Loading...
05/07/1992GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 7, 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 May 7, 1992 at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman 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: None. PLEDGE: Ron Wright, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:40 P.M. The Planning Director said that Jerry Hawkinson resigned as he will be moving out of state. She stated that he asked that she mention how much he enjoyed working with the Planning Commission. She said she thought they should give him a plaque and a proclamation, so she is preparing these two things, and perhaps at the next meeting they can call him, as he will need to sign a Statement of Interests. She said staff can send him a packet and ask him to come to the meeting. The Planning Director said she has letters for Chairman Buchanan and Commissioner Munson to sign if they would like to be reappointed. She said, with regard to Commissioner Hawkinson's position, they have already started the process to call for applications, and City Council will review them and make the decision. The Planning Director said she included her activity report in the packet. She said this was done for the budget, and although there were significant cuts, all positions have been kept, but they lost a lot of supplies, travel and computer networking. She said this reveals that building permits and site and architectural reviews are much lower, but there is a lot of other areas increasing, such as code enforcement, environmental reviews and regional planning meetings. She said unfortunately, they don't have any revenue from those areas. She said they did get three applications this week. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about the phone and counter inquiries. She said the counter inquiries equal out to 7.4 per day, which is not an inordinate number, but the phone inquiries tamed out to be 6.5 per hour. She asked if these were phone calls that come in to the secretary, who either answers the question, takes a message or transfers the call. The Planning Director said this includes everything: all code enforcement calls she responds to, all zoning question, whether the secretary answers them directly or transfers. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Planning Director and Associate Planner have the capability of being on the same phone line at the same time. The Planning Director said they have single lines, and they have never done a conference call. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they can both use the phone at the same time talking to different people, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Van Gelder felt this was an incredible number of phone calls. She mentioned the analysis of noise study and potential impacts on the elementary school at Barton Road. The Planning Director said she has begun attending the I-215 meetings, and they are starting to do a noise study to see how much each one of the alternatives would affect all the adjacent properties, and one of the members of the committee said he would send her a noise study. She said what she received was not a noise study, and she called back to find out they are starting the noise study right now, so what they had sent was just graphics and diagrams of different schedules. She said she will receive maps showing exactly how much each alternative takes. She said her husband use to be the project manager for this project, and he knows a lot of people there, so she met with people that are really into the project and thinks she will get some good information maybe in a month or so. 2 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the wall project at the school is moving forward. The Planning Director said it took almost two months for the school district to tell them if they needed to go to the Office of State Architecture for the wall. She said she received the letter yesterday, and they do not need to go. She stated that the working drawings and the Cal Trans application is proceeding. Commissioner Wright said, with regard to Cal Trans planning, he attended one of their meetings some time back, and as a member of the public suggested that, in addition to modeling for the noise, that they model for on - site air pollution, and they said they were going to use their data from their fixed monitoring sites, which are nowhere near the school. He said he suggested that, in order to model at that site, maybe they should come out and actually take some samples at the site, so that in their environmental impact report, they could have some data by which to project what their impact on the site was going to be, and particularly high -volume air sampling. He felt it was poor for them to say they were going to use their fixed monitoring sites. The Planning Director said she would let the commission know as soon as she gets a copy of the report, but they are just starting to write it. She said it seems to her nothing will happen until the year 2,000, and apparently they only have the money from Measure IA to cover the first alternative. She said it seems they are thinking to have a portion of the freeway, from the 60 to the 10, to have Alternative Measure IA only, which is an HOV lane. She said the intersection with the 215, 60 and 91 would reach almost the ultimate scale, and the portion from that intersection to Moreno Valley will probably be the intermediate alternative, which includes a truck lane besides the HOV lane. She said even if Measure IA is approved and everything is okay, this will be the extent of the impact on the school district without any taking. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked what "HOV" stands for. The Planning Director said this represents a car pool lane, or "High Occupancy Vehicle" lane. Commissioner Wright said the fence came down at the gas station on Barton and Mt. Vernon. The Planning Director said they have another gas station in line, which will be a no -brand gas station. She said this is the same family that runs the Arco Station close to the freeway, and they have three or four stations in this 3 region. She said they know very well there is no room for convenience stores, and they are going to repaint the station. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they have to accept this. The Planning Director said they do, because they are within the time frame for the use. She said, on the other hand, he said he received several proposals for gas stations and nothing else. She said she was dealing with Bruce Cash for a Taco Bell, but it never materialized. She said perhaps the traffic counts were not sufficient, but she didn't really know the reason. She said Mr. Nolan said he received five or six proposals, all for gas stations, and if he didn't accept the gas station, he may not have anybody there for a long time. She said he is proceeding with the clean-up efforts himself, as UnoCal would take two to three years to do it. Commissioner Wright asked if they would have to re -tank it. The Planning Director said not yet. She said all gas stations have a deadline of 1998 to meet regulations on contamination sites, but he still needs to check, and he is going to bore underneath the tanks and check for contamination, and if he does, before 1998, he will need to remove the tanks. Commissioner Wright said the convenience store on the corner is cleaned up, but the one at Canal seems to be overdoing it in their windows. The Planning Director said they have talked to them, but apparently they are not responding as quickly. She said she didn't want to send anything official until they have the sign permit issue through. Commissioner Van Gelder said they may need time to get their business going. Commissioner Wright said the building at Palm and Barton has a "For Rent" sign, and asked if they would get their improvements. The Associate Planner said she spoke with the real estate agent today, and the original owner had tried to work out some combination with the land next to them, as that piece is so restrictive, but it didn't work out. She said the owner has some hardships as he has a first and a second on the property. The Planning Director said apparently the owner doesn't work with his tenants very well, as staff received complaints from previous tenants that the owner wouldn't make repairs or maintain the place. 2 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Chamber of Commerce has an Economic Development Committee to work toward the goal of having some of these empty buildings filled. The Planning Director said right now, they are inactive, but when they were active, she thinks they were trying to define their role, which wasn't really clear. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:03 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Commissioner Van Gelder complimented the Child Care Services brochure, but questioned that the fact that it is "non-profit" is not indicated on the brochure. Commissioner Munson said the remote control race track is doing some work, and he asked if the tenant had come in for a permit. The Planning Director said nobody has come in for a permit. The Associate Planner said that the tenant had come in some time ago about looking into the adjacent parcel. She asked if this was where the work was being done. Commissioner Munson said he is building an additional, smaller stand. Commissioner Wright said on Cardinal, if you are standing in the park in the middle of the soccer field looking south, there appears to be a rather large deck that went on the back of a house. The Planning Director said they received an opinion from the City Attorney on building without permits, and they had a meeting with Engineering. She said they are trying to share the responsibilities and see how the follow-up process can continue. Chairman Buchanan said at one time they discussed trying to implement some program where, if people build without a permit and are caught, they must either apply for an as -built permit or take it down and adjusting the fees to operate as a deterrent. The Planning Director said for the building permit portion, fees are doubled. 5 Vice -Chairman Hargrave said in some cities, there are instances in code enforcement where the planning commissioners can be code enforcement officers also. The Planning Director said the Assistant City Manager has a badge and can issue citations. She said she has a badge but can not issue citations. She said the commissioners would need to have almost a week of training to be able to issue citations, and she was thinking she could do this, but the time she has to issue citations is very little. Chairman Buchanan said the biggest stumbling block may be the fact that they are the adjudicating body on code enforcement issues. Commissioner Munson said they have the Citizen's Patrol. The Planning Director said they can not issue citations. She said right now, they have more complaints than staff can possibly handle, so to have more complaints will not resolve the problem. She said what would resolve it is if one of them would have the time to go out. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said maybe they should be working on reviewing how the process works and why it is taking so long. The Planning Director said it is strictly lack of staff. She said she requested a part-time intern for this, but it was not granted. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about CUP-92-01, the residential care facility. She asked where this was located. The Planning Director said this is the pink house on Mt. Vernon, south of Barton Road. She said she visited the site and there are six ladies there, the house is very clean and all ladies have jobs but one, who is on welfare, as she just had a baby. She said they are sharing the house until they get on their own and are rehabilitated from alcoholism. Commissioner Wright said, with regard to code enforcement, in the building permit phase, what they are concerned about is if construction should start on the site, a stop order should be given fairly quickly so that not a whole lot gets done. He wondered if the Engineering Department could be empowered to issue stop orders. The Planning Director said they already do, but they are trying to coordinate the Building Official and the Code Enforcement Officer, who issues the citations. T ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1992 MOTION PCM-92-33 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1992 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-33 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the April 16, 1992 minutes. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. ITEM #2 Z-92-02 (ITEM 3) CITY OF GRAND TERRACE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY WIDE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ADDITION OF A DEFINITION FOR "SUNROOMS" AND RELATED PATIO ENCLOSURE SETBACK POLICY The Planning Director presented the staff report. She added to the Ordinance that the setback be 10' "from toe of slope". Commissioner Sims suggested it be from the top of slope. The Planning Director asked if he proposed they change this to say, "Accessory structures are allowed up to 10' from top or toe of slope". Commissioner Sims said she is referring to slopes exceeding 5%, which is a relatively flat slope. The Planning Director said the code states this, and the only addition she made was for the accessory structure setback. Commissioner Sims said a lot of the slopes in Grand Terrace are 2:1, and the concern is they get structures very close together. The Planning Director said as time goes on, they will need to address the hillside area. 7 Chairman Buchanan said the Code is defined and has always been interpreted to measure setback requirements not from the actually property line but from the toe of slope. He said the reason they have the two versions is because a year of so ago, in connection with the Petta and Churchwell projects, they amended the setback requirements for the R1-10 and R1-20 Districts to provide a minimum 20' setback from the toe with a 35' setback overall, and what she is doing here is trying to cover both of these situations. He said the setback requirement for the accessory structures wouldn't need to be changed at all, except that she is saying since they have this one "glitch" in the R1-10 and R1-20 Zones, they have to do some with the language of this to accommodate that. The Planning Director agreed. She said she included it here in the policy, but after she spoke with the City Attorney, he said everything in the policy that is not in the Ordinance and Code can not really be enforced. She said she feels Section 18.10.040 should include this wording. Chairman Buchanan said this is backwards from what she is really doing, because as the Code currently defines the setback analysis, it would be from the top or toe of slope. He said what he thinks she is really saying is that accessory structures NOT part of the building envelope can be measured from the actual property line and not the property line as the Code deals with it. The Planning Director said, if you read the Code, it doesn't specify if the 10' setback for accessory structures is property line or toe of slope, so right now, it's open for interpretation. Chairman Buchanan asked if the Code says elsewhere where the setbacks are measured from. The Planning Director said just for the residential setbacks, and it doesn't include accessory structures. Chairman Buchanan said it was his impression that the Code separately instructed them how to measure setbacks, and it said when measuring setbacks in a residential zone, you don't measure from the actual property line; you measure from the toe of slope. The Planning Director read the definition, which stated, "Rear yard setback line or side yard setback line means the line which defines the width or depth of the required rear or side yards. Said setback line is parallel with the property line, removed there from by the perpendicular distance prescribed for the yard in the zone. The side yard on the street side of a comer lot shall be measured from the planned street right-of-way, the same as for the front yard". She said it doesn't really specify. She said there is a footnote to the Residential Districts that talks about the toe of slope. Chairman Buchanan said if she is suggesting that they now add an amendment to this Zoning Ordinance that deals with modifying the setback requirements for accessory structures as they are measured from slopes, he doesn't feel prepared to consider this, as he is not sure what it is they are actually changing. The Planning Director said under "Residential District Standards", which says, "the following exceptions apply to front, rear and side yard requirements as noted. The minimum side and rear yard setbacks for a patio cover shall be 5'. The minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure shall be 10'. Slopes exceeding 5% shall be permitted no closer to a residential structure than a distance equal to the required side and rear yard setbacks. In the R-10 and R-20 Districts, the 35' rear yard setback may include 15' of slope that is greater than 5W. Chairman Buchanan verified that it does say "residential structures" as opposed to "accessory structures". The Planning Director agreed, stating that the only portion in the Code that gives setbacks for accessory structures is the one she just read, and the other notes mention different setbacks, but there is nothing that really involves accessory structures. Chairman Buchanan said one year ago, if someone had come in and said they wanted to build an accessory structure, and the back yard has a slope coming from the property line down into the property, and the accessory structure was going to be built at and onto that slope, would the City have said as long as it is 10' from the rear yard property line, this is okay? The Planning Director agreed. She said on the issue of the part of the building envelope, it is because a doll house or a storage facility should continue having the same setback. Chairman Buchanan said that part of the confusion is that a room addition is not an accessory structure, and a Type 2 Sunroom is an accessory structure even though it is a residential structure. The Planning Director said it is part of the building envelope, so it should follow the same setback as the residence. Chairman Buchanan asked if the Code defines a building envelope. 7 The Planning Director said it defines rooms, but it doesn't define a building envelope. She said rooms are also defined in the Uniform Building Code. Chairman Buchanan said he seems to recall being told that his patio cover couldn't be within 5' of the bottom of the slope in his back yard. The Planning Director said there are some building regulations sometimes in terms of eaves in relation to the property lines and if there are buildings adjacent to it, but in terms of their policies, unless they have been inconsistent, it is 10' from the property line. Chairman Buchanan said if they were to do the amendment that staff is proposing, and they consider patio covers as part of the building envelope, his patio cover would no longer be in compliance. The Planning Director said she thinks he is right, and "part of the building envelope" is perhaps not the right wording. She said if they are asking only for patio enclosures and sunrooms to be 10' from the toe of slope, they need to say that. Chairman Buchanan said as presently written, the Code would allow somebody to build an enclosed patio up to 10' from their property line, even if they cut into a slope. The Planning Director agreed, stating that if they had a case like this, they would suggest the person not do this. Commissioner Wright asked, as far as an actual room addition, if staff requires a 15' setback from the rear yard. The Planning Director said they require 20'. Commissioner Wright said there is a provision that this be from the toe or top of the slope. He said under a Type 2 Sunroom, so they encourage this sort of thing, she is recommending that they consider this an accessory structure and allow them up to 10' from the top and toe of slope. He said the example of a doll house is a little different. He didn't think they would want an accessory structure attached to the house to go into the slope. He said if the slope is modified with a retaining wall, what is the toe of the slope now? Commissioner Sims he had a slope in his side yard, and he was adding a room addition, and he only had a 5' separation between the building and toe of slope, and he was told he had to have 10'. He said he built a retaining wall to get 10' from the retaining wall base to his building. 10 The Planning Director said if she interprets the Code herself, she wouldn't allow that, but apparently that has been done. She suggested adding, "For patio enclosures and sunrooms, the setback will be 10' from the top and toe of slope". Commissioner Sims recommended checking the Uniform Building Code. The Planning Director mentioned that the Code doesn't say anything about top of slope, only toe. Chairman Buchanan said this portion doesn't say toe either, but says slopes exceeding 5 % shall be permitted no closer to a residential structure than a distance equal to the required side and rear yard setbacks. The Planning Director said this is why she did the illustration so they could see how they interpreted this policy. Chairman Buchanan said to keep the language consistent, it would probably be a good idea to say the minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure shall be 10', and in the case of sunrooms or patio enclosures, slopes exceeding 5% shall not be included within that setback. He said the only accessory structures that will not permit measurement of a slope will be patio enclosures and sunrooms. Commissioner Sims said he noticed that in the actual Ordinance changes under Type 2 Sunrooms, 18.06.906, the criteria will be 80% of all exterior walls and 80% of ceiling shall be clear, but in the handout, it states 50% of ceiling. The Planning Director said it should be 50% of ceiling. She said she needs to add in the Ordinance the definition for accessory structures and this last discussion they just had. Chairman Buchanan said she included this as an attachment to the supplemental staff report. The Planning Director said what she was talking about was the draft Ordinance before she talked to the City Attorney, so it still needs to include some of the changes made in the staff report and the last discussion they had on setbacks and the change to the ceiling coverage. 7:00 P.M. OPENED/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director introduced the new Planning Intern, Larry Mainez, who is working on the sign inventory and is funded by AQMD. Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the commission. MOTION PCM-92-34 Z-92-02 (ITEM 3) Chairman Buchanan made a motion to amend Table 18.10.040, Footnotes, subparagraph b2, which currently reads, "the minimum rear yard setback for an accessory structure shall be 10"', to include a second sentence which states, "in the case of patio enclosures and Type 1 and Type 2 Sunrooms, the minimum rear yard setback shall not include any slope exceeding 5W. Commissioner Sims second. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-34 Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. MOTION PCM-92-35 Z-92-02 (ITEM 3) MOTION VOTE PCM-92-35 Commissioner Sims made a motion to correct verbiage in Section 18.06.906, Sunroom, under Type 2 Sunroom, Part B, to say "80% of all exterior walls and 50% of ceiling shall be clear allowing vision of the outside through the sides and the roof'. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. MOTION PCM-92-36 Z-92-02 (ITEM 3) 12 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-36 Chairman Buchanan made a motion to amend Section 18.06.020, Accessory Structure, of the proposed Ordinance to include the additional language regarding patio covers, patio enclosures and Type 1 and Type 2 Sunrooms as indicated on the supplemental staff report. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. MOTION PCM-92-37 Z-92-02 (ITEM 3) MOTION VOTE PCM-92-37 Commissioner Munson made a motion to adopt and approve Z-92-02 as amended. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. The Planning Director said they still need to approve the resolution. MOTION PCM-92-38 Z-92-02 (ITEM 3) MOTION VOTE PCM-92-38 Commissioner Sims made a motion to adopt the resolution. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:05 P.M. 13 NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JUNE 4, 1992. Respectfully submitted, I &A Patrizia Materassi Planning Director 05-29-92:ma 14 Approved by, C Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission