Loading...
04/02/1992GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2, 1992 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 April 2, 1992 at 7:11 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman Ron Wright, Commissioner PLEDGE: Ray Munson, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:42 P.M. The Planning Director said she could present the basics of the Sunrooms proposal or the commissioners could take it home and study it. She said she preferred to present it at this time, and she would take it to the next meeting for formal adoption. She said currently, patio covers and enclosures are accessory structures and are allowed to be 5' from the setback. She said building regulations say they need to follow Chapter 49. She stated that they are temporary structures, do not have any weight, don't need footings, they can be all plastic and don't need to follow Title 24. She said she is introducing the sunroom policy and a slightly different setback policy for patio enclosures. She said currently, someone could come into the department and propose a room addition that has two windows on one side or the other and two skylights and say that they want to build it as a sunroom, 5' from the property line. She said this is not really appropriate, as there is a lot of bulk, and this is why they are creating descriptions and definitions for a sunroom that wouldn't allow this to happen. She feels the more bulk, the more setback the structure should have. She said patio enclosures have bulk and should be at a 10' setback from the property line. She said she has two definitions for sunrooms: one would be just like a patio enclosure, but the other would be for those who are willing to spend more money, like a "California Sunroom". She said this second one can be a habitable room and would follow all the requirement as if it was a room addition. She said it wouldn't be appropriate to punish these people and make them have 20' from the property line as a room addition as the sunrooms don't have any bulk, so she would like to allow them to have the same setback as an accessory structure. She said 80% of their exterior walls are open and clear, and 50% of the ceiling is clear, so they shouldn't have any bulk. She said the only alteration to the Code would be to bring in a new definition for sunrooms, as there is no alteration to the Building Code. Chairman Buchanan asked if the Planning Director was talking about rear yard setbacks, to which she responded in the affirmative. The Planning Director said accessory structures must have 10' from every side. She said the rear set back is 5'. Commissioner Sims asked if the setbacks would be from property line or top of slope. The Planning Director said this would be from the rear property line. She said if the setbacks in R1-20 and R1-10 function to the toe of the slope, it would be the same thing. Commissioner Sims felt the setbacks should be better clarified. He asked for clarification on the difference between patio enclosures and sunrooms. The Planning Director read the description of the Type 2 Sunroom, which is a habitable room. She said 80% of all exterior walls and 50% of the ceiling would need to be clear. She then read the description of the Type 1 Sunroom, which is not a habitable room. She said both patio enclosures and sunrooms both need 10' from the property line and follow Chapter 49 of the Uniform Building Code. Chairman Buchanan said the source of concern is drawing the distinction between the habitable sunroom and the non -habitable sunroom, and giving the people that want to build a habitable sunroom somewhat of a break instead of treating it like a bulky room addition. He felt it was a good idea to clarify what probably already is the rule that an open patio cover can be within 5', but an enclosed patio is supposed to be 10'. �' 2 The Planning Director said one problem is with people who have a patio 5' from the property line and want to enclose it. She said she was thinking of proposing that the patios that are built to this date can be enclosed, but from this date on, any patio built from today on could not be enclosed unless it is 10' from the property line. She said if they apply this rule only for patios built from now on, they may be giving a break to those people who already have a patio 5' from the property line. Commissioner Munson said the only problem he would have is with people who are trying to grandfather in a patio. He said if they have a permit, he would have no problem, however if the patio was built without a permit, he would have a problem. The Planning Director and Chairman Buchanan agreed this was a good point. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if 5' would allow emergency services to come through. He said he would be in favor of 10' for patio covers from the side property line. The Planning Director said she sees open patio covers as shade structures and would like to encourage shade structures, so she didn't consider these a bulk item. She said if they want to change the open patio cover setback, she would need to deal with the residential section of the code, and this has not been noticed. Chairman Buchanan asked for a consensus. All commissioners agreed. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:11 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:11 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Commissioner Van Gelder mentioned that at the Towne & Country Center on the west side of Gina's, there are several dead trees and shrubs. Commissioner Munson asked, for those commissioners who may wish to continue on the Planning Commission, how should they let this be known. The Planning Director said there is nothing in the code to restrict them from being renominated another term. She said three members' terms will be O 3 completed on June 14. Commissioner Hawkinson said it is best to let it be known by the end of April if a commissioner wishes to renew their appointment. Chairman Buchanan said the three commissioners whose terms are up in June are Commissioners Munson, Hawkinson and himself. He suggested whoever would like to be reappointed let the Planning Director know so she can pass it along to the City Council. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1992 MOTION PCM-92-24 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1992 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-24 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve the March 19, 1992 minutes. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioner Wright absent. ITEM #2 Z-92-02; E-92-04 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY WIDE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW: 1. INCREASED REVIEW AT STAFF LEVEL RATHER THAN THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING OF A LARGE PORTION OF SMALL PROJECTS SUCH AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, PATIO COVERS, OVERHEAD DECKS AND ROOM ADDITIONS; 2. CLARIFICATION OF LANGUAGE OF DIFFERENT CODE SECTIONS, I.E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DEFINITION, MINOR DEVIATIONS; AND 3. ADDITION OF A DEFINITION FOR "SUNROOMS" AND "TEMPORARY USE PERMITS"; ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF Z-92-04. The Planning Director presented the staff report. O 4 Commissioner Van Gelder asked with regard to the Temporary Conditional Use Permit, what process staff uses to follow up. The Planning Director said before, all Conditional Use Permits were clumped together, and there was one year for all CUP'S to meet the conditions of approval. She said she is now giving, for lifetime CUP's, one year which can be extended. She stated that for the temporary ones, they would have the time that the commission gives them, then they would have to reapply. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the responsibility is on the owner or does staff followup. The Planning Director said staff follows the project up to Certificate of Occupancy, so a lot of conditions are met before they get the permit, and there is another set of conditions before they get the Certificate of Occupancy. She said if there are problems with the conditions after operation, staff is made aware through complaints. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if staff does not automatically check on them at the end of the period. The Planning Director said they do not. She said if they met the conditions to get the Certificate of Occupancy, usually they finish almost 80% of them, and then they just need hours of operation or noise, which depends on citizens calling and making complaints. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there is a charge for a new Conditional Use Permit, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Van Gelder said perhaps staff should keep on top of this for revenue purposes. The Planning Director said that they want to set a time for when a use should be stopped, and she would prefer that, instead of getting an extension, the applicant would come back to the commission. Chairman Buchanan said he thinks the question is if staff has a calendar that shows a particular Conditional Use Permit expires on a certain date. The Planning Director said they do have a tickler file and staff includes these items now. Commissioner Sims asked, with regard to the Temporary Conditional Use Permit, why they are opening this door. He was concerned this would create 0 5 a problem, as once they get in it is hard to get them out without legal action. The Planning Director said this portion was there before, as the Planning Commission always has the right to put an expiration date on a project, and this date is usually attached to the land, not to the property owner. Commissioner Sims asked if applicants would come in and apply for a Temporary Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Director said she doesn't want to change any submissions, which she clarifies under Expiration and Extension. She said the application is the same and the time to expire will be one of the commission's conditions. She said if the commission decides it will be a lifetime CUP, no date is set for expiration. Chairman Buchanan said, as it is, there is an ambiguity created. He said that an example is Terbest's public assembly room. He stated that the applicant was given one year, but he could have looked at the code and found he had one year, plus a one-year extension right to satisfy all of his conditions, so how can it expire before he even has to comply with the conditions. He stated that the proposed amendment says that if the commission doesn't put an expiration date on the CUP, then the applicant has one year to comply with all the requirements and an extension can be applied for if it is not done in time. He said if the commission does put an expiration date on the CUP, then it expires when it says it expires, and none of this language about extensions applies. Commissioner Sims said he has trouble with calling it a "Temporary Conditional Use Permit". Chairman Buchanan suggested "Conditional Use Permit with expiration date". The Planning Director accepted this. Commissioner Hawkinson asked why they don't have expiration dates on all Conditional Use Permits. The Planning Director said the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is not really "not" to allow something but to allow something if it meets certain circumstances. She said certain uses may be good for a certain area, and it depends on the area being applied for. Commissioner Hawkinson said he still doesn't see why all CUP's don't have expiration dates, whether 1 year or 5 year, so that they always have a chance �, 6 to review projects. The Planning Director said Section 18.83.032 allows the Planning Commission to periodically review, modify or revoke a Conditional Use Permit, so they have the authority to check on a CUP anytime they feel necessary. Commissioner Sims asked if he can recommend a hearing, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. The Planning Director said if a use meets all of the conditions of approval, it is just like a permitted use, as the word "condition" means if the applicant meets the conditions, the use is permitted. Chairman Buchanan said that in some cases, there is some economic rationale, for example, a church is always a Conditional Use Permit, and if he were to go out and build a church, he would like to know that it would be there for a substantial amount of time. Commissioner Hawkinson agreed, stating that this may cause lenders to not want to make a loan. The Planning Director said she tried to find something in the State Law and didn't find any backup. Commissioner Hawkinson said he is looking at the other extreme, for example, the remote control race track. The Planning Director said she wouldn't have the authority to renew this CUP, and he would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Buchanan said, if these changes were adopted, the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to require a public hearing to determine whether or not the applicant is in compliance with the conditions that were imposed, and if not, could revoke the CUP and shut them down. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if any consideration has been given to some sort of an emergency measure where a project could be shut down right away, to which the Planning Director responded in the negative. The Planning Director said she thinks the City Manager has the right to revoke a CUP right away through code enforcement if the applicant is not following the conditions of approval. She said the City Manager is currently studying the Advocate School very carefully as there are apparently children there that the conditions do not allow. She continued to present the staff 7 C report with regard to Minor Deviations. Chairman Buchanan suggested continuing the Sunroom addition, Item 3, at this point. MOTION PCM-92-25 Z-92-02 (ITEM 3) MOTION VOTE PCM-92-25 Commissioner Hawkinson made a motion to continue Item 3 of Z-92-02 to the April 16, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioner Wright absent. Chairman Buchanan said, with regard to Section 1, Staff Level Review, he is not opposed to the Planning Director having the ability to review satellite dish antennas on a staff level without bringing it to the Site and Architectural Review Board, provided they can be screened from the street. He felt staff should go one step further and also provide that there be notification to neighbors since so much of this City is terraced. Commissioner Munson asked if this wasn't why satellite dishes were to be moved from B to C. Chairman Buchanan said this is part of the reason, however, if this is done, then the satellite dish antenna, according to C, will have to go to the Water Company and Sheriffs Department, etc. He said that guidelines for overhead decks require notification of property owners, and he asked if there was a way to just leave it in Category B. The Planning Director said this is fine. Chairman Buchanan suggested that the notification that goes out not only describes the project, but on an attached sheet is an 8 1/2" X 11" copy of the site plan showing the location of the satellite dish. He said the neighbor can then contact the Planning Director if there is a problem, which will be taken into consideration when making the final decision, which can be appealed within ten days. In this case, the Planning Commission would have the 8 opportunity to review it. Commissioner Sims asked if there are design standards for locations of satellite dishes, to which the Planning Director responded in the negative. Commissioner Sims suggested coming up with some design guidelines, as with overhead decks. The Planning Director said the standards include the same height standards and setbacks as the district. She said with regard to screening, they need to be completely hidden from the street, and the screening needs to be integrated with the house. MOTION PCM-92-26 Z-92-02 Chairman Buchanan made a motion that Section 18.63.020(B-3) be amended to add a second sentence, stating that "notice including location map or site plan shall be mailed to adjacent property owners requesting comments at least two weeks in advance of the Planning Director's decision". Commissioner Sims second. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-26 Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioner Wright absent. MOTION PCM-92-27 Z-92-02 Chairman Buchanan made a motion to amend Section 18.83.090(B) to read, "Conditional Use Permits with expiration date" and change "temporary basis" to say "may allow it with a specified expiration date". Commissioner Sims second. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-27 Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioner Wright absent. Commissioner Sims said there is a typographical error under Minor Deviations where it is being change from 20% to 15%, the wording "twenty" needs to be changed to "fifteen". Chairman Buchanan said in 18.89.060, Appeal Process, it is stated that the decision of the Planning Director shall be finalled unless appealed to the City Council and then goes on to describe an appeal to the Planning Commission with a further appeal right from the Planning Commission to the City Council. The Planning Director said the first "City Council' is incorrect and should be "Planning Commission". She said in the Conditional Use Permit code, it says Site and Architecturals are valid for one year, so there was a wording error. MOTION PCM-92-28 Z-92-02, E-92-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-28 Commissioner Sims made a motion to adopt the proposed ordinance and approve Z-92-02 and E-92-04. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Vice -Chairman Hargrave and Commissioner Wright absent. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:03 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON APRIL 16, 1992. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, Patrizia Materassi Dan Buchanan Planning Director Chairman, Planning Commission 04-10-92:ma 10