Loading...
09/19/1991GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19 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 September 19, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, 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 O ABSENT: None. PLEDGE: Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. Discussion of Code Enforcement procedures with regard to signs. An "educational approach" will be taken and the Chamber of Commerce's support will be sought prior to sign code enforcement. The Commission understood and accepted the approach and recommended that a time frame of six months to one year be established for the grace period proposed to be granted to the business for their compliance with the sign code prior to code enforcement. W" A code enforcement procedures packet is being assembled by staff to include all City related legislation and a daily complaint log. Once the packet is completed, the weak areas will be revamped/upgraded as they relate to code enforcement of Zoning, Building and Sign Code, thus making the process more efficient. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SUSPENDED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Vice -Chairman Hargrave expressed concern over the color of the doors at the new center on Barton and Mt. Vernon. The Planning Director stated that this is just the primer. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she hopes the sewer pipes will be covered at the center on Barton And Mt. Vernon. The Planning Director stated that they are required to put a landscape berm in front of it and paint the equipment light grey so as not to stand out. She also asked why the tree was removed at Demetri's. The Associate Planner stated that there was a health issue involved with regard to the droppings from the tree landing on the seating underneath. Commissioner Wright stated that the tree was either dying or dead. Commissioner Sims brought up the issue of the wall -mounted sign that indicates the R.V. Park is there, and he said that one of the conditions of installing the sign was that they needed to do something with it. The Planning Director stated staff would follow up on this item. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1991 MOTION PCM-91-140 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JULY 18, 1991 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-140 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve the July 18, 1991 minutes. Commissioner Van Gelder second. 2 Motion carries. 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Hawkinson abstained. ITEM #2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1991 MOTION PCM-91-141 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - AUGUST 1, 1991 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-141 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve the August 1, 1991 minutes. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. ITEM #3 CUP-91-04 TERRI LEE AND BRUCE HALSTEAD 23000 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SECOND FAMILY UNIT IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT The Planning Director presented the staff report. Chairman Buchanan tabled the item as the applicant was not present. ITEM #4 MD-91-02 MARK AND CLARA OPITZ 22544 MAIN STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A MINOR DEVIATION FOR ROOM ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Planning Director stated that this item is not a public hearing item, and it should be deleted as it is handled at staff level. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED AT 7:13 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:13 P.M. ITEM #5 SA-91-01 TERRI AND BRUCE HALSTEAD 23000 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT Chairman Buchanan tabled this item as the applicant was not present. ITEM #6 SA-91-15 TERRI AND BRUCE HALSTEAD 23000 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SECOND FAMILY UNIT IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT Chairman Buchanan tabled this item as the applicant was not present. ITEM #7 SA-91-18 MARK AND CLARA OPITZ 22544 MAIN STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF ROOM ADDITIONS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Associate Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims asked about the Fire Warden requirement F9, which asks for an illuminated street address. The Associate Planner stated that this is a new portion of the Fire Code that the City has adopted, and all new structures will have to have this. Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. 4 MARK OPITZ 22544 MAIN STREET G.T. Mr. Opitz stated that he is a licensed contractor, mainly with commercial buildings, restaurants being his forte. He said he wants to make a showpiece out of this house. He stated that he plans to do some neat landscaping with banana trees and palms. Chairman Buchanan asked if the applicant had any comments with regard to staff recommendations. Mr. Opitz stated that the Associate Planner did a very good job of presenting this and expressed his appreciation. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked about the windows on the south elevation and if the children will be able to exit onto the roof. Mr. Opitz said he figures the windows will be 4' X 3' and that the children will be able to exit onto the roof through the windows. He stated he was considering using lead glass, which is easy to get out of. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if there would be some distance between the addition and the fence on the east side, to which Mr. Opitz responded in the affirmative. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the property on the west side had been purchased. Mr. Opitz stated that it has, but they are about 10 feet lower and have a lot of trees. Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated that if those trees ever disappeared, it would detract considerably since the applicant's is the only two-story. Mr. Opitz said that with the way it is terraced up, he doesn't see a problem. 7:31 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-91-142 SA-91-18 Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Commission. 5 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-142 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SA-91-18 as conditioned by staff. Commissioner Hawkinson second. Chairman Buchanan commented that, although it doesn't materially affect his decision on this project, they need to hammer out calculation of setbacks based on averages versus closest point. Commissioner Sims felt these items should be considered on a case -by -case basis. Chairman Buchanan questioned whether or not a project needs a minor deviation that averages a 21' setback, even though portions of the structure encroach within 18'. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated that, with regard to the previous project, it is nice to see the vicinity map on the renderings. ITEM #8 SA-91-17 DAVID WALKER 22269 NAPA COURT G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A STORAGE SHED IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Associate Planner presented the staff report. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if their would be any plumbing in the garage area. The Associate Planner believed not, as it was basically only for storage. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if staff was comfortable with, 10 to 15 years from now, this structure being used for something appropriate, other than for storage. no The Associate Planner stated that the square footage would meet the State requirements for a second family dwelling or "granny flat", but they would have to meet very strict requirements. The Planning Director suggested putting a condition on the project that the building be used only for the proposed use. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the access to the garage from the front driveway would be a path or driveway. The Associate Planner said there will be some laying of concrete or paving. Commissioner Sims asked if the slope of the roof has the same characteristics as the existing home. He was concerned about the height of 14'. The Planning Director referred this to the applicant. Commissioner Wright asked who does the flows on the hydrants. The Associate Planner stated that the Fire Department or Riverside Highland water can. She said that to meet the fire requirement, they have to cut back on the pressure or accelerate it to a certain point, and that testing was done by the Fire Warden. Commissioner Wright wondered if Riverside Highland Water thinks there flow in that area is 600 g.p.m. and the Fire Warden's Department water thinks its 1,400 g.p.m. The Associate Planner said that evidently this project was not run at the correct measurement, but the Fire Warden's Department did run it at the correct measurement and notified Riverside Highland Water. The Planning Director stated that she talked to both agencies, and it seems they are using different methods to measure the flow of the water, and the Fire Warden's Department is going to have a seminar for all of the different water companies as they all use a different method. Commissioner Wright stated that several times the issue of water flow has come up with regard to two story projects, and there have been some mitigation efforts involved with either sprinkling the addition or fire walls, etc., and if there is that much of a difference between the two entities, perhaps the Fire Department would have been happy with some of the projects and the people wouldn't have had to do additional mitigations. 7 The Planning Director stated that the Fire Department is doing it correctly. Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. DAVID WALKER 22269 NAPA COURT G.T. Commissioner Sims asked if the slope of the roof was compatible with the house. Mr. Walker said it is the same as the house. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the applicant would be putting a driveway from the front of the house back to the shed. Mr. Walker stated that now it is only dirt, but he eventually wants to put in a concrete slab. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if there would be any plumbing or electrical, to which Mr. Walker responded in the negative. 7:51 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-91-143 SA-91-17 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-143 Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SA-91-17 as conditioned by staff. Commissioner Hawkinson second. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson wondered if they should condition this project so that it is for uses other than nonhabitable. Commissioner Hawkinson stated that considering there is no water, sewer or electrical, they don't have a problem. N. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. ITEM #5; ITEM #6 SA-91-01; SA-91-15 TERRI AND BRUCE HALSTEAD 23000 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT; AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SECOND FAMILY UNIT IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT The Planning Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims asked if this would be the last continuance, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sims felt it was important that this happens, as you tend to forget the issues as the project keeps being continued. The Planning Director stated that the major issue is the record of survey, and it takes a very long time for the County to give their review of it. She said that without the record of survey, the Engineering Department can not negotiate or talk about any conditions because it all depends on where the property lines are. Commissioner Sims suggested the commissioners receive a full background on the project, when it comes back. Chairman Buchanan said that a down side is that there has been a long delay from the time they spent visiting the site. Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. TERRI HALSTEAD 21891 VIVIENDA G.T. Ms. Halstead stated that Doug Goodman is the engineer that has been working with her, and he has spent a lot of hours trying to place the Edison easement using a description of the easement from the Edison Co. She said that he put the worst case scenario on the plans, if at any point, they would be encroaching the easement. She said there are no good surveys for their neighborhood on record anywhere, and this is a very old description of the E Edison easement and is based on something that goes back to the Spanish Land Grants. She said that the good news is that none of their structures fall into that easement, but it will have to be verified again when the record of survey gets done. She said it is necessary to satisfy the County that they have done everything possible to get the correct measurements of the property, but since there is nothing to go on in their area, they have to go all the way down to the end of the block to start. She said that this information is then submitted to the County, who will send out their own surveyors to verify this, and this could take four or five months. She said that at that point, the County will put up the cement markers, which will be for everyone in the immediate vicinity to use. She said that other recommendations from the Engineering Department had to do with getting a structural engineer to verify the foundation in both structures, and she plans to move ahead with that while the other survey takes place as they aren't contingent upon each other. She said that all easements of record, topography of adjacent parcels and turnarounds as worked out with the Fire Department will be on the new record. She said that with regard to the curb, gutter and sidewalk, she will ask the City Council for some type of deferment. She said that the Southern California Edison easement will be shown on the new survey. She mentioned that the rest has to do with having the electrical being checked out and the structural foundations being certified by an engineer. Commissioner Sims recommended the applicant make looking into the structural soundness a priority. Ms. Halstead said they have decided where to put the fire hydrant. Commissioner Sims asked if she would have this all completed by 11-21-91. Ms. Halstead didn't feel the record of survey would be back from the County by that date. Commissioner Sims asked if these improvements were required to be in by a certain time. The Planning Director stated that they were subject to the conditions of approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the small existing house. She said that some of the conditions are not possible to be accomplished in a timely manner within the Conditional Use Permit requirements. She felt they should reevaluate and see what is really possible, otherwise they do an approval or a denial based on abstract conditions. She said that if the Planning Commission had more concrete information on the plans, they could eliminate some conditions and add some conditions for the Conditional Use Permit to be real. 01 10 Commissioner Sims asked if the intent is to act on revising the previous Conditional Use Permit, modifying the conditions. The Planning Director said that, even if the County is not through with the survey, if the Planning Commission prefers to make a determination on the project, that would be fine. She felt it would be better for the Commission to have more information. Commissioner Sims asked if they should continue the item indefinitely until they have enough information to make a decision, rather than continuing again from the 11-21-91 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Director said that, in this case, the applicant would need to pay again as staff would need to readvertise. Chairman Buchanan felt an indefinite continuance may cause the Commission to lose control over this. He said that at one point in time, the Commission felt some urgency for corrective action to be taken on the existing, non- conforming structures. Commissioner Sims felt they were wasting a lot of time, stating that they should go ahead and act on the conditions when the Conditional Use Permit comes forth. The Planning Director stated that the other alternative was to remove the small structure that was determined to be non -conforming, or try to meet the conditions so that structure is approved through a Conditional Use Permit process, but this process does have a time frame of one year. A Conditional Use Permit may be extended for two years. Chairman Buchanan stated that he felt the intent is to review this, make determinations where there are loose ends and make them conditions of approval, and let the applicant know what the requirements are. He stated that the hesitation he has is how open-ended a condition can be with a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Director stated there are two alternatives: a continuance to the November 21, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting or asking the applicant to return when all information has been obtained, including the record of survey as approved by the County. She stated that, per the first alternative, they could include as a condition of approval that upon recordation of the survey, the plans need to be reviewed and approved by the engineer. Chairman Buchanan stated that this brings up his question about the 11 legitimacy of a condition on a Conditional Use Permit that has indefinite future contingency. The Planning Director stated that such conditions would be legitimate, but are difficult to enforce. Commissioner Sims stated that, if they do continue this item to 11-21-91, he would like to see some really strong evidence from staff showing which conditions are too vague, and how it can be made more solid. Chairman Buchanan stated that he knew why the City Engineer wanted the record of survey to begin with, and perhaps the City Engineer is satisfied at this point, and whatever the County does with that record of survey will have no impact on certain conditions he wants to impose. The Planning Director said that one of the issues the City Engineer had was the relation of the Edison easement to the property line and the house, and apparently they have the plotting of the Edison easement. Therefore, it may be possible for the City Engineer to review the survey completed by Ms. Halstead's engineer prior to receiving County approval. We need to verify the possibility. Commissioner Sims stated that the bottom line is that they could always do code enforcement. The Planning Director felt that the applicant would have much more information by 11-21-91, allowing the Commission to approve or deny the Conditional Use Permit and related Site and Architectural items. This is why only an update was brought in at this time. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the Planning Department was willing to set aside code enforcement temporarily while these issues are being resolved, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. MOTION PCM-91-144 SA-91-01, SA-91-15 Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion to continue SA-91-01 and SA-91-15 to the November 21, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Sims second. 12 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-144 Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:26 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:26 P.M. ITEM #3 CUP-91-04 TERRI LEE AND BRUCE HALSTEAD 23000 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SECOND FAMILY UNIT IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT MOTION PCM-91-145 CUP-91-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-145 Commissioner Sims made a motion to continue CUP-91-04 to the November 21, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP RECONVENED AT 8:26 P.M. Discussion of closing of Union 76 station at Barton and Mt. Vernon. Staff will contact the applicant and inform him of Barton Road Specific Plan guidelines for new development. Discussion of letters to the citizens of Grand Terrace through articles in the Chamber newsletter. Commission is in full support of letters. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AND MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD OCTOBER 3, 1991. Respectfully submitted Patrizia Materassi Planning Director 09-27-91:ma 14 Approved by, Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission