Loading...
07/16/1992Planning Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 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 16, 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 Doug Wilson, Commissioner STAFF: Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director Maria Muett, Associate Planner ABSENT: None. PLEDGE: Jim Sims, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:36 P.M. The Director introduced the newly appointed Commissioner Doug Wilson and welcomed him aboard the Commission. Also, Chairman Dan Buchanan and Commissioner Ray Munson have been re -appointed. They are very good assets to the Commission and she was very happy they are staying. There was another Commissioner appointed, Moire Huss. She is a representative of the community, a postal worker and also very committed to the City. She will be present at the next meeting. She stated there will be a discussion on Planning Commission procedures at a Workshop Session at the meeting of August 20th, and also there will be some punch and cookies, so everybody can get better acquainted. And that meeting will be after she returns from Brazil. She noted that she will be leaving on the 31st of July to the 19th of August. The Associate Planner will preside over the next meeting. She said she would like to propose: 1) A transference on the workshop discussion of the Household Hazards Waste Element to the end of the public hearings and 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92324-5295 • (909) 824-6621 instead have a statement from the applicant at this time, on the Code Enforcement item; 2) Discuss this process of Code Enforcement since it is very new; it is what we call a fast track process, since he will not be able to stay for the public hearing. The process is good in one area but there are several areas that are not so good, so I'd also like to discuss this process and respond to the Commissioners' questions about the procedure itself only at the end of the meeting to allow time for the applicant's input now. I would like to go through the information you have in front of you: - Waste element procedures; - Fax transmissions from other cities on waste element procedures; - Three articles on how to promote waste management; - Chronology of events regarding today's Code Enforcement cases to replace usual reports not completed for these Code Enforcement cases; - Agreement to conditions of approval as noted and signed by Mr. James Harber; and - The same agreement as revised by the City Attorney. I also would like to add this before James Harber's testimony. I mentioned in my memo to the P.C. in the packet that staff will have a final recommendation at this meeting out of the three alternatives listed in the memo. For your information, staff final alternative is a fourth one, Item D, different from those in the memo to you. Staff instead recommends to the PC the approval of agreements which set timeframes and dates for the completion of conditions that have not been met before. These agreements have been agreed to by the applicant and revised by the City Attorney. Chairman Buchanan stated that he understood that the enforcee is here but is unable to stay for the Public Hearing session, and what we're going to do is let him make a presentation at the Workshop Session that will be incorporated into the record as part of the Public Hearing Session. He reminded the Commissioners that they were going to be hearing information on a Public Hearing item, but bear in mind, that we should have no discussion and should limit questions to points of clarification, from the enforcee. JAMES HARBER, 21456 Palm This presentation has been incorporated into public hearing on Items 1 and 2, page 9. Chairman Buchanan reminded everyone there was only about five minutes before the Planning Commission Meeting, and suggested this would be a good time to hear general comments or questions from the Commissioners to staff, on unrelated items. 0 2 Commissioner Van Gelder said she was at the Town and Country Mall this week and noticed there was a trash receptacle near Gina's. The real problem area is the comer where the tanning salon and the mobil homes sales unit are located because there is not any place for people to extinguish their smoking materials. They are all extinguishing them in the planting area and it really doesn't look very nice. Her other concern was with the Wine and Deli Store, their southerly windows look atrocious, just awful. Nothing has been done since we talked about it last time. The Planning Director said he has been contacted, perhaps he needs to be contacted again. He has be burglarized, and had a big loss plus of approximately $6,000.00 in cash. He is already putting in plastic windows, and alarm system, and he is under a lot of pressure. We did not want to send a Code Enforcement letter, but maybe we need to. Vice Chairman Hargrave asked if there are any applications for new development in the next three months? The Associate Planner answered, there is an application for a microwave antenna, to help TV reception. The Planning Director added that there is going to be a new application for Drecheler duplexes. We do have the Variance application for the Ivey's scheduled for the next meeting. The Associate Planner stated we also have an applicant that's ready now for a new single family home on Michigan Avenue. Vice Chairman Hargrave said he understands that the bidding is heating up for a new use for the Union Federal Bank Building. The Planning Director said we have nothing submitted yet, instead we have lot of calls on the property on Barton and Palm. We have also preliminary plans for a two story office building on the vacant lot adjacent to the Valley Bank. We have several Administrative Items we will bring to you a list of those items for your information. Vice Chairman Hargrave asked about the Code Enforcement calls, have they been pretty high or have they settled down. The Planning Director answered that they are not increasing, but they are steady. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE Jim Sims, Commissioner ABSENT None PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEMS #1 AND #2 Code Enforcement Board evaluation of complaints related to TTM 13664 AND to subject properties. TTM 11439 APPLICANT James Harber LOCATION TTM 13664 - Van Buren TTM 11439 - Sandburg Court Staff considered this was an emergency situation, and that a fast tracking code enforcement action was needed and with the advice of the City Attorney this was to trigger a public hearing. The hearing date was set and the applicant and staff reviewed the Conditions of Approval that were preset by the Planning Commission and City Council on the various projects. With this review, there is an agreement that allows the City to revoke the Conditional Use Permit if there is no compliance. We have met 3 or 4 times and feel these meetings have been successful. Mr. Harber has been very cooperative. The three alternatives listed in the staff report considering revocation of permit, red tag buildings, etc. have been deleted because they have been resolved with this agreement signed by Mr. Harber. Her recommendation is for the Planning Commission to evaluate the agreements presented today to see if its fair and meets the Commission's approval. Chairman Buchanan said essentially what staff is proposing is, with respect to the Planning Commission item; that the Planning Commission sit in as the Code Enforcement Board, to evaluate these agreements, and give our blessing. The Planning Director confirmed. Chairman Buchanan outlined the procedures for handling this project in a Code Enforcement manner. Indicating the previous comments from Mr. Harber during the Workshop would be read into the record during the Public Hearing time. Then he asked if the City Engineer was present for any particular reason. The Planning Director said yes, to give you all the information you need from him. �� 4 There was a short discussion between Vice Chairman Hargrave and the Planning Director, clarifying that the City Engineer was associated with all of the three issues. The City Engineer was invited to make a statement concerning these issues. The City Engineer stated he would take the issues one at a time: relating to Tract 11439, he continued with that if you look at the agreement basically, Mr. Harber stated that originally the City Council had agreed that the sidewalks need not be installed at the time of the subdivision, but as the surrounding lots develop. This made sense, as they thought the lots would sell rapidly, and installing a sidewalk and then tearing it out for a driveway didn't make any sense. He did not want to argue with that point, however, in the meetings, Mr. Harber agreed to put in the sidewalk - there were only two lots. With respect to other issues, namely the other sidewalk that was stated in the agreement, he didn't want to discuss it, this pertains to the sidewalk which the individual property owners installed as they constructed their homes, and although the requirement was on Tract 11439, the agreement between the buyer and Mr. Harber was that the owner would install the sidewalk. The trees were installed by the owner, and although the street of Sandburg Way has never been accepted by the City, that is why there is a $38,000.00 Bond and that issue is still pending. The City Attorney advised to review it further for all the facts associated with that development. As far as he is concerned, with one other exception and although it is a requirement - the plans for that particular street were prepared and approved in 1978 by the County. And in reviewing those plans, Mr. Harber and the City Engineer discussed that there is a proposal for a drainage structure out of the cul-de-sac. The plans specifically state that the sidewalk will terminate at the drainage structure, which means although it isn't a part of the agreement here, he doesn't feel there is a problem. The City Engineer said he would discuss this further with Mr. Harber, to complete that drainage structure, that takes the water out of Sandbury Way. If those two items can get done, that is, the sidewalk and the drainage structure, he feels this will clean up Tract 11439 with the exception of the question of the uprooted sidewalk by the trees. With respect to Tract 13364, he wasn't sure if the Commission wanted him to address that at this time. But there is a Tentative Tract file on that, and was approved recently by the Planning Commission and City Council. The conditions as far as the improvements are concerned are part of the requirements or Conditions of Approval of the final map. He didn't know what the schedule was for the improvements on the frontage of Van Buren Street, but Mr. Brian Harber is here to discuss that in detail. It is a Condition of Approval of the final map. So eventually it will happen. The concern here is from the standpoint which will be turned over to Planning, is that the structures that are existing on there are dilapidated, there are a lot of weeds, farm materials and asphalt, concrete. The Planning Department has described this in relation to the Code, with respect to the Nuisance Vagrance. 0 5 Chairman Buchanan asked if there were copies of the proposed agreement. The City Engineer said yes. Chairman Buchanan wanted to know if the copy he has that reads: "The City has the legal right to _(blank)_," should be filled in tonight. The Planning Director responded no. It should say - to call the Bond, that is what the City has a right to do, and it is already included in the conditions. Chairman Buchanan said in Tr. 13664, Item 2, the replacement of the broken fence is given a time period. The other items, the demolition of the dilapidated storage sheds, the removal of junk and debris, is there a time period for those (3 and 4)? The Planning Director said there was not a time period set because staff did not have the time to meet with Mr. Brian Harber. The Commission with the applicant could resolve those issues. Item 4, conditions of the Tentative Map need to be install prior to the map be finalized and so they have the time to put the improvements in. It is not required for them to do this right now, but we are recommending because by putting in the curb, gutter and sidewalk the area may look better sooner. This is Item #5. Commissioner Sims stated that he is confused. He does not understand what is being done. The discussion of the drainage and sidewalk issues, what exactly is staff asking the Commission to do? Staff recommendations presented at the meeting do not correspond to the staff recommendations in the staff report. The Planning Director stated this is a new Code Enforcement process and is asking the Commission to review the agreements the way staff made them, the way staff could reach agreement, with the applicant and see if the Commission feels this is fair and give staff a blessing. The agreements are a step further from the staff report recommendations. Concerning the Sandburg Way, the applicant has agreed to improve whatever he needs to improve in 30 days. The only issue the applicant didn't agree with is where the sidewalk has been uprooted by the trees. However, whatever the City Attorney decides, Mr. Harber will obey. This is a resolution that the Planning Commission could support. The City Engineer explained that for Tract 11439, there is a bond out for $38,000.00. If the City wanted to call that bond, they could ask the Bonding Company to complete those improvements, and go from there. That is one of the alternatives in that particular case. In the case of Tract 13664, it is a Nuisance Abatement that could be done under the Code Enforcement process. If Mr. Harber did not get it done, the City could do it and put it on a tax bill. The third item that we are discussing is a Site and Architectural Review, that has been approved some time ago. The conditions are set up by the previous Site and Architectural Review. That is the first set of alternatives. The Planning Director is saying lets get it done in a community spirit. Commissioner Sims said that in the past, that was a last resort situation to go to the Planning Commission, when the applicant refused to comply. Therefore, this body was to say to do this and do that, and make modifications to original conditions . In this case an agreement has been achieved between the Planning Department and the Applicant. The Planning Director said the Commission's conclusion is correct, this is not an appeal, it is a completely new process. She continued with saying that David Sawyer had started the Code Enforcement process, and nothing was ever done about it. There was a letter from the Building Department and David Sawyer, but there was no follow up and no compliance. There was a situation of this being started and not finished. She had asked the City Attorney if there was another way to do this. The City Attorney advised not to start Code Enforcement over again, but to call for a public hearing. It seems that permit for the RV facility should be revoked, the bond should be called, and the property should have a lien on it, exactly as the City Engineer said. However, she said " we should try to give the applicant a chance, its been so long. The City also did not act on it. So let's give the applicant a chance and let the neighbors come in if need be. This is a new procedure. This was not a result of an appeal." The Director is offered the Planning Commission a packet of materials, for the Commission to understand how he became in non compliance. When working with the applicant and having an agreement with the Conditions of Approval signed, the process was successful. The Commission may not agree with this agreement as drafted, and may need more time, but the bottom line is that the applicant feels responsible to do these things, and that staff is helping him too. These things will probably be resolved. Chairman Buchanan said if he can put this as a judicial analogy, maybe it will make sense to the Commission. The City is the plaintiff and the applicant is the defendant; today is the day of trial. Before trial, the parties basically came to an agreement asking the court to except a stipulated judgement, and agreement of doing instead of coming to us and saying, here is all of the evidence that would allow you to do this revelation or this cancellation, we just want this body to adopt this agreement as being the enforcement order from the Code Enforcement Board. Is that a fair analogy? The Planning Director agreed. Chairman Sims said it looks like all of you were working happy together, to solve some of these problems. If you were on that happy road, what did you need the Commission for? The Planning Director said she was only able to get on that happy road because there was a public hearing noticed to reconsider the original approval and respective permit to operate the business. 7 Commissioner Sims addressing the Planning Director said that she got the ball rolling, issuing the notice of the public hearing on the project and this body (meaning the Commission) is going to do something about the situation that is out there. The Planning Director agreed and said it is a way to address all the issues and get the applicant's perspective. Commissioner Sims wanted to know if the bonds could not have been called in at staff level. The Planning Director answered yes, but staff could not revoke the Site and Architectural by themselves. She is also recommending a level of action that can be supported by all the City Officials, and it also takes the applicant under consideration and gives the chance for everybody to go over the issues, and get the Planning Commission support. Commissioner Sims thought that if this action was not taken in this meeting, it would come back as a Code Enforcement issue. He was told this was a fast tract procedure. Chairman Buchanan stated there were consequences built into the agreement. What happens is that, if they fail to comply with the agreement, the City can undertake those consequences, because we have ordered it so. Commissioner Munson asked was it necessary to threaten this gentleman with this action in order for anything to happen? The Planning Director said she could not respond yes or no. Commissioner Munson said that he got the impression that Mr. Harber had to be threatened with a so-called court action before he would even come to the table and talk. Is that true or false? The Planning Director said she didn't try that, so she wouldn't know. Commissioner Sims then asked why are we sitting here then? The Planning Director said she is trying to apply a fast tract Code Enforcement process which allows the applicant a chance to speak out. It is easier for her and allows the applicant to participate. Commissioner Sims said she didn't answer his question. And he still feels that it took a threat on someone's part to get the man to do something. Without us threatening, he was just going to procrastinate. The Planning Director said that the Associate Planner just revealed that Mr. Harber did come in at the time the previous Director was leaving. It shows it was a lack of follow up, from the City together with a lack of compliance from the applicant. Commissioner Wilson addressed the City Engineer by asking what exactly is the $38,000.00 bond for on the Sandburg Court issue? Responding to Commissioner Wilson, the City Engineer responded that all of the improvements on Sandburg Way were covered by that $38,000.00 bond. They've never asked release of that bond, and have had communication with the Bonding Company what the status of the Bond. Also that the bond has never been reduced. He said that The Harber Company was the responsible party on the bond, Jim Harber. He then agreed that Jim Harber is responsible for the completion of the improvements. Mr Harber furnished the bond and also got the Tract approved. Now what ever agreements he had with the other parties, we have no recourse to the other parties. It was said, you buy and install your sidewalks and that was it. Mr. Harber is the only one who has any security and this is why others were not asked to put security up, for the improvements that were left. Commissioner Wilson still concerned about a time frame addressed the Planning Director and wanted to know if a time frame could be set, when this could be completed. She said yes. Vice Chairman Hargrave asked if the bond was called, would this affect the City's acceptance of Sandburg Court. The City Engineer said we would call upon the Bonding Company and say we will no longer accept the bonding and tell them we want the improvements installed. Upon completion we will release the bond. Once Sandburg Court's improvements were done and secured by that bond, the City would accept it. The 10% maintenance bond is for anything that would happen in the first year. Commissioner Hargrave wants to continue with the City Engineer's concerns namely the RV Storage. Looking at the submitted agreements of the Conditions of Approval, it appears there is a number of things that the City Engineer's Department is looking for. The City Engineer said that there are two things involved here; one is the storm drain. Vice Chairman Hargrave confirmed with the City Engineer that once Mr. Harber completed the improvements there were no other conditions he had to be concerned with, except for the storm drain. The City Engineer continued by saying that Mr. Harber signed an agreement, and this agreement was approximately at the time of the 1984 General Plan was being considered for adoption. It included a circulation element giving Van Buren an 88' Right of Way. Mr. Harber's signed agreement said he would participate in the construction of those improvements according to the new standards. Included with this, there is a street light that has to go in, so those are the remaining items on site, concerning Engineering and Public Works. Commissioner Munson suggested, that the Commission try to act as requested by staff. An action on the Sandburg Ct. Item TTM 11439, and then we can go to something else. 9 7:46 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan reminded everyone to incorporate Mr. Harber's comments from the Workshop. Also asked if there were no objections by anyone in the room, since everyone present all heard the entire presentation, that we ask the commissions secretary to insert this into the minutes. JAMES HARBER 21456 PALM GT We've had some going problems, a lack of communication on my part and a little of the City's. We have been working the last two weeks with staff. We have handled the items, some have been taken care of, some prior to the letter we received from the City. Some of the other items that are in disagreement, we have been working with the Building Department and City Engineer, yesterday we did resolve to take care of the remaining items. While these items have been paper items, one was a landscape plan that been turned in and in process now. Some are of a more technical nature, that had to be worked out with the City Engineer, and we've reached an agreement to take care of them. The item, that is on Sandburg Way, that has two sidewalks on two vacant lots that have not been put in. We agreed to put them in probably within the next week. This will complete all sidewalks on the street. Vice Chairman Hargrave asked if Mr. Harber would go into a little bit more in detail on the Sandburg Way sidewalk, and why did he agree to put them in, and what relevance does that have on his project. Mr. Harber said in the beginning we were just doing lot sales. There's nine lots and seven of the lots had been built on. Those seven are occupied and there is still two vacant lots. At that time, Council told us the houses go in and then the sidewalks go in. Did not look like any more houses were going in, so the City asked us to put those two sidewalks in and complete the sidewalks on the street; we agreed to do that. Commissioner Van Gelder asked in the agreement of the Conditions of Approval, prepared by the City Attorney, #1a and b, was this in fact done. This refers to certification of final grading for finished phases. Mr. Harber said we have the certification on the compaction in our office, the certification of drainage is being worked on, by Ron Wright, who has already talked with the City Engineer. The Planning Director asked that Mr. Harber describe some of the phasing plan that he is going to propose, what the phasing plan really meant. Mr. Harber said the project has been phased into five different phases, three of them have been completed. We've agreed to set dates and stipulations to get others completed. We'll be giving that to your Planning Director soon and see what we can do on it. 10 Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Harber what did he think a real time frame would be for the storm drain improvements would be completed. Mr. Harber said the Planning Director has laid out the time frame, and it appears to be OK. The only construction to be done is the box culvert. This has been a controversial item. We worked out an agreement with the City Engineer and the City would like for us to put a sidewalk across the box culvert and a cover at the end of the box culvert. He said they would have to get this designed and approved by the City Engineer's Office. Would take thirty days for this completion. That's really the main item of construction, the other is mostly paper items, and things of that nature. Chairman Buchanan asked the Planning Director if there were any other items for the applicant to specifically address. The Planning Director said she did not think He (Mr. Harber) mentioned the major issues of the storm drain and Sandbury Way. There was one other issue, on the street lights, which has been resolved. The Planning Director stated, much of the information staff has collected has many gaps. This property has years of history which started with the County long time ago. If the Commission has any more questions concerning the beginning, perhaps Mr. Harber could give you some additional information. Chairman Buchanan said he really was not sure now important the old history would be on this. Mr. Harber added that it gets into a lot of conversation and detail, and he would be glad to discuss it with the Commission at a later date. Chairman Buchanan asked if there was anyone to address the Commission concerning the Sandburg Court issues. JAMES BRIAN HARBER 22032 PICO STREET GT When the development was constructed, he put his sidewalk in, also put the trees in. Since then the sidewalk has been pushed up by the trees. The City has removed 3 sections of sidewalk that have been raised on this Tract and have removed a couple of trees which have not been replaced. Chairman Buchanan said one of the Commissioners raised the question to get 30 days from tonight's meeting to commence construction of the sidewalk improvements, what would be a reasonable time for these improvements. Mr. Brian Harber said this should be addressed to his father. Commissioner Sims said it is Mr. Brian Harber's understanding that the sidewalk in question is the missing one, not the uprooted ones, just the ones that are missing that 11 are going to be installed, as a part of this agreement. Mr. Brian Harber said that is correct. He believes that the City Attorney will decide on what is to be done about the uprooting ones. The Planning Director said there is a question, if the City worked in that area, would that make the City responsible for that area. The other thing is the bond. The bond is to cover those type of things, meaning the person who covers the bond should be responsible for the improvements. Mr. Jim Harber does not want to fix those sidewalks. However, he will go along with the City Attorney, if he does not, then the issue will proceed to the City Council and will be resolved in another way. Chairman Buchanan said this agreement really has two components. The first is the installation of the missing sidewalks which is going to commence in a 30-day period; and the other one, is that the City Attorney is going to make an analysis and a determination, on the root impact on the sidewalk, and how it is to be dealt with. Commissioner Wilson asked if the City has in fact accepted those sidewalks? Mr. Brian Harber said he didn't believe so, the map has not been accepted. The City Engineer said there were complaints from the property owners regarding the uprooting might become a potential hazard. The City made the corrections, thinking the sidewalks had been accepted, to keep the City from liability, should it be the City's responsibility. CHUCK VAHOVICK 12680 SANDBURG GT He reviewed the situation after receiving the letter. His trees are put between the curb and the sidewalk, which is, without a better word, stupid. Trees don't grow perfect and these trees were not caused by bad planting work, it was bad judgment on required location and type of tree to be planted. He has a video. The video shows the uprooting and everything. He feels there is a safety hazard, could not believe someone would allow this to be done. He agrees with adding the sidewalks. 7:56 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan brought the meeting back to the Code Enforcement Board for action. MOTION PCM 92-45 TTN 11439 Vice Chairman Hargrave made a motion to change agreement to read "applicant shall have 30 days from the date of the meeting to commence construction and 12 completion of the sidewalk improvements, otherwise posted bond for $38,000.00 will be called." Commissioner Wilson seconded. It was suggested to remove the word "commence" and replace it with word "complete." To complete the construction within 30 days, which satisfies the concerns which Commissioner Wilson had about the timeframe aspect. There was a question about the motion. There were some comments about the time of starting. The Commission is telling the applicant when to start, so there has to be an understanding that he has 30 days to gear up to start and then another 30 days to complete the work. That is more consistent with the time the applicant had agreed to for this issue. MOTION AMENDED PCM 92-45 TIN 11439 Vice Chairman Hargrave said he wanted to make a change to the motion, and move on to other issues. He changed the motion to read "applicant should have 60 days to complete construction of the sidewalk." The amended motion was concurred. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-45 Motion carried. 6-0-0-0 The Planning Director added to delete the last line of the agreement that reads " in the event of non-compliance " Vice Chairman Hargrave included that as a part of the motion, if the second concur. The second concurred. MOTION CHANGE VOTE PCM-92-45 TIM 11439 Motion carried. 6-0-0-0 Vice Chairman said if there is no further discussion he made a motion to accept the new agreement to the Conditions of Approval for Sandburg Court as referred to as TTM 11439, so noted this date. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. 13 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-45 Motion carried. 6-0-0-0 8:01 RECONVENE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Buchanan directed everyone's attention to Van Buren's TTM 13664 issues. J.B. HARBER 22032 PICO GT Mr. Brian Harber stated that he and his brother currently own this parcel. It is directly north of their father's RV Storage. The fence which is being addressed, has been there for as long as any of us have been in Grand Terrace. The property has always had animals on it. The sheds are very weathered but are storage for the animals. Just received these items this morning and they are being reviewed. There doesn't seem to be a problem with most of them, the fence doesn't seem to be an issue. The old fence will be replaced by a new chain link fence across the front. The storage sheds can be torn down, but doesn't leave a solution for covering the feed for the animals. A horse and burro still remain on the property. There is some broken asphalt and concrete that can be taken care of and disposed of. The off -site improvements need to be addressed with the TTM when the parcel is improved. They are none in position, nor do they want to consider curbs, gutters, sidewalks. They are looking at a very substantial item if we have to do that now all for a "good neighbor policy." Those improvements should be done in accordance with the map, when the piece is developed. Most items are workable. Chairman Buchanan said he understood Item #5, that the legal schedule you're on ties into the processing of the TTM, that certain things have to be done before finalizing. In relation to Items 3 and 4, demolishing the storage shed and removing the debris, do you have some comment on what a reasonable time schedule would be for accomplishing those two items. Mr. Brian Harber responded that 60 days was requested on the fence. Items 3 and 4, 60-90 days on both of those items. Discussion between Commissioner Sims and Mr. Brian Harber about if the sheds were removed, is the feed out in the open? Brian Harber said that the feed was being covered by the sheds before they acquired the property. They do not know how to deal with it right now. It is a vacant piece of land and it is being treated as such, 14 but it will be improved in accordance with the map. Commissioner Sims said that the whole purpose of taking down the storage shed was to help in the aesthetics. Chairman Buchanan added that perhaps Mr. Harber would talk with staff about some temporary structures that will fit into the guidelines of the City. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how long the animals would be on the property? Mr. Harber said until development, however, the animals were not the issue tonight. They have not been a problem and he hopes they will not be in the future, but until the City proceeds with the map, they will be there. Vice Chairman Hargrave asked what the development is about? Mr. Brian Harber responded that they have a commercial development proposed, and that it has been a year since the TTM was approved. Would like to go on with it but things are a little slow now, and do not want a bunch of vacant buildings. A combination of office and some suites included. Vice -Chairman Hargrave said light industrial. At this time, the Planning Director invited the Associate Planner to join in with a statement. The Associate Planner introduced the Phase Map that was brought in and shown to the Commission about a year ago, just about the time David Sawyer was leaving. The City Engineer and the Associate Planner worked on the concept of the Phase Map, and came up with a conceptual idea requested by staff, how they would be using the five parcels, with a commercial -light manufacturing use. Vice Chairman Hargrave suggested a shed for the feed, maybe on a distant edge of the property, and added that he does have vested rights in regard to the animals, until a certain time period expires, when he does not have animals on the property. The Planning Director agreed and suggested applicant submit plans for a shed to be reviewed by the Planning Department, at staff level. Vice Chairman Hargrave said there is an agreement protecting the animals and feed. TTM has been approved. When does the time period expire? The Planning Director said the time period is three years, but this approval is very new, not near expiration. The map was approved no more than a year ago. LEE SWATTHAGGART 124 MICHIGAN GT His first statement was "you scare me to death." His house is at least 50 years older than the shed mentioned tonight. Is the Commission going to make him tear his house down and build a new one. Chairman Buchannan said not if he keeps it in good shape. Mr. Swatthaggart stated it is a rough time for a self-employed people 15 right now. This man has arranged to put a fence up to keep people off the property. He stated that it really bothers him that a family like the Harbers, who have been in Grand Terrace as long as they have, can have new people come in and tell them how to run their property. He explained that he understood fire hazard and hazards to the public, but the property has looked that way for 50 years. He received the notice in the mail, and decided to come to the hearing. Mr. Harber didn't ask him to. It really scares him that you can force people to take action so quickly, when it could be a lot bigger problem, like my house. I see both sides, but I think it is something you should be careful with. Thank you very much. 8:15 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 P.M. RECONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MOTION PCM-92-46 TTM 13664 Vice Chairman Hargrave said he would like to recommend that Condition #5 be stricken, since the legal definition is attached to the TTM. This agreement is out of place, relative to the TTM's legal timeframe that these off -site improvements are to be completed. His recommendation is to eliminate Condition No. 5 off of this proposed agreement to Conditions of Approval of the vacant lot on Van Buren, TTM 13664. Commissioner Sims seconded. Chairman Buchanan said this particular condition was placed in here, sort of a memorialization of the property owners' indication that they would undertake these off -site improvements as a beautification effort, as best they could. The Planning Director said yes, they really need to improve that frontage. Maybe they could do some grading at the borderline between the asphalt and the soil to be smooth. Commissioner Sims said that he has a problem with that, because the property owner isn't at fault with the way his property is shaped. He didn't create it; that is going beyond the call of duty here. The Planning Director said there was no hard line on this just as a courtesy to neighbors. Vice Chairman asked if there was a safety or health hazard relative to this topography issue, or is it just some neighbors don't like the looks of it. More like that, said the Planning Director. Chairman Buchanan said he thinks to the extent of inclusion in the agreement, it is just the property owner's expression of good faith, and handling some of the appearance issues with regard to the property. It is appropriate to demonstrate the Commission's good faith in his willingness to undertake these efforts, he would support the motion to delete that language. Take it out and let him make the improvements he said he would make. 16 Commissioner Van Gelder added it does not really include a timeframe and without that, it really is meaningless. Chairman Buchanan said if he were the City Attorney, he would hate to have to enforce these provisions. The City Engineer stated that on Van Buren Street, from Michigan all the way out, there is a curb and gutter on the south side, but not on the north side, and his piece would be the only one fully improved on the north side. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-46 Motion carried. 5-1-0-0. Commissioner Munson voting no. MOTION PCM-92-47 TTM 13664 Chairman Buchanan made the motion to accept Items 3 & 4. Item 3 reading "within 90 days of date of agreement." Item 4 the same. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-47 Motion carried. 6-0-0-0 MOTION PCM-92-48 TTM 13664 Vice Chairman Hargrave made a motion for the approval of the agreement of the Conditions of Approval of the vacant lot on Van Buren, TTM 13664. Commissioner Munson seconded. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-48 Motion carried. 6-0-0-0 17 ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION 8:24 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD 8:24 P.M. ITEM #2 Code Enforcement Board evaluation of complaints related to subject SA-84-06 properties. The Planning Director asked the Associate Planner to give a brief summary of the project. The Associate Planner said she would just present a brief summary chronology and just get some background. This is according to what staff could find on record with the County. It went back to 1979. James Harber submitted to San Bernardino County an application for office research for light manufacturing, about 10 buildings. It consisted of the two parcels, this was revised and approved by the County on February 20, 1979. The map was previously approved by San Bernardino County as well. In May of that year, a permit was issued by the City of Grand Terrace, during the year of our incorporation, and during the transition. This could explain why only portions of the records have been found. The project consisted of a building called "Building #1," which was going to be more for office use for the RV and storage units. Building #1 was on one parcel and the original nine buildings were going to be on the other parcel. In November of that year, gas and electricity were approved and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued for office Building #1, that issue is already solved, because they had a Certificate of Occupancy. In referring to the map, she said on the corner on the lower left, is the location of the office. This is the revised layout. After many years, this plan has changed. What was proposed in the County was a different concept over about three changes, what was going to be nine units for storage facilities, expanded to about 10-15 over a period of time. After the City had incorporated, this went back into Site and Architectural Review in 1984, for 15 concrete block buildings, which would become the 500 self -storage units. It also required a zoning amendment to change from a C2 to a M2 to accommodate that use. A Variance was required, some parking calculations were adjusted, requirements to where certain vehicles could be parked. So basically, as we refer to SA-84-06, that was approved by the Planning Commission on August 6, 1984. This was a breakdown on how the project got started and where it is today. The Planning Director pointed out the office building on the plans. Even though it was originally approved for office building use, it is being used for several other uses which have not been approved. The occupied units need to be inspected by the Fire Department. The reason the applicant was asked in the Conditions of Approval to bring in revisions of the plans, is because now there is a trucking company operating on the site. In front of the building, there is grass, and he has agreed to install some landscaping, trees and shrubs. All conditions have been agreed on this project. Chairman Buchanan asked if Mr. Harber had signed all the copies. The Planning Director told him that Mr. Harber signed the first copy, but had just been given the IN City Attorney's version tonight. The only difference is that the City Attorney preferred to specify the date instead of saying 30 or 90 days. His intent is to give a specific date instead of number of days. The City Attorney told her it was not necessary to have it recorded, just notarized. Commissioner Munson asked if there was going to be a date. The Planning Director said she did not feel there was one needed. Vice Chairman Hargrave said that in that case, a period should be after the word "approval." The Planning Director agreed. Vice Chairman Hargrave then asked about Item #6, dated November 15, 1992. This is relating to the applicant filing an amendment to the original Site and Architectural Review, to include any additional uses in any changes of the development from the original permit submitted. Should we bring that forward at an earlier calling, or, if you want to keep that date in tact, leave some of these other items that need to be fixed/improved as to the date of that hearing, so the Commission will know what is going to happen to that property, so that we can or cannot suggest certain things that may or may not be appropriate, based upon the changes that may be requested in November. The Planning Director did not feel that would be necessary; this was never a Code Enforcement issue. Staff is trying to separate them because we have addressed everything else, with the exception of usage that has to be cleared. If this use had been submitted to staff, it could have been approved at staff level. It was not. Also, there is an amendment to the plan for something not allowed, which needs to come back to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Hargrave continued with a specific under 1-d, providing that applicant shall submit a timeframe, a detailed explanation of a formal phasing plan for the proposed development. Also, the door is open for an amendment to the original Site and Architectural approval. Would not one of those two things be counter -productive? The Planning Director said she sees them as two separate things: one has to do with uses (Amendment to the original Site and Architectural approval); the other plan has to do with the assurance of building permits with Certificate of Occupancy, and other types of improvements such as driveway approaches, storm drain, engineering type of things, so the phasing does not have to do with the use issues. Vice Chairman Hargrave asked what the staff is looking for in Item #6. Does the applicant want to change the original use approved? The Planning Director agreed, because he has approval for an RV storage and he has a construction company in there. She then said yes to Vice Chairman Hargrave's question. 19 8:49 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SA-84-06 Chairman Buchanan noted that the comments of Mr. Harber during the workshop, would, for the record, be incorporated in this section of the meeting. (Please refer to Page _ as part of the discussion on James Harber items). CHUCK VAHOVICK 12680 SANDBURG GT Mr. Vahovick said he was confused. He thought a statement was made that it was originally RV storage and was changed to light industry. Chairman Buchanan explained that the tern " use" and the " zoning classification" are two different things. The background on this is that it is zoned for various uses, one of the uses is for RV Storage, and this is the basis for which the original Site and Architectural approvals were given for the property. The property has been put to other uses in addition to that, which were not brought through the normal approval process. So, when the term "use" is used, it means some specific types of things you can do on a piece of property and when the term "light industry" is used, it means a category in zoning which gives a list of uses that are permitted in that zoning category. The Planning Director explained that the original zoning clarification was C2 (commercial) and it was changed to M2 (manufacturing). Now he needs to come here and request an amendment to allow him to have different uses, beside the RV storage facility. Mr. Vahovick asked if someone wanted to rent a space for non -business, if that is permissible. The Planning Director said yes, but at the beginning it was originally approved for the RV storage, not for the other uses that it is being used for now. Mr. Vahovick asked "why would the buildings be built that are there, signed off and approved." He stated that they already have a Certificate of Occupancy. The Planning Director corrected him by saying that there is no Certificate of Occupancy on anything, just on the main building. Mr. Vahovick said "that is the one the people are renting with the business." Chairman Buchanan added, right, but the Certificate of Occupancy that was issued, was the one for development of the office complex for running the RV storage lot." The Planning Director stated that the Certificate of Occupancy is a final inspection of the construction, is a building function. Mr. Vahovick asked, "should each tenant who is renting a unit, apply?" The Planning Director answered "not necessarily, right now that office space needs to be approved 20 as light industry complex." When a tenant comes to the Department to get a business license to operate something in an industrial zone, as long as the use complies, the license is approved and signed off. This only started a few years ago, to insure the right use for the right zone." Chairman Buchanan added that certain uses have different requirements. When those uses are changed, it has to be made sure that those uses do comply with the approval that was originally given. Here, there is an approval for an RV storage facility. It is not being used just for an RV storage facility, the other uses need to be examined and approved to be permitted in that complex. If it's being used as light industrial complex, then it needs to be approved for that use. Once this happens, anyone can come in and use it for light industrial, as long as their use is consistent. If everyone is not using it as an RV storage, then they are not in compliance with the original approval that was given. Mr. Vahovick began to discuss a property which was not part of the RV storage issue. Chairman Buchanan suggested this be continued with staff at another time. 9:02 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING 9:02 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Vice Chairman Hargrave asked if there are currently any buildings on the property that are red tagged? The Planning Director said no. However, we don't know about the wiring, about the installation being correct, there has been no final inspection. The main building has been approved and inspected. The parking is fine. There is no visual inspection standpoint that presents a safety or health issue that can be seen, with the exception of the storm drain which is open. Vice Chairman Hargrave asked is staff has a problem with the applicant operating the construction business there until he asks for a change of use of the property. The answer was no. He also asked if he continues to operate after November 15, 1992, would you consider this a violation of the Site and Architectural Review requirements? The answer was, if he continues to operate after November 15, 1992, he will be in violation with the agreement on this count. Vice Chairman Hargrave continued by saying if the Commission passed the Conditions of Approval tonight, then basically the City has a right to go ahead with enforcement action. The Planning Director said yes, with any violation of any of the conditions. Vice Chairman Hargrave also asked if the applicant indicated this date was unreasonable. The answer was no. Has he said the date was reasonable. The answer was yes. He then asked on Item 1-f, is there an agreement between applicant and staff on the completion of improvements for final inspection shall be completed 21 by September 15, 1992. The answer was yes. The applicant brought back the agreement signed and the only thing the City Attorney did was change the "60 days" to a date. She suggested a change on Condition #7. It says "notarized and "recorded". According to the City Attorney, the document doesn't need to be recorded, only notarized. Vice Chairman Hargrave stated that staff already has an agreement signed by the applicant. The agreement was not notarized, nor witnessed. Chairman Buchanan asked about bold type, at the second to last line, the address is 21991. "Is that a typo error, shouldn't it be 21999?" The answer was yes, "it should be 21999." Chairman Buchanan asked on #7, "Do you prefer this agreement to read that it shall be executed and notarized on or before August 15, 1992?" The answer was yes. "Why?" The answer was that the City Attorney said with these type of agreements, recordation is not required. MOTION PCM-92-49 CORRECT 21991 TO 21999 Vice Chairman Hargrave made the motion that Item 7 be amended to read "This agreement shall be executed and notarized on or before August 15 1992." and that the address and last bold paragraph be corrected to 21999. Commissioner Munson seconded. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-49 5-0-1-0 Commissioner Sims abstained. MOTION PMC-92-50 Chairman Buchanan made a motion in Item 1-c, "for approval by City Engineer" instead of "a date." Vice Chairman Hargrave seconded. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-50 5-0-1-0 Commissioner Sims abstained. 22 9:09 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Chairman Buchanan stated that if the Planning Director agreed, he would defer the workshop discussion to the next meeting. The Planning Director asked to make a short statement. Chairman Buchanan said fine, but first let's hear a little about the new Commissioner. Commissioner Wilson said he is a Project Manager for a construction company in Newport Beach, which does single family residential, multi -family, commercial units, a lot of off -site improvements. He has been in the construction industry for 20 years. His main job is to process plans. He has a wife and a daughter 12 years old. This is his first time serving on a legislative body. The Planning Director began her statement with Waste Management. She is recommending the City Manager direct that instead of the Commission being a regulatory body, it should be one of incentive, encouragement, and recommendation. She will be incorporating these new procedures into the Code. Commissioner Van Gelder said that the City will have to develop new rules and regulations to start this. The answer was yes. Commissioner Van Gelder continued by stating that in the meantime, we simply say we recommend, suggest without parameters. The Planning Director said no, by the City Council approval of the Waste Management Elements, the way they are written now, the City Council will be approving a program that staff will bring to the Commission, giving some parameters to review projects, and those parameters are only recommendations. If the recommendations do not work within a year and a half, then they will have to be made to be mandatory regulations. The parameters instead of being recommending mitigation, they will have to be a requirement. Chairman Buchanan said one item was deferred to the next workshop, the future policy practice, and length of time for elections. This will be at the second meeting in August. The Planning Director said she will have to clear some things with the City Manager about that. Vice Chairman Hargrave applauded staff for having "guts" on the Harber case. This should not have happened, some of these issues have never been addressed, it was just too long. He compliments staff for the stand that was taken to bring this issue before the Commission and get it resolved. The Planning Director stated in trying to establish this new fast tract Code Enforcement process, there just was not enough time for reports. Also wanted to get the input from the Commission, if it is a good process. Chairman Buchanan felt that this was not the right time to ask the Commission this since staff did not have time to educate the Commission about the process, and what staff expected from the 23 to educate the Commission about the process, and what staff expected from the Commission in executing this new process. What may be helpful is if staff would prepare a checklist for another meeting to show how this new system works. 9:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 6 1992. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Planning Director 071792.min Approved by, s Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission 24