Loading...
07/02/1992GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 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 July 2, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Ron Wright, Commissioner PLEDGE: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner C, PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:45 P.M. The Planning Director stated that the workshop item regarding the Policy Manual for Boards, Commissions and Committees will be continued to the next meeting as she needs direction from the City Manager. She said that Item 4 of the meeting, the detached deck at 12410 Quail Lane, has been withdrawn by the applicant. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Policy Manual is applicable to the Planning Commission. The Planning Director said it is, however, it makes a lot of exceptions for the Planning Commission, as it is a special commission that does not only do advisory recommendations; they also have decision -making power. She said the manual is not known to them, so she has to ask direction on implementation and/or alteration to conform to the way they operate. Commissioner Van Gelder said it is dated April, 1988, and she had never seen it before. 1 The Planning Director said at the last meeting, there was a complaint on the increased amount of trucks going down Barton Road, and staff has transferred this to the Sheriffs Department. She said Colton and all the cities where the trucks drive through are issuing a lot of fines for these trucks, as they are going above the speed limit. She said there was a complaint on Village Foods and Wine, and the owner has been contacted and will repair the display window that has fallen down. She said the owner of Domino's Pizza has also been called and advised that he can not have the banners in the public right- of-way, and he will be coming by to see what he can do instead. She said the satellite dish antenna has not been checked at this time, but will be this next week. She stated that on the Spangler's deferment agreement for the sidewalk, she understands the Commission is concerned about being assured this will be built in two years. She said there are two things that can be done: one is the deferment agreement, and the normal agreement that the City Engineer drafts does not require bonding, as this is separate from it. She said the deferment agreement is a document that is notarized and recorded, so the person can not sell the house unless the improvements are built. She said if they just have an agreement, it is not sufficient to ensure that this sidewalk will be built within two years, so in order to be sure it will be built in two years, they would need to have a bonding mechanism, which was estimated by the City Engineer to be $2,200, however the cost to the applicant would probably not be more than 10% of this cost. She said the City Engineer supports all the deferment agreements that are based on hardship. She said in cases like this, it is difficult for the City Engineer to support staffs recommendation, as he feels there are sidewalks all around and this is the only area that there isn't one, and there is no hardship but an economic hardship. She said he still recommended to the City Council the approval of the deferment agreement with the bonding, but in reading his report, she finally understood that he would prefer for the Planning Commission to support a deferment agreement only when there is hardship, and he would let staff know if he has those concerns, and if he doesn't say anything, usually it is because he feels there aren't any impractical conditions. She said in case they just want somebody to make sure they will build the improvements, they don't need to ask for the bond, unless they want to put a time frame on it. Commissioner Sims said they are talking about a lien against the property. The Planning Director agreed, stating that it does not set a date, though. Commissioner Sims said a lien usually has a dollar value. Chairman Buchanan said it is an encumbrance, not a lien, and it doesn't prevent them from selling it, it would just be an exception to any title insurance policy. 01 2 The Planning Director said according to the City Engineer's agreement, they would need to build it or they can not sell it. Commissioner Van Gelder said the determination of an economic hardship is very subjective. The Planning Director said in this case, the Planning Commission is recommending to recognize the applicant's request, but with a bond so it is restricted to two years. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked that the Planning Department make sure the City is the beneficiary of the bond. The Planning Director said the Engineering Department does this. She said when the Planning Commission accepts and applicant's request for a deferment agreement, the bonding issue is separate; when the City Engineer processes the deferment agreement, he does not bond, as it is a completely different process. Commissioner Sims said a lot of agencies have standard bond forms which has all the proper beneficiaries attached to it. The Planning Director said she is sure the City Engineer has this. The Planning Director said, with regard to the Waste Element, she is sorry the Commissioner's questions are not answered. She said she did the environmental review on it, and when she first talked to the consultant, his opinion of the role of the Planning Commission to her was minimal. She said after reading the minutes, she realized the role of the Planning Commission is much larger than that. She said she had a meeting with the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and the consultant, and she is preparing some information to bring to them at the next workshop. She stated that the Commission needs to review project -by -project, however, not right now. She said once the document is approved, the City will need to implement several programs, and one program that is automatically approved is a program that changes their Code and set criteria for the Commission's review of projects, so by the end of December, she needs to bring to the Commission a program that shows what sections of the Code would need to be changed. She said these guidelines are not in place at this time. She said she postponed the public hearing for City Council so she has the time to get at least a conceptual approval on what the Commission will be doing. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. �' 3 X PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Commissioner Van Gelder said at the entrance to the Food Connection, there is a cement ashtray, and as far as she knows, there is no other receptacle like that in the whole center other than a trash receptacle at Little Caesar's Pizza. She said many of those businesses do not allow smoking inside their buildings, so people are throwing their cigarette butts on the ground. She requested two or three more receptacles placed throughout the development. The Planning Director said she would talk to the owner, but they can not require it. She felt the owner would accept it. Commissioner Sims expressed concern about the new video shop at the Stater Bros. center with regard to the tight parking and the large neon -lit signs. The Planning Director said they are not authorized, but the property owner contacted staff regarding the sign program. She said the owner said she is going to start being more cooperative. She said, with regard to the neon signs, there is a section in the business license that he needs to get approval for all his signs, however the business license doesn't mention "Grand Opening" types of signs. Commissioner Sims said they are not "Grand Opening" signs. The Planning Director said they are not permitted and staff will take care of it. She stated they do not have the right to intervene with regard to parking requirements, but they can give them ideas. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the customers are staying longer than 20 minutes at the facility. Commissioner Sims said he didn't time them, but he noted there was a lot of activity. Commissioner Van Gelder said at the Towne & Country center, there are certain spaces designated for 20 minute parking. The Planning Director said this was a special effort between the property owner and the City. 4 ITEM #1 PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE FOR JERRY HAWKINSON Chairman Buchanan said that Jerry devoted a great deal of time, nine years, to this particular body and to the City in general as a result of his efforts here and elsewhere. He said, speaking personally, he was privileged to serve with Jerry on this Planning Commission for almost four years and followed him as a Chairman, which was a difficult act to follow in that regard. He stated that Jerry's approach to the duties of a Planning Commissioner and a Chairman of the Planning Commission were very helpful to him in setting some goals and some ideas on how he would like to do his job. He said he has been to more than one event where people have commented on the contributions of Jerry Hawkinson to this City and to this Planning Commission and over and over again, he has heard people describe the tremendous positive attitude and approach that Jerry took to his role and contribution in the City, and this certainly mirrors his feelings. He invited comments from the other Commissioners prior to awarding a plaque on behalf of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission for nine years of dedicated service to the community with the City's seal and a tile inset. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said a body such as this is supposed to be a very diverse group with very different ideas, and it is purposely done that way in order to keep all these ideas before the public and also to hear from the public relative to what they want in this community and for the Commission to come together with all these diverse ideas to come together and reach a majority opinion. He said strangely enough, they are able to come to a majority of opinions more times than not, which says a lot either for the people sitting on the Commission or says a lot for the process. He said that Jerry was one of those unusual people who was very gentle, very persuasive in his gentle, yet still very understanding of diverse ideas and able to appreciate them even though they were contrary to his ideas, and this is a most unusual trait for any human being to have as humans by nature are very prejudicial and opinionated, and Jerry was above and beyond that. He said he sat on the Commission with Jerry for eight years and Jerry followed his Chairmanship, and he truly was a very daring and wonderful man to work with. He said he was a very special person and able to serve on the Commission as long as he did and still maintain his clear-headedness and congeniality and ability to get along with everybody with diverse ideas. Commissioner Van Gelder said she came on the Commission the same time Vice -Chairman Hargrave did, and she, too, sat with Jerry for a number of years. She said he was very soft-spoken and laid back but such an intelligent and sensitive person. She remembered he was on the organizing committee before the City was even incorporated and did ground work for the City and 5 the Planning Commission. She recalled that she was the one that nominated him for the Chairmanship and she telephoned him beforehand and asked him for his permission, and he very quietly said, "I wouldn't have a problem with that". She said she talked a great deal with him about the Lion's Club building and the Senior Citizen Center conflict at that time, and he was very understanding and open to anyone else's conversations about it. She said she truly appreciated knowing Jerry. Commissioner Sims said he didn't work with Jerry as long as some of the other Commissioners on this body. He said when he came on here, he perceived himself as being the young kid on the block, and he has learned a lot by being on this body, and as he first saw Jerry in action, he wondered what was going on. He said later on, he really grew to respect him and his abilities and stated that he was professional and he was going to miss him. Commissioner Munson said it would very difficult to add anything to what has been said. He said he was with him all the time he was here, and he does not ever remember him raising his voice or stomping his feet, and he has to admire a man who knows when to keep his mouth shut. He stated that Jerry was a beautiful person and they will miss him. Chairman Buchanan presented a plaque on behalf of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission in very deep appreciation for the service on this body contributed by Jerry Hawkinson. He stated that the plaque is a very modest token of their gratitude and best wishes. ITEM #2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 4, 1992 MOTION PCM-92-42 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 4, 1992 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-42 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the June 4, 1992 minutes. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-0. Commissioner Wright absent. on PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:17 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:17 P.M. ITEM #3 SA-92-04 LARRY J. VESELY, AIA/MARC AND ANN IVEY 23325 WESTWOOD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-20 DISTRICT The Planning Director presented the staff report. She added to the report that it seems that originally the water company built the water pipe through the property but didn't have an official signature from the property owner, but the property owner is now agreeing to sign this agreement giving the easement of the water line to the water company. She stated that Mr. Mc Means from Riverside Highland Water is here to clarify any concerns. She said that the front setbacks for this house should be 25', the total rear setback for this zoning is 35', however 15' can be in the slope and 20' should be flat, and she didn't see 20' flat but only 16'. She said the side yard should 5' on the side of the garage and 10' on the other. She said she didn't know which side the Associate Planner was considering to be the frontage of the project, as they have several definitions. She proposed they condition the project, because if this ends up being the only problem, she thinks the applicant will be able to cut a little bit off the hillside and extend the retaining wall so he will have the flat required setbacks. She said if the applicant is unable to do this, he will need to reduce the size of the house. She stated that she would like to add this to the conditions of approval. Chairman Buchanan said this is a beautiful design for a house and a fascinating lot, and he is not convinced that there is anything inappropriate about the way it has been designed or cut into the hillside or placed on the pad. He said he has no dispute with the City Engineer's suggestion that it doesn't make a lot of sense to require the street improvements, curb and gutter, sidewalk and ornamental street lights in that location. He said that it had always been his understanding that on Site and Architectural Review, items required by Municipal Code could not be waived or deleted by the Site and Architectural Review Board, and that the two options available were a variance from those requirements under appropriate circumstances or action by the City Council. He said the discussion from the hearing in 1988 centered around the applicant's desire to not fence the property, and they had discussed changing that requirement, but it was a Code requirement and 0 7 didn't have the ability to say they didn't have to put up the fence. He said the project was approved with the condition for the fence together with the transmittal of the Site and Architectural Review Board's recommendation to the City Council that this item be deleted. He said the questions that come to his mind are the setback requirements, since he understands that in the R1- 20 District, they have some latitude of measuring setbacks with the inclusion of slope, but generally they are measured from the toe or top of slope. He said the garage actually cuts into the slope, and he didn't see the necessary setbacks there, not to say that he thinks the setbacks are necessary in this particular setup, but he is not sure they have the ability to ignore this. He stated he is not sure the City Engineer can recommend that they ignore improvements required by Ordinance, and he is not sure they can simply delete those as conditions of approval where they are required by Ordinance. The Planning Director said with regard to deleting Items 8, 9, 10 and 11, the reason she is recommending this is because the City Engineer's conditions state that these items should not be a requirement for this development. She said the City Engineer explained to her that the Code requires the building of the sidewalk and all the improvements, however this is an exception - when things are not practical. She understood that he has the power to make an exception if not practical, but if it is practical, they need to do a deferment agreement. Chairman Buchanan said it would be helpful to know if there is an ability under the Code to ignore certain requirements which would otherwise be required by Code. He didn't feel there should be sidewalks and street lighting put in up there, but based on other projects, it was his understanding that there are some things they don't have the power to say they don't have to do in the absence of a formal variance. The Planning Director suggested adding a condition of approval requiring a deferment agreement if necessary to eliminate Items 8 to 11, and then the City Engineer has the power to develop the deferment agreement if he needs it or not to do it. Commissioner Sims asked if this would involve a bond. The Planning Director said no, as they would not be establishing a time frame. She said they could make a condition stating they accept the project subject to the comments of the City Engineer recommending a deferment agreement for those items if necessary. Chairman Buchanan felt they may be better off taking a look at the Municipal Code Section because it may be that in order to make the appropriate finding of impracticality, that they or the City Council need to make particular evidentiary findings, and if this is necessary, he would rather do this tonight so the applicant knows what the project will involve. He asked if there may be a copy of the conditions of approval from the 1988 meeting as well as a current materials board. The Planning Director stated that the secretary would check on this information. She said with regard to the setbacks, her proposal is that they need to be met, so they would need to do a variance if they do not accept the conditions or they could set a condition that the applicant needs to extend the flat portion of the lot and extend retaining wall or they could decrease the square footage of the house. Chairman Buchanan said perhaps the same section that gives them the power to find curbs, gutters and street lights impractical to construct is applicable to setbacks. The Planning Director said she didn't think so, as that is a public works issue, and the setbacks are strictly in the Zoning Code, Chapter 18. Commissioner Sims said the purpose of the setback is to provide sufficient space around the home so that certain things can be done in emergency situations, i.e. fire, which is a valid concern. The Planning Director said the Fire Department has required a turn -around radius, and they will probably have space for a hammerhead. Commissioner Van Gelder said, according to the minutes of 1988, the project was approved. She asked what the differences are from the last project. The Planning Director said the only changes are the shapes of the windows and a little bit of architecture. LARRY VESELY 22365 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Vesely said in 1988, the setback question raised now was not raised. The Planning Director said that probably at that time, the Codes didn't have any restrictions to the flat area. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said they have been through a zoning change relative to setbacks since this project came through the first time, so Q, irrespective of what it is or isn't, they are under a whole different set of zoning requirements. Mr. Vesely said they have 35' from the residence to the retaining wall, and the garage itself is about 8' at the narrowest point. He feels they meet the 20' minimum for livability in terms of the backyard portion. Chairman Buchanan said the front yard setback is 25' but can include slope, but the side and rear can not. He said if they say the part of the house facing Westwood is the front, there is obviously more than 25', and if they look at the east side of the house as a sideyard, they have 5' at the narrowest point with the possible exception of the comer of the garage or deck, and if they take the opposite of the front as being the rear, and due to the odd configuration of the house measuring from the residence and not from the back corner of the garage, they would have the appropriate rearyard setback, and if they consider where the driveway comes up as being the garage side of the house, it looks like they have well more than 10' on that side. The Planning Director said the garage is the only structure encroaching into the setback. Chairman Buchanan said it may be necessary to move the retaining wall east a couple of feet to create an appropriate amount of setback on the east side of the house. Mr. Vesely said going east is not problem - going south is the problem. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the garage is right up against the slope. Mr. Vesely said they have a minimum of 5' clear. Chairman Buchanan said it looks like there are two double lines on the eastern part. Mr. Vesely indicated a planter strip and a retaining wall. Chairman Buchanan asked if a one foot high planter would be measured as part of the flat part of the property. The Planning Director indicated it would. Chairman Buchanan said the slope would come down to behind the retaining wall and they could measure from the retaining wall out. 10 The Planning Director said she thinks so. Chairman Buchanan said if they measure from the retaining wall portion there is no problem at all as there is plenty of room between the retaining wall and the comers of the garage and the deck. The Planning Director asked if he is considering the back portion of the garage all on the sideyard. Chairman Buchanan stated that he was. He said they could consider the garage as all part of the sideyard and not part of the backyard measurement. He said if the intent of the rearyard setback is to provide space between the residence and the structures and the neighbors to the rear, this is not really an issue here, as there is no house immediately to the rear. He said the other factor involved in a rearyard setback is to provide some sort of open space behind the house for recreation, and even though this is in concrete and not grass, it does provide recreation space, and if there is a least 5' of flat, "walking around" room around the entire house, he thinks it meets the safety criteria they are concerned about with regard to fire and rescue access. The Planning Director said when there is no set lot frontage, the Commission has the right to determine that. She said the definition for the rear lot line reads, "A lot line not abutting a street which is opposite and more distant from the front lot line. In the case of an irregular, triangular or gore -shaped lot, a line within the lot, parallel to and at a maximum distance from the front property line, having a length of not less than 10'. A lot which is bounded on all sides by streets may have no rear lot line. She stated the rear lot line on an odd -shaped lot is the line that is parallel to the front property line. Chairman Buchanan said the question is the rear building line. The Planning Director said she is not completely sure they can make these findings, because they are dealing with the pad, and the pad ideally should be drawn and the houses placed on the pad in such a way that the setbacks are respected. Chairman Buchanan said if shifted the garage north so the front of the garage becomes more parallel with the edge of the residence, at some point, they wouldn't be measuring from the comer of the garage but from the face of the garage, and if the rear of the garage was swung west, then the back of the garage would be the back of the building for purposes of measuring the rear lot line. 11 The Planning Director said there is a topographical hardship, so there is justification for a variance. She said the Planning Commission may recommend staff to process a variance with a proposal for approval, as it would be just a matter of a procedure for them to apply for a variance, staff would bring it to the next meeting, and there is justification for it due to the hardship. She said it is a little harder for them to make the determination that this is either on the rear or the side. Chairman Buchanan said he could see where a variance could be justified, but it would be a more expedient process for everybody to interpret this problem away rather than use a variance to solve the problem. The Planning Director said she is concerned they can set a precedent, though. Commissioner Van Gelder said the applicant may have a response to changing the setting of the garage. The Planning Director said if they could cut both corners of the garage, maybe they could have more setback. Chairman Buchanan said they would never cut them 20' in. The Planning Director said he needs 12 more feet. She said the hardship is easier to justify because the intent of the ordinance is not to cut some much into the slopes and to allow the topography to be natural. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was a difference in the setback requirements of the hillside area. The Planning Director said this is not in the hillside area, it is R1-20. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked that Mr. Vesely respond to the discussion Mr. Vesely said the angle of the garage enable them to allow more parking and the turnaround for the fire department, so he doesn't want to start shifting that as they would lose valuable space. He said they can't cut to the South without damaging other properties. He didn't feel that shorting the garage would solve the problem. He said if staff is not comfortable agreeing with this decision, at least the Planning Commission can decide on it and go forward, as this is their role. He said with regard to the pad requirement, 95% of this house is built above the ground and is not on a concrete slab. Commissioner Sims asked if this was a bigger house than initially proposed. 12 Mr. Vesely said it is not bigger, and they have not changed the footprint of the building whatsoever, and with regard to the square footage, his initial figures did not include the garage. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he agreed with the applicant that moving the garage is not something he would prefer to do. Chairman Buchanan said the garage would probably have to be moved in the other direction toward the front of the house, which would eliminate the deck. Mr. Vesely said you would not be able to get into the garage. Commissioner Munson asked why they need 20', and why they can not just give him a variance because of the location of the house and the pad and the design. The Planning Director said that is what she is recommending, but they can't do it right now as it has to be noticed as a public hearing. Commissioner Sims said they can make a condition of approval that he has to obtain a variance. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the current configuration meets the requirements of the fire department, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked the distance between the southwest comer of the garage to the retaining wall. Mr. Vesely said this distance is 8'6". Chairman Buchanan said, on the setback issue, it seems to him that staffs recommendation is to add a condition of approval requiring the applicant to obtain a variance before issuance of building permits. He asked if this would slow down plancheck. The Planning Director said probably not even building permits, because they can bring in the variance at the next meeting. She said they can require it before certificate of occupancy, because the first meeting this can be brought in is the first meeting in August. Chairman Buchanan said, in terms of non -architectural issues, they were talking about the elimination of the Engineer's conditions, and the question that came up was whether or not they could delete them. 13 The Planning Director sent for the Grand Terrace Municipal Code to check this item. Commissioner Sims asked what the grading is on the driveway. The Planning Director said it is probably almost 45%. Mr. Vesely said the fire department maximum is 30%, and they are right at 29%. Mr. Vesely said that they will be using textured, concrete ribbons. The Planning Director said the fire department has approved the plans, and they only required a 12' driveway. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the condition regarding "the appropriate slope dimension in accordance with the UBC Mandate" applies to the slope on the southerly side of this development, which is a 40' to 50' slope going up to Palm. Mr. Vesely said it would if they were to cut the slope, but not if it remains in natural state. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said on the slope issue, they have a conventional or drip irrigation system, and in one part it says "drip" and another part says "shall reflect either drip or conventional". He said they need to be careful, at least on the front of the slope, and they should use drip irrigation because they don't want to cause erosion. Mr. Vesely said they will use conventional systems only on the flat areas, and the rest of it is all drip system. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if they would have any irrigation on the southerly slope. Mr. Vesely said they will go up about 20' and will be adding some trees and ground cover on the lower portion. 8:14 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan asked Mr. Mc Means to explain the water line easement situation. 14 GENE MC MEANS RIVERSIDE HIGHLAND WATER COMPANY 1450 WASHINGTON COLTON Mr. Mc Means said during construction, the problems that did occur were resolved. He said they have had a share split, so this would be changed to two shares to meet the need for present residents. He said the meter service line has been in, so they will install the meter, and he thinks the City Engineer is well aware of this as the engineering group was involved. He said with regard to the driveway, during construction of the water line, they did install the sewer lateral and the gas and electrical and the telephone was already in, so for all purposes, all the utility runs for the lot are in and are up to the turn at the pad as you get to the top. He said the slope is hard to cut through, and they had a hard time burying a pipeline 4' deep. He said not to cut back any further at the top of the driveway as there is a water line there. Commissioner Munson asked how the City survived the earthquake. Mr. Mc Means said their $4 million in main replacements and distribution line replacements paid off, as the City itself had no leaks, and they had only one leak on Elena which is just outside the City boundary and one of their next distribution line projects. He said the only problem they had was Edison power. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if they are scheduling any rehabilitation for this area within the next five years. Mr. Mc Means said not at the present time, but they did some work just a little west of there at a tie-in that drops down toward the Glendora area. He said the only other one they will probably do within the next three years will be a tie-in on Westwood further west that will drop down through a current easement driveway to the Ferry's home, along their driveway and back to Glendora. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if they have a pipe that goes up the south slope up to Palm, and if it was a 4" line. Mr. Mc Means said they do, and it is an 8" line. He said in 1988, there was a line that tied Westwood and Palm in that apparently, during construction, when the tract developed, they dynamited rock, pulled the pipeline over and tore some of the coating off, and that particular line at that time, in the course of 13 weeks, had 14 leaks in it, and it spilled out above another residence, and they did a lot of bag work. 15 Commissioner Van Gelder asked what Mr. Mc Means best guess is as to how the City of Grand Terrace survive an 8.3 earthquake. She also asked, if there was a 7.4 in Landers, what would the numbers have been here. Mr. Mc Means said the new reservoirs have all been designed AWWA Earthquake Zone 4, which are the most strict requirements. He said they have two, partially buried reservoirs which should get some stability, and he feels they did quite well. He stated that they have an earthquake valve on one of their reservoirs so they can retain two million gallons of water and theoretically, the valve will shut off if they have a quake of that magnitude here. He said they have historically designed over the earthquake zone with a shorter and larger diameter tank with internal structures that should settle it down a little bit, so they don't expect the turning momentum that they see in some reservoirs. He stated that with regard to the main lines, a lot of it would be the upheaval, however, they have replaced 13 miles of pipeline since 1986, and most of that is slip joint type, pipe construction, which should allow a little more movement than some of the solid welded pipeline. He said they have used flexible service lines to the services they have replaced, so they are trying to do the best technology knows and are hoping it works. 8:23 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Site and Architectural Review Board for further discussion and action. The Planning Director said after research, it seems that the City Engineer has the right to recommend that these conditions be deleted from the project. Chairman Buchanan asked if the widening of the street, installation of curb and gutter, installation of sidewalk and installation of street lighting are all part of Chapter 15. The Planning Director said that is what it seems by reading this, however, when she read the section, it doesn't specify which improvements - it talks about street improvements. She said it repeats in several sections that the City Engineer is the one that has the power to determine which improvements are applicable and which are not. Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked for the materials board. The Planning Director apologized, stating that they submitted a materials board, but due to lack of coordination, staff does not have it here. 16 MOTION PCM-92-43 SA-92-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-43 MOTION PCM-92-44 SA-92-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-44 Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if there were any changes in the materials board relative to what is in staffs report, to which Mr. Vesely responded in the negative. Vice -Chairman Hargrave commented on the creative architecture. Commissioner Sims made a motion to add as a condition to the project requiring the applicant to obtain a variance for the rearyard setback prior to building permit issuance. Vice -Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-0. Commissioner Wright absent. Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SA-92-04 as amended. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-0. Commissioner Wright absent. The Planning Director apologized to the applicant, as staff could have shown this whole process to him earlier, so they will do their best to fast -track the variance and make sure it doesn't disturb the plancheck process, as they could have brought the variance here today. 17 ITEM #4 SA-92-09 JOHN PODANY 12410 QUAIL LANE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A DETACHED DECK FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT Chairman Buchanan said the applicant has asked this item be withdrawn from the agenda tonight. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JULY 16, 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP RECONVENED AT 8:25 P.M. Commissioner Munson said it was his impression that Chairman and Vice - Chairman had to be re-elected July 1. Chairman Buchanan said, according to the policy manual, the Chairman is supposed to be elected for a two-year term on even -numbered years, and since he has been here, they have been doing it on an annual basis. He said technically, their terms expired at the end of June, and the City Council hasn't taken any action yet. He said it was his suggestion to the Planning Director that they need clarification of the applicability of the policy manual, and it seems that elections for Chairman and Vice -Chairman are inappropriate until after the City Council has filled the vacancies. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 7�2 Patriz a Materassi Planning Director 08-03-92:ma 18 Approved by, Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission