Loading...
11/21/1991GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 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 November 21, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ron Wright, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner PLEDGE: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner 0 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. The Planning Director stated that with regard to the dead tree at the Advocate School, apparently their landscaper is going to replace four trees. The Planning Director stated that the Consent Calendar issue can be discussed next week. She stated that with regard to tonight's item, she received revised plans, after the report was printed, which show a different property line from the original property line adjacent to the second family unit. She said the reason for the difference is that the applicant incorporated the record of survey into the site plan and stated she would recommend a lot line adjustment to address side setback problems. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if Suite 1 of La Mancha was for lease, as there is a for lease sign in the window. The Planning Director stated that Suite 1 is not for lease, and that the developer is keeping the sign there to help lease the other suites. She said La Mancha lost the video tenant. Vice -Chairman Hargrave complimented the Towne and Country Center as well as the Darwin (Potomac West) property. He stated that he appreciated 1 the Planning Director's report on development potential as well as her contribution to the Chamber of Commerce newsletter. He also stated that he was very impressed with the Commission's analysis, questions and concerns relative to the Hood Communications issue as well as their recommendations. Commissioner Wright was concerned if the trench on Barton Road was five feet or not. The Planning Director said that the work is completed, but she will bring this information back to him. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Commission would be meeting twice in December. The Planning Director stated that there is a meeting on December 5. She said that an application has been submitted which she needs to review to determine completeness for the December 19 meeting. Chairman Buchanan stated that he attended the Inland Empire Chapter meeting of the American Planning Association and shared the highlights. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSIIOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1991 Commissioner Van Gelder stated that on page 4 of the minutes, the word "Crystal" should be "Christo". MOTION PCM-91-162 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1991 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-162 Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve the November 7, 1991 minutes. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carries. 4-0-2-1. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. Vice - Chairman Buchanan abstained. 2 ITEM #2 CUP-91-04 TERRI 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 asked which conditions of approval of the twelve suggested by staff that the applicant has not taken care of yet. He also asked of the status of the Record of Survey. The Planning Director stated that the Record of Survey has been accepted by the City Engineer at this point, and it must still go through the County system. Chairman Buchanan asked if the completion of the processing and recordation of the Record of Survey would be a condition precedent to issuance of building permits. The Planning Director stated that it would, referring to the City Engineer's memorandum. She said that if there were required changes on the Record of Survey, the City Engineer would pursue this with the applicant. Chairman Buchanan asked if the item would return to the Commission if there was a problem with the Record of Survey. The Planning Director stated that it would, for example, if there was a boundary problem. She said that so far, the only problem the City Engineer had with the document was that he would like to have the easement for the California Aqueduct to be plotted. Chairman Buchanan said that Attachment 11 states that there are some design defects or structural problems with how the storage shed was initially planned, but that the second family unit is basically okay. He asked, in case the Commission adopts staff's recommended conditions of approval, if all of the necessary corrective actions would have to be taken since they are incorporated through the reference to the City engineer's memoranda, to which the Planning Director responded in the positive. He said that staff recommends a time period for closure of this issue, and asked what staff meant by this. The Planning Director stated that she was referring to conditions of approval 3 for CUP-91-04 on the July 25, 1991 City Engineer's memorandum. She said that they have met most of these conditions already, but they just need to come to complete closure. Chairman Buchanan said that once the applicant has approval, he has a certain statutory period, being subject to a one year extension. The Planning Director stated this is correct, with a maximum of two years. Chairman Buchanan said that even if the Commission approves everything, this prevents the applicant from going forward with the storage shed and tree house without having completed the work on the second family unit, to which the Planning Director agreed. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked what the Planning Director recommended as a completion date for the second family unit. The Planning Director said two or three months. Chairman Buchanan said it may take five months for the County to process the record of survey. The Planning Director said that the City Engineer has accepted the survey portion, so she considers this condition satisfied for the purpose of the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Buchanan said that it seems as if they are adopting the February 27 recommendation as well, which requires that the Record of Survey be filed with the County Surveyor, which has been done, and record the same, which is what they are waiting to have happen. He said that if they only have two months to close all of these issues, they may run into a bind. The Planning Director stated that Condition #4 for the Conditional Use Permit from the July 25 memorandum doesn't necessarily require the Record of Survey to be recorded, but the City Engineer is requiring that the plans show where the property line is. She stated that the new site plan already indicates where the new property line is. She also stated that they need to add a condition of approval to the Conditional Use Permit regarding the lot line adjustment in case that is agreeable to the Commission. Chairman Buchanan asked if staffs interpretation is that the City Engineer's July 25 memorandum amends the February 27 memorandum by impliedly deleting the requirement for recordation of the Record of Survey. ' 4 The Planning Director stated this is so for the small house. She said she spoke with the City Engineer, who has accepted the Record of Survey, and he drafted this memorandum after their conversation. She said, however, that if the Commission prefers five months so the Record of Survey is recorded, this is fine with her. Vice -Chairman Hargrave was concerned that the Record of Survey would come back with a default. The Planning Director stated that he has a good point. She said that if there is a problem with the Record of Survey, the lot line adjustment may need to be redone. Chairman Buchanan asked if it was staff s recommendation that a thirteenth condition be added to state that a lot line adjustment be handled to provide for the minimum setbacks along the westerly property line, to which the Planning Director agreed. Chairman Buchanan asked how long the lot line adjustment would take. The Planning Director stated two or three weeks. Chairman Buchanan said that there should be no reason that the lot line adjustment could not be completed within the recommended closure period, to which the Planning Director agreed. Chairman Buchanan asked if the City Engineer was comfortable with the deferment of street improvements recommendation. The Planning Director said the City Engineer could probably go either way. She stated that it is up to the Commission and City Council. Commissioner Wright asked if the second dwelling would be sprinklered, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wright asked if the existing water line to the house is sufficient to service an in-house sprinkler system. The Planning Director stated that she was not sure, but that the sprinkler system would need to be approved by the Fire Department before the building permit is issued. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked, if they wait for the recordation of the Record of Survey, if the Planning Director was comfortable with the five month time C 5 period. 0 The Planning Director said this makes a lot of sense. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if #6 from the February 27, City Engineer's memorandum, regarding drainage was still part of the conditions. The Planning Director said she believes this has been met, but he should ask the applicant. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked about Condition #3. The Planning Director stated that she had mentioned the drainage plan in Condition #3, as the applicant will need to have final grading plans for the turn around radius as well as drainage solutions and the pathways. Chairman Buchanan clarified that the check marks on the report are not intended to delete these items as a condition of approval; it is only information for the Commission's purposes to demonstrate that the applicant has either met or is prepared to meet such conditions. He was concerned that the check marks may be construed as deleting these as conditions. The Planning Director said that in fact the check marks do not eliminate the conditions, and that they were made to facilitate understanding of the packet. Chairman Buchanan stated for the record that if the Commission adopts the resolution proposed by staff that the check marks on the memorandums are meaningless as far as the conditions of approval go. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said that on the site plan, there is a proposed retention basin for additional roof run-off. He asked if this was already there. The Planning Director suggested asking the applicant. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked what was meant by "staining" under Item #2. The Planning Director stated that this means the maintenance of the wood. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if they would have to add a condition relative to the five month period for the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Director stated that they would have to add this as a condition as well as a condition for the lot line adjustment. 6 Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant. i BRUCE HALSTEAD 23000 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. Mr. Halstead stated that he brought Mr. Goodman, a licensed surveyor, along to answer technical questions, and Mr. Knapp, a licensed engineer. He asked with regard to the plumbing, electrical and sewage, if the engineer is the one to address the issues or if they are to bring in somebody else. Chairman Buchanan said they may have already addressed these issues, and at this stage, the Commission doesn't really deal with the details, as they will approve or deny this item conceptually. He said that the Commission will say that he has to satisfy the City Engineer and the Building Inspector. Mr. Halstead said they have no air conditioning or heating, so there is no mechanical. He believed Mr. Knapp addressed the issue that it does conform to code. Chairman Buchanan said that it may be that the City Engineer just has to sign this off. The Planning Director said that the City Engineer doesn't know where the sewer connection is and would like to see this as well as some description of what kind of electrical system and plumbing is in the second family house. Chairman Buchanan asked if the applicant has any problems or comments with the conditions, to which Mr. Halstead responded in the negative. Chairman Buchanan asked if the applicant had a problem with the two additional conditions: one imposing a shorter than normal time period for satisfying the conditions and another requiring a lot line adjustment between the subject property and the property immediately to the west. Mr. Halstead said this is his daughter's property, and he has no problem with this. DOUG GOODMAN 2103 Sh'YVIEW DRIVE COLTON Mr. Goodman stated that he prepared the site plan and Record of Survey for the project. He stated that the only relevance that the Record of Survey has 7 on the project is that it will eventually be related to where the westerly property line is and how this impacts the lot line adjustment. He said there are no significant improvements near the lot line on the north and the lot line on the east, and even if there was a requirement by the County Surveyor to make some kind of a change to that Record of Survey, it wouldn't have any relevance to any structure, so he suggested that the Record of Survey's recordation should only be a condition prior to Certificate of Occupancy. He said that with regard to the grading and drainage, he felt the intention of the City Engineer's comment was to make sure that any increasing runoff is addressed. He said there are a couple of ways this can be handled, either a retention basis or utilization of existing ponds, and a drainage acceptance letter could be provided by the next door neighbor. He said that regarding the fire sprinkler system, the intention is to put in the fire hydrant originally proposed. He said that the only logical thing to do is to connect the fire sprinkler system to this line. LEN KNAPP 2105 NORTH ARROWHEAD SAN BERNARDINO Mr. Knapp said that he did the survey for the "granny flat", and he just completed structural rehabilitation plans and readjusting of the architectural plans for the storage building. He stated that he is concerned about the existing framing being exposed. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if any damage may have occurred thus far due to exposure. Mr. Knapp stated not as of yet, but after so many months of wet -dry, they will start delaminating plywood. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked how long he would estimate the structure could be properly covered to protect the framing. Mr. Knapp said that once permits are received, it should take two months, and in the meantime, he would like to see some protection placed over the structures. Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated that in his report, Mr. Knapp states that the "granny flat" foundation system "appears" to be in compliance with the current code. He asked if he is reading something into this, or does he mean he didn't see enough to feel comfortable that the foundation is in good shape. Mr. Knapp said it is impossible on an existing foundation to look at every C 8 linear foot, but from what he could see, everything seems to be substantially there as required. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked what kind of electrical system the structure has. Mr. Knapp said the house has a 100 amp panel on it, the wiring is all Romex and is in -wall, it is protected and seems to be in reasonable compliance with NEC. He said there is no 210 service. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked what kind of insulation is in the structure. Mr. Knapp said that the insulation consists of a 4" fiberglass back, that is below the T1-11 5/8" siding. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked what mechanical systems are in the house. Mr. Knapp said there are utility outlets, and there are no air conditioning systems or wall heaters. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the electrical system has current standards with regard to breaker panels and breaker circuits, to which Mr. Knapp responded in the affirmative. C1 7:58 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARI\TG Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Commission. He asked how staff would feel about requiring recordation of the Record of Survey and completion of the lot line adjustment as a condition to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy as opposed to a condition precedent to the issuance of building permits. The Planning Director stated that the Conditional Use Permit is for the house, and the house does not meet the setback, and this would be her only concern. She said the most important thing is that it gets done. Chairman Buchanan said it would be easy to require that the lot line adjustment be taken care of now, but he wasn't sure it made sense to require the lot line adjustment be done before the Record of Survey is finalled. The Planning Director agreed, stating that the most important thing regarding the house is that it should meet the code. Chairman Buchanan said that where the code provides that a Conditional Use 9 MOTION PCM-91-163 CUP-91-04 Permit is effective for a one-year period with a one-year extension to a maximum of two years, does the Commission have the authority to shorten that time period, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Chairman Buchanan asked if the second family unit, tree house and storage facility require a certificate of occupancy before utilized, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Chairman Buchanan suggested they say that no certificate of occupancy can be issued until the Record of Survey and lot line adjustment are completed. Commissioner Wright had no problem with this conceptually, but he wanted to see that they didn't get into the same situation as with the Terrace Retirement Hotel. The Planning Director stated that with regard to the Terrace Retirement Hotel, the other owner foreclosed before they submitted the lot line adjustment. Chairman Buchanan stated that in the Terrace Retirement Hotel situation, they were allowed to complete the project and occupy it before the lot line adjustment was done, and then they lost the ability to achieve the lot line adjustment. Chairman Buchanan stated if they used the resolution as a starting point, even though it refers to the Site and Architectural items, they can adopt it for the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Director stated that she can remove all of the references to Site and Architectural items from the resolution and draft another resolution like this one for the Site and Architectural Review of the storage structure. Chairman Buchanan said they do not need two or three different resolutions. The Planning Director said that a resolution is not needed anyway for Site and Architectural items, and that a list of approved conditions would be more appropriate. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as Condition 13 that the recordation of the Record of Survey and the completion and recordation of 10 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-163 MOTION PCM-91-164 CUP-91-04 a lot line adjustment providing for adequate setbacks along the west property line be completed before any certificate of occupancy is issued with respect to the project. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. Chairman Buchanan discussed making a motion to add as Condition 14 that satisfaction of all conditions must be achieved or the Conditional Use Permit shall expire within six months of approval. The Planning Director stated that she does not know how long the County will take, so she would like to connect it in some way to the recordation of the Record of Survey. Chairman Buchanan asked who controls the recording date. Mr. Goodman stated that the County Surveyor controls the recording. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as Condition 14 that all conditions of approval must be satisfied or the Conditional Use Permit expires within 60 days after recordation of the Record of Survey. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if there would exist an unforeseen right to ask for an extension of the Conditional Use Permit per that motion, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Wright stated that they are projecting that the County will probably not record the Record of Survey for five months. He asked what would happen if the County happened to record it within one month. The Planning Director stated that as she understands, this motion is only for the Conditional Use Permit conditions. Chairman Buchanan stated that the Conditional Use Permit conditions incorporate all of the recommendations, so the question would be if the conditions require completion of the improvements or only the preliminary steps. The Planning Director stated she was thinking of the five conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, all that relate to the house. Chairman Buchanan clarified that she was talking about the July 25 City Engineer's memorandum. He amended his motion to require that the five conditions in the July 25, 1991 memorandum from the City Engineer be satisfied within 60 days of the Record of Survey or the Conditional Use Permit expires. Vice -Chairman Hargrave suggesting adding to the motion: or for a period of six months, whichever is longer, to incorporate Commission Wright's concern. Chairman Buchanan said that these five items are minimal items, so the six month period is not necessary. Vice -Chairman Hargrave concurred. MOTION VOTE PCM-91-164 Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. The Planning Director suggested removing everything regarding the Site and Architectural items from the Conditional Use Permit resolution if the Commission desires to do so. Chairman Buchanan stated that he was comfortable with the resolution the way it reads now with respect to the Conditional Use Permit, whereas when they get to the Site and Architectural work, they may want to not only incorporate these conditions, but perhaps conditions related to other architectural issues. He said that in the heading, he suggested that SA-91-15 and SA-91-01 be deleted and in the first condition of approval, stated that the "proposed project" shall be constructed in accordance with Site and Architectural designs and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board, and delete the reference to SA-91-15 and SA-91-01 after "Now, therefore...". MOTION PCM-91-165 CUP-91-04 C 12 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-165 Chairman Buchanan made a motion, based on the aforementioned changes, that the resolution attached as Attachment 1 be adopted with the additional conditions already voted on and the changes just discussed. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Commissioner Wright asked if they should strike the Site and Architectural language in Condition 5. Chairman Buchanan stated he would leave this, as it is simply the incorporation of the City Engineer's comments. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOUICNED AT 8:23 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:23 P.M. ITEM #3 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 stated that on the meeting agenda, the two items were mixed up, as SA-91-01 and SA-91-15 were reversed. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if there were any proposed changes or additions for the second family residence other than the staining, to which the Planning Director responded in the negative. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if they leave this without the condition for staining, wouldn't it be assumed that normal upkeep is part of the code provision anyway. The Planning Director said they usually have a standard condition to have the project maintained. She said the staining condition could be eliminated. 0 13 Commissioner Wright said that in the past they have included language 01 regarding screening of any exterior mechanical equipment. The Planning Director stated that she considered this, but the house is so far back that it can not be seen from the street. 8:31 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-91-166 SA-91-15 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-166 MOTION PCM-91-167 SA-91-IS MOTION VOTE PCM-91-167 Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion that any exterior mechanical equipment be screened from the street. Chairman Buchanan second. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to approve SA-91-15 subject to the conditions required for the Conditional Use Permit and the condition that was added. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. ITEM #4 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 Cr 14 The Planning Director presented the staff report. Chairman Buchanan asked if they need to specifically say that the use is restricted to a storage shed. The Planning Director stated that it would be a good idea to include that it can not be used for the research institute, as the institute is a non -conforming use and it can not be expanded. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if there were any landscaping requirements. The Planning Director stated that she did not include any requirements, as she felt they were exceeding the City's landscaping requirements already. She said that the only requirement is the pathway to connect all the structures. 8:40 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board. MOTION PCM-91-168 SA-91-01 Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as a condition to SA-91-01 that the storage unit be restricted to storage uses related to the residence and may not be used for any other uses or any uses in conjunction with the research institute. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. MOTION VOTE PCM-91-168 MOTION PCM-91-169 SA-91-01 Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. Chairman Buchanan made a motion to add as a condition that any exterior mechanical equipment be screened from view. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. C 15 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-169 MOTION PCM-91-170 SA-91-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-170 Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. Chairman Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-91-01 subject to the two conditions added and all the conditions applicable to CUP-91-04. Vice - Chairman Hargrave second. Commissioner Wright said that the Fire Warden prepared two reports, Part 1 and 2 of Attachment 3. He said they may want to specifically say that they are incorporating both. Chairman Hargrave felt that the incorporation of the Conditional Use Permit conditions, which requires all recommendations listed in the Forestry and Fire Warden's Department memorandum dated November 14 as Attachment 3 would include both Parts 1 and 2. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Hawkinson and Sims absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD DECEMBER 5, 1991. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Planning Director 11-26-91:ma EG Approved by, Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission