and they were only going to put 22400 without Barton Road. Vice -Chairman Buchanan thought the sign looked good and that 12' is appropriate given the scale of the center and that the buildings are set so far back. He felt illuminated numbers on the front of the sign were acceptable, and perhaps the concern regarding the separation could be addressed by a different kind of line or division between the center identification and the child care facility. 16 MOTION PCM-91-125 SA-91-11 Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve SA-91-11 subject to conditions. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Wright stated he would like to see, as the applicant has suggested, that the name of the center becomes synonymous with the place, and the way the sign sits right now, he didn't feel there were enough distinguishing features about the shopping center as opposed the child care center. His preference for the address was on both sides for visibility reasons while driving down the street. The Planning Director stated that staff could handle the concern regarding the division of the center and the tenants. Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt that Towne and Country Center with the street address below may require that the panel be enlarged to accommodate this, but this would satisfy the concerns. C The Planning Director stated that all of the letters are 6" letters, with Towne and Country letters being larger. She said that studies show that letters need to be 6" for legibility purposes, so she wouldn't recommend decreasing the size of any of the tenant signs, but perhaps a different style of color of lettering would highlight the center identification. MOTION VOTE PCM-91-125 Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she has lived in the City a long time, long before any of these centers came in, and she could not tell you the name of one center, as it doesn't mean anything to her. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Chairman Hawkinson absent. 17 ITEM #6 SA-91-14 ELCO CONSTRUCTION/MR AND MRS. RICH HOLMER 23023 DE BERRY STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PATIO COVER AND DECK FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Associate Planner presented the staff report. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that Exhibit A plans were contradictory, as the overhead view shows the deck in one location, and the elevations show it in a different location. The Associate Planner stated that the site plan shows the correct location, in the southeast corner. She stated that the rear elevation is reversed. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the cross street is. The Associate Planner stated that it is Observation. Commissioner Hargrave asked the measurement of the slope from top to bottom. The Associate Planner said approximately 30'. Vice -Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. ERIC CHRISTIANSEN ELCO CONSTRUCTION 1389 CAHUILLA COLTON Commissioner Sims asked about the gating. Mr. Christiansen stated it would be a wrought iron, self -closing gate at the bottom of the stairs. Commissioner Sims asked how much room there is between the retaining wall and the edge of the staircase. Mr. Christiansen said approximately between 6 and 7 feet. He said it is all grass now and there will be a concrete stoop. 18 Commissioner Sims asked about the railing. Mr. Christiansen said it would be 2" X 2" pickets with a 2" X 6" top rail. Commissioner Sims asked if there would be patio furniture on the deck. Mr. Christiansen stated the owners just want more room. Commissioner Sims asked if there was any intention for people to have access to the top of the patio cover. Mr. Christiansen stated that the type of the construction they will be installing over the shade area will not allow the load structure for any additional individuals. Commissioner Wright asked if the contractor would be going above the bay window or around it. Mr. Christiansen said they will most likely go around the bay window, and the deck will tie into the floor structure of the house. The bay window will be in the shade structure area. Commissioner Hargrave asked how the deck would be treated. Mr. Christiansen said it would be painted to match the house, with a base prime and seal. He said he would use a quality paint that would not peel. Commissioner Hargrave said he would like to hear from the owner why they need 230 square feet when the guidelines are set up for 125 square feet. RICH HOLMER 23023 DE BERRY G.T. Mr. Holmer said that the yards in this area are quite small with the slopes in the back, and this would give them more area. Commissioner Sims asked the intent of the property owner. Mr. Holmer stated they will have lounge chairs and tables, used for social gatherings but no parties or barbecues. Commissioner Sims was concerned about the number of people they may have over at gatherings. He stated due to the nature of the terrain, the applicant 19 would not be overlooking the neighbors. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the applicant's neighbors to either side have a deck. Mr. Holmer said the property to the south has a patio cover. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that this is an issue which was discussed extensively by staff and the commission, with a great deal of time spent on the square footage of the decks and the question of access. He said that so much of the applicant's yard is consumed with slopes, but his major concern is the combination of size and exterior access. Mr. Holmer said that interior access would be from his five year old daughter's bedroom, which would be much more of a safety hazard. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said that one of the reasons the commission likes interior access off of master bedrooms is that people don't use the decks for entertaining as they don't like bringing guests through their bedroom. His inclination was to approve this with a reduction in the square footage, perhaps decreasing the length from 23 feet. Mr. Christiansen said they were trying to mirror the existing patio. Commissioner Hargrave asked why this deck is 12 feet high. Mr. Christiansen said it should actually be 9 feet high to the finished floor. Commissioner Hargrave asked for a compromise from the length of 23 feet. Mr. Christiansen said if they come in from the eastern side of the house, they have no reasonable access from the exterior for the stairway. He stated that they can reduce the usable length to 20 feet by insetting the railing. Commissioner Wright felt the bay window would be in the middle of the floor. Mr. Christiansen said if this is the case, they still would not increase the height of the patio. 9:56 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 0 20 MOTION PCM-91-126 SA-91-14 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-126 Vice -Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Van Gelder said that a great deal of time was spent preparing and coming up with the final rendition of the Barton Road Specific Plan, and already they have amended it and already they are beginning to review each and every sign and they came up with recommendations for various patio covers and decks, but there are lots of variables they need to think about. These variables include the size of the house and whether or not they can view the neighbors. She didn't have a problem with the size of the deck given the size of the house. Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SA-91-14 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carries. 4-2-1-0. Vice -Chairman Buchanan and Commissioner Hargrave voted no. Chairman Hawkinson absent. The Associate Planner informed the applicant that there is a 10 day appeal period, and written notification would be sent to the applicant as to a synopsis of the findings of the project. ITEM #7 SA-91-13 CESAR J. AND VIRGINIA M. CEBALLOS 22550 BRENTWOOD STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SECOND STORY BALCONY WITH EXTERIOR STAIR ACCESS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Associate Planner presented the staff report. 21 Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification as to what the unique situation of this balcony is. The Associate Planner stated that the location of the deck is unique, as the view from the deck is blocked by the side yard block wall, and the house on the west property sits further in to the front of the lot and is not in alignment with the second story residence. The viewing from the second story structure is the rear part of the house, the garage area, which provides no window exposure. Vice -Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. VIRGINIA AND CESAR J. CEBALLOS 22550 BRENTWOOD STREET G.T. Commissioner Sims asked the applicant why the staircase was necessary. Ms. Ceballos said that the primary reason for the staircase is safety. She expressed concern regarding earthquakes and fire. She said the interior stairway is in the middle of the house, and zigzags from top to bottom. She indicated that the windows are safety windows, and are approximately 3'X 6', and if a strong earthquake occurred, the glass could fall in, and they may not have any access out. She said she plans to gate the staircase to keep her dogs downstairs but she would like to gate at the top of the stairs, as it would be easier for someone to jump the gate if it were at the bottom. She hopes to go with a security system which would sound in the house as someone would be coming up the steps. She informed the commission that she would not be using the deck for congregational purposes. Commissioner Sims expressed concern regarding the balcony size. Ms. Ceballos said that the size is consistent with the existing house structure. Commissioner Wright asked if the supports for the existing patio were there when they purchased the residence. Ms. Ceballos said that the columns were put in when the block wall was put in approximately 5 years ago. 10:23 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Vice -Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. He stated that he appreciates the fact that the patio area is 22 MOTION PCM-91-127 SA-91-13 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-127 MOTION PCM-91-128 SA-91-13 only 5'6" wide. He felt the exterior access should be eliminated, and while there may be some valid concerns regarding an alternative exit route from the home, there are emergency ladders that could be provided for escape purposes. He stated that the exterior access may be more of a hazard than a benefit because of the location to the park. He felt they should terminate the railing as they approach the westerly side of the property just past the french doors. Commissioner Hargrave felt the park area would present a potential problem in the future due to the exposure of the rear yard. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as a Condition of Approval that the exterior stairs be eliminated so that all access is from the inside. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Sims voted no. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion that the west end of the balcony be brought in approximately 5' or 6' to terminate at the edge of the french doors. Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the purpose for this is to reduce the size of the deck and bring it away from the west property line. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that this would not look right architecturally. Commissioner Sims agreed, stating that the deck would have an off -centered look. Vice -Chairman commented that he doesn't mind if the structure itself extends 23 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-128 MOTION PCM-91-129 SA-91-13 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-129 to the edge of the house, but he would like to see the west end railing of the balcony drawn in to reduce the usable area. Motion fails. 1-5-1-0. Vice -Chairman Buchanan voted yes. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-91-13 with staff's recommendations and with the additional Condition of Approval deleting the staircase. Commissioner Munson second. Commissioner Sims stated he will be voting no as he felt the staircase should have been left in place. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Sims voted no. Chairman Hawkinson absent. The Associate Planner stated that there is a 10 day appeal period and written notification will be sent to the applicant with a summation of the conditions. ITEM #8 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 The Associate Planner presented the staff report. 24 Vice -Chairman Buchanan clarified that this project is existing in its entirety, to which the Associate Planner agreed. Commissioner Sims asked if the structure is adequate. The Associate Planner said that in the May 6 packet, there is a memorandum from the City Engineer's office as he has reviewed the project, and because this was a continuation of a code enforcement situation, he had noted that construction plans are to comply with the U.B.C., so this would be covered there. She stated that the applicant may have more information as to whether or not inspections have taken place. The Planning Director clarified that if the Building Department initiates code enforcement action, they are not supposed to complete said action until the structure is safe and their conditions are met. She didn't feel there was an unsafe situation there. Vice -Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. KENNETH COX 22720 BLUEBIRD LANE G.T. Mr. Cox stated that he feels foolish to be in this position Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that he is aware that some of his neighbors have decks, although he felt this area is an example of where decks are inappropriate, as they tend to be very invasive, as this is a relatively flat tract. He said they are not supposed to look at this as an existing structure, but they tend to do that. He appreciated the fact that it has no exterior access, but felt that it was well suited for modification to reduce it to some degree. He felt the railing should be relocated to where the chimney juts out, and the deck would still be 190 square feet. He felt the deck to be intrusive to the neighbors to the north, as it is close to the property line. Mr. Cox explained the reasoning for the railing position as being because of the glass doors at the lower part of the house, as they took the railing on around it as they thought it looked better. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said he had no problem with it remaining as a patio cover. Commissioner Hargrave asked how the flooring was constructed 25 Mr. Cox said they are 2" X 6"'s, and what Vice -Chairman Buchanan is suggesting is possible. He said he would rather take a railing across at the fireplace to close off the deck but not take the other part down for aesthetic purposes. Commissioner Hargrave asked how many people are in his household. Mr. Cox stated that there are two people. Commissioner Sims asked if the applicant has access from upstairs to the deck, to which Mr. Cox responded in the affirmative. 10:51 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-91-130 SA-91-09 Vice -Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SA-91-09 as recommended. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Munson felt the applicant should be penalized. The Associate Planner stated that during the building permit process, the building department has required double fees for working without a permit. Commissioner Van Gelder said they had talked in the past about putting a notice in the newsletter or in with the utility bill as to what requires a permit, as many property owners trust in their contractor to obtain the proper permits. Commissioner Hargrave felt public notification should be addressed to the City Council. He said that Mr. Cox' contractor should be sent an official reprimand and see if there are any damages that can be assessed against the individual who did the construction without a permit. He wanted to make sure the City Engineer's office goes out and inspects this project, as he can see it easily falling through the cracks. Vice -Chairman Buchanan had no desire to see Mr. Cox personally punished, but what they have to do is look at what is before them as if it was not built yet. He felt they would not have approved it, or they wasted a lot of time on 26 Overhead Deck Guidelines. He said he could not vote in approval of this project without substantial modifications, and the only reason he would vote in favor of it with modifications is because it is already there, which is a bad reason for voting for something. Commissioner Wright suggested that as a matter of policy, when the Planning Department uncovers a situation like this, the contractor's license number should be obtained and a notice of complaint should be sent to the State Contractor's Licensing Board. Vice -Chairman Buchanan believed that it is a violation of the Contractor's Licensing Law to not obtain a permit when required, but hidden in a lot of contracts are "owner to supply permit" language that the contractor never points out to the owner. Commissioner Sims felt some kind of pre -evaluation by staff to see if the deck was structurally sound would be in line. The Associate Planner said that the City Engineer's office does have a field inspection procedure, in which they will do a field inspection, and this would address the structural questions they have in mind. Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt staff should have a procedure where people come in for code enforcement situations, where a structure has already been started or completed, and are coming in at that point in time for Site and Architectural approval, that part of that process be that the applicant immediately be assessed an application fee above and beyond the ordinary fee to cover a preliminary structural field inspection and report by the City Engineer's office to accompany the Site and Architectural Review application. Commissioner Munson stated that they have heard no adverse comment from any neighbor, and this is why he will probably vote yes. The Planning Director stated that one of the conditions of this code enforcement is to obtain approval from the Site and Architectural Review Board, and then get the building permit from the Engineering Department. She suggested restricting the time period for the applicant to obtain his building permit. Commissioner Sims amended his motion to include a 15 working day limitation on submittal of the application for the building permit. Commissioner Van Gelder concurred. 27 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-130 Commissioner Wright asked, had the existing deck been through the normal process at that time, would it have been subject to the City's square footage limitation. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the square footage limitation is a guideline, and although the guidelines were not in place, these concerns predated the guidelines. Commissioner Sims called for the question. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Vice -Chairman Buchanan voted no. Chairman Hawkinson absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 11:10 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD AUGUST 1, 1991. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Patrizia Materassi Dan Buchanan Planning Director Vice -Chairman, Planning Commission 07-30-91:ma e 28