Loading...
09/17/1992GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 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 September 17, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Doug Wilson, Commissioner Moire Huss, Commissioner STAFF: Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director Maria Muett, Associate Planner ABSENT: Commissioner Sims PLEDGE: Chairman Buchanan PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:36 P.M. The Planning Director presented a summary progress report on the Planning Department consisting of Administrative Site and Architectural Reviews. She felt the new Administrative Site and Architectural Review process has been quite successful due to the informal process which encourages citizen participation and cooperation versus formal public hearings. The Planning Director cited the Inland Timber Administrative Site and Architectural outcome on the informal basis not drawing to an agreed solution requiring a public hearing. Information was introduced on the California APA Conference in Pasadena scheduled for November 7-10, 1992. Tentative appointments were made for the two Planning Commissioners Huss and Wilson to attend the conference. The Planning Director encouraged the new commissioners to attend this conference as it was more technical and comprehensive, versus the general networking conference (Planners Institute). Discussion by the Planning Commission regarding the new commissioners attendance of the APA Conference versus the Planners' Conference. Commissioners Huss and j Wilson responded they will get back to staff as to whether they can attend. Vice- Wilson responded they will get back to staff as to whether they can attend. Vice - Chairman stated that he would volunteer as a fill-in if necessary. The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that staff had verified through a newspaper article the Retirement Hotel management has been advertising for student housing in addition to the senior housing. She indicated that staff had preliminary reviewed their request to establish a co-op housing, students and seniors. However, it was indicated to the new management of the Retirement Hotel that they first needed to comply with the original conditions of the hotel which required a legal lot; a lot line adjustment and to date this has not been submitted. Their application was returned and asked them to first comply with the first original CUP conditions. They never completed this and instead started newspaper advertisements for student housing. Thus a code enforcement issue arose and the Conditional Use Permit is up for possible revocation on October 1, 1992. The Planning Director explained that staff had received direction from the City Manager to expedite the processing for the fire damaged tenants in the Stater Bros. Shopping Center. Staff has already approved and issued a permit for the reconstruction of the shell structure. Permit fees are also being deferred until all tenant improvements are complete and fees will then be collected. Staff has worked on coordinating quick plan check review and special tenant assistance between the San Bernardino County Fire Warden's Department and Environmental Health Department. The landlord is proposing a color change to the whole center which staff strongly supports. The Planning Director indicated although the Barton Road Specific Plan does not require the Planning Commission review of a color change, in this case it is such a major shopping center that she would have brought it to the Planning Commission anyway. However, due to the fire damage and desire to handle the process in the most expeditious manner she brought it to the Planning Commission for information purposes only. The Planning Director introduced the architect for the remodeling of the shopping center/Larry Vesely. Larry Vesely/Architect 22365 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA. Mr. Vesely stated that due to the fire damage the management was looking at the possibility of repainting the center in period of time. They were interested in repainting in the gray/white tones and dark gray tile to blend in with the Barton Road facilities that are in place now. (The Planning Director circulated the roofing the and pointed to the gray colored rendering to the Planning Commission). 2 Mr. Vesely continued and indicated that they are currently working with Stater Bros. to come to some type of agreement as the shopping center management cannot touch the Stater Bros. building. He did however indicate that they had heard that Stater Bros. did agree to repainting however the color has not been selected as yet. Whatever is agreed upon would go back to the Planning Department for review. It is essentially in the scheme of the light shades with very little dark trim and white. The Planning Director presented one additional condition. She indicated that she had communication with Stater Bros. and it was told to her that their board had not completed the review of the color proposal. Usually Stater Bros. has a light creme color for most of their centers. The Stater Bros. representative did not want to stop the process however if there was an approval by the Planning Commission on these colors, it would be a heavier weight on their board and possibly their board might accept the proposal. On the other hand he indicated if the City states this is the color they want then their board may go ahead and just accept the color. He stated that he did not know for sure and at this time there was no guarantee. Therefore, staff went ahead and approved the color change based on conditions provided that the entire center is painted within six months to match the fire damage wing section in design, colors and materials. If this is not completed within six months then the proposal will return to the Planning Commission on a formal basis. Additionally, staff has made some suggestions not recommendations for post and beam patios to be included on the blank walls around the Stater Bros. entrances, install one crepe myrtle every three parking stalls, sandblast and reseal the sidewalks, also reseal and restripe the parking lot. Mr. Vesely requested that the six month time period be extended to one year due to the approaching rainy season. This would allow them ample time to negotiate with Stater Bros.. Commissioner Munson asked if Stater Bros. owned the property. Mr. Vesely replied that Stater Bros. owns the building but in their lease they do not have the right to alter the building, even though they own it. Mr. Vesely stated that they are going forward on the negotiations with Stater Bros.. Commissioner Munson questioned if Stater's would be involved in the parking lot improvements. Mr. Vesely stated that belongs to Viking Properties. The Planning Director stressed these were only recommendations and not conditions of approval. Staff is working on expediting the process for the fire damaged portion. She stated that she did not want to approve the fire damage portion exterior improvements without considering the center as a whole. Therefore, the reason for this proposal. Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Vesely what the new colors are for Stater Bros. markets. Mr. Vesely replied that they recently received the information and Stater Bros. is going with green colors. He was not sure if the center would be appropriate with those colors. Vice -Chairman Hargrave inquired if all of the previous tenants were returning to the shopping center. Mr. Vesely replied that Chief Auto Parts and One Hour Photo were not returning. The G.T. Liquor, Launderland, Yvonne's Flowers and Just A Cake and K's Beauty and Supply were returning to the center. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for clarification as to the colors presented by Stater Bros., if it meant the green colors were for all Stater Bros. markets. Mr. Vesely replied no that Stater Brother was willing to work with all of the different centers. The Planning Director stated that Stater Bros. had mentioned to her that if the Planning Commission approved these colors they would follow it however they preferred to have their Board review it. This was one of the reasons why the Planning Director preferred conditioning this to a time period for Stater Bros. to negotiate or else the first wing may be gray and the remaining portion of the center another color for a long period of time. The Planning Director felt that one year was too long of a time period. She opened this up to the Planning Commission for discussion. Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated that there were two issues; one being Mr. Vesely's desires and the other the Planning Director's desires. Another decision deals with the color selection by a certain date, such as three or six months. The next step is when is the work to be completed, after the decision is made that could be six months. The decision as to the color could easily be made within three months, maximum six months. It did not mean one year the work is actually picking the color scheme and completing the painting work. The Planning Director clarified her intent is subject to the entire center being painted on that color scheme within six months. Vice -Chairman Hargrave questioned if the decision between the architect and Stater Bros. on color selection takes five months and 29 days to make the decision. The Planning Director stated that they would need to return to the Planning Department and reapply. Mr. Vesely stated that he was just informed that those colors had been approved by the corporate office of Stater Bros., and that was the only one they could guarantee on such a short notice. He indicated the color samples on the material board. Chairman Buchanan stated that it was evident that the decision on the color scheme would be made very soon because it was tied into the reopening of the center. The question obviously was that when a color decision is made, the center gets painted, Stater Bros. agrees to go along with it and there is some time schedule by which the work has to be done with the remaining portion of the center. The other alternative n W is that Stater Bros. does not wish to go along with this color, and it turns out that the fire damaged wing has to be repainted to match the center. In essence the ultimate goal is to repaint the entire center the same color. Mr. Vesely stated that for now to prevent repainting of the fire damage center, if there is going to be a long delay then they would prefer going with the current colors (tans and browns) on that end so that it does not stick out. Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated that would be the conservative way to approach this if Mr. Vesely cannot get Stater Bros. to make a decision. The Planning Director stated that was why the six months would work if they cannot get the Stater Bros. approval then they would lose this approval and then they just paint it the way the center was before. Chairman Buchanan stated that he felt the six months was reasonable with the understanding that the Planning Director could grant an extension of up to an additional six months if delays were occasioned by weather or other circumstances of good cause. The Planning Director asked for a consensus on the proposal as presented by the Chairman Buchanan. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed a concern that if a six month time frame is given to make a decision it is only human nature to take advantage of the whole six months, three months or whatever time frame given. Discussion on whether decision for colors is tied into the six month deadline or just for repainting work to be completed. Mr. Vesely stated that they would not keep the center closed awaiting a color decision. They desire to get the tenants into the center as soon as possible. The landlord, Viking Properties, Stater Bros. and the City want the center revitalized. It is just precise decision making on selecting the color, he feels it is going to happen it just may take a month or so to receive corporation approval. Chairman Buchanan asked Mr. Vesely for a time frame when the center reconstruction would be ready for repainting. Mr. Vesely stated they could paint the exposed wood now and should be painted before the tile is laid. Commissioner Munson mentioned that he felt it would be difficult to convince Stater Bros. to change from their color scheme to the proposed color. Commissioner Munson asked if the landlord could live with the Stater Bros. suggested colors. He stated that Stater Brother's would probably repaint easier with their color scheme than any new color proposal but he encouraged compromising on the color scheme. Commissioner Munson stated that he would be happy with either color. Mr. Vesely presented the new proposed colors from Stater Bros. to the Planning Commission. Chairman Buchanan inquired if the Planning Director had seen these samples and she indicated she had not. She stated that she had just been informed of the new colors a short time before the meeting. Chairman Buchanan indicated that his concern was to ensure the colors were within the Barton Road Specific Plan 5 guidelines. The Planning Director stated she had no problem and everyone seems to agree that the center needs upgrading. She stressed the urgency for the fire damage portion and blending with the rest of the center. Chairman Buchanan stated that once the center is repainted and reoccupied from a business standpoint there is a motivation to conclude the process. The Planning Commission can assist that by maintaining some type of deadline. He preferred the six month deadline. However, the City is seeking a cooperative and realistic approach and consistent with that the applicant can be assured if it rains for the next six months the City would be flexible to allow an additional couple of months. The Planning Director stated that she accepted the Planning Commission's recommendations however, she requested that this decision be deferred to allow her to make a determination. This is not a public hearing item so that is not the forum for her to make the decision. She will negotiate with the applicant the best way she can in an expeditious manner. ADJOURN THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 7:05 P.M. CONVENE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Larry Vesely, Architect 22365 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Mr. Vesely stated that representatives from the Stater Bros. Center were in the audience. He mentioned that they had concerns over the sign situation in the center. He indicated that they are trying to resolve the issue as soon as possible. One tenant, Video Store, would like to address the Planning Commission on his sign application which has been in the Planning Department for two months. The approval for the sign permit is being held by the Planning Department until the sign program can be resolved. Chairman Buchanan clarified that the public participation is for discussion purposes only and the Planning Commission cannot take any action on what is said this evening as it is not part of an agenda item. z David Cabral 22417 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA 92324 Mr. Cabral stated that he has been open since June 24, 1992 and he does not have an approved sign permit. He understands the reason for the delay according to the land lord is that the City does not know what type of signs they will allow in the center. He is requesting from the Planning Commission permission to install their sign because the public is not aware they are in the center. He is requesting permission to install a channel letter sign. Chairman Buchanan restated that Mr. Cabral is requesting permission to install a channel letter sign. He asked for the location of the tenant business in the center. Mr. Cabral stated that he was in the west corner of the shopping center previously the pharmacy suite. Anita Jensen Property Manager Vildng Investment Properties 230 N. Maryland, Suite 104 Glendale, CA 91206 Ms. Jensen stated that Viking Investment Properties appreciated the City's efforts to facilitate their permitting to rebuild the fire damaged portion of the center. She stated they are 2 1/2 weeks ahead of schedule and expect all the tenants that are coming back to be open for business by November 1, 1992. She stated that they could have been painting this week however, because there has been a request by the City for a color change they have been attempting to accommodate that request. It was not until 4:00 p.m. today that they realized Stater Bros. had chosen other colors. She had attempted to arrange a meeting between Stater Bros. representative and Larry Vesely, architect but were given the color sample instead. The color board is the sample for the colors in the Rancho Cucamonga store and was the only thing that Stater Bros. could approve expeditiously. She stressed the urgency in repainting as their materials are exposed to the elements. She stated that the Planning Commission needs to be aware that any other painting done in the center other than that part paid by the fire insurance coverage or that Stater Bros. is willing to do of their own volition will be paid for by the other tenants in the center. All of the exterior maintenance, parking lot striping, exterior painting, parking lot repair, lights, landscaping is a direct passed through expense to the tenants. If the Planning Commission requires additional painting and improvements will cause economic hardships on the tenants in the other part of the center. Coupled with this is the City's request in regards to the Barton Road Specific Plan. They are aware of 7 all of the recommendations from the Planning Department with respect to sign and began incorporating same into their leases in May. The Video Store lease requires him to have channel letters. This is the first lease signed under this program in the center. He has had a permit pending with the City since July 15, 1992 which the landlord has approved but no permit has been issued. Now that the fire damage has occurred any tenant anywhere in the center that does not have a sign permit will now be required to go to channel letters which can cost up to $4,000 per sign. They have been having extensive meetings with the City trying to allow the tenants which have permits to maintain the sign that they already have and new occupying tenants under new leases in the future would go to channel letter signs. They have been unable to come to an agreement with the Planning Department to allow both accommodating existing tenants with permits and to allow channel letters in the future. Every reply that comes back from the City either requires everyone to have channel letters or everyone to have canned signs, most of the requirements for the canned signs was to buy new canned signs. She stated that the video tenant has ceased paying rent until the sign permit issue is resolved. She requested from the Planning Commission assistance on this issue. Commissioner Van Gelder stated it was her understanding that the City had agreed to help finance the new sign. The Planning Director responded to the affirmative that the City Manager had agreed to recommend this proposal to the City Council. Originally the subsidy proposal was for 25% but has agreed to 50%. However, it is something that still needs to be negotiated and it is not official yet. Commissioner Hargrave asked Ms. Jensen how the negotiations for the sign program been undertaken. Ms. Jensen explained that she has met with the Associate Planner on several occasions and communicated by Fax and phone with the Planning Director. (Unable to pick up remaining conversation from Ms. Jensen as is speaking from audience area and not through microphone system). Commissioner Hargrave asked if the other tenant leases could be adjusted if the tenant was in agreement. He stated that the landlord/Viking Investment Properties is not frozen into the least contract if the tenant would agree to make the changes in the lease agreement. (Ms. Jensen approached microphone). Ms. Jensen stated that she was being asked to go back to the tenant that has a lease in place and have the landlord be the arm of City government to have them remove their signs. She is asking everyone to do their share of responsibility. Her job is to administer a previous existing lease for many tenants who have been in business prior to the City incorporation. Commissioner Hargrave stated he understood the business aspects of this endeavor. She stated that she did not feel it was appropriate for her to be placed in that role. Commissioner Hargrave asked Ms. Jensen if she was aware of the proposed subsidy program alluded to by Commissioner Van Gelder. She responded that she had only heard of the potential for a 25% credit and unless one can go to the tenants and specifically say that you have X amount of dollars that is available on a new sign. 8 Ms. Jensen reiterated that she had a tenant willing to buy his own new channel letter sign who has submitted plans to the City and requested a sign permit for two months. Commissioner Hargrave stated he understood but the problem was the old tenants. Ms. Jensen stressed that the new tenant, Video World, is being jeopardized he is not being given a permit. In essence the landlord is being held hostage to try and use the coercion of the landlord for the wish list of the Planning Director. She stated that Viking Investment Properties wants to upgrade but does not want to punish the burnt out tenants. Commissioner Hargrave asked Ms. Jensen had done some costing with the potential sign companies. She stated that she has spoken with two different sign contractors. She states that the Planning Department takes the position that a new canned sign would be in the range of $2300 dollars and the channel signs in the range of $3,000, so therefore a difference of $700 dollars. Ms. Jensen explained that the burnt out tenants are not in the position to pay $2300 dollars for new signs. Commissioner Hargrave clarified that $2300 dollars would not be acceptable and Ms. Jensen responded that was correct. Those burnt out tenants had canned signs and only two had cracked faces. She understood that they should be able to get new inserts for the existing box signs at $300 dollars. Commissioner Huss asked the Planning Director to clarify the reason for not approving the sign permit for Video World. The Planning Director responded that the City does not have an approved sign program for the center. The Barton Road Specific Plan requires a sign program for centers. She described the content of a sign program and the parameters for the tenants in the center. Staff has searched in City and County files and does not have record of an approved sign program for this center. The Planning Director stated that the only alternative was for her to review the signs the way she prefers, technically she becomes the sign program evaluator. However, she did not want to do but that wanted to give the option to the property owner/landlord and the tenants to inform her as to what they would like their signs in the center to be. The Planning Director clarified that she would approve the signs according to the Barton Road Specific Plan which recommends channel letters however, any non -permitted tenant who comes to the City for a permit would need to have channel letter signs. She said the burnt out portion of the center as an example would need to install channel lettering. She felt it would be better for them to use their existing cans and replace them with a different face. The Planning Director explained that she has not been successful in meeting personally with the property manager and that is her mistake. She stated they have been in phone contact but evidently not been communicating. The Planning Director stated it was evident to her that they both want the same thing and have not found a way to do it. Chairman Buchanan asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to comment during the public participation. There were no further comments. 0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ADJOURNED ITEM 1 MINUTES FOR THE JULY 16, 1992 AND AUGUST 20, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS Chairman Buchanan stated he understood the July 16, 1992 minutes were not prepared yet and the August 20, 1992 are to be reformatted into the summary style. He proposed continuing the minutes until the next meeting. Commissioner Huss asked if corrections were to be made on the minutes. The Planning Director responded to the affirmative if there was something specific it could be mentioned, however, the motion would be to continue the minutes to the next meeting. At the next meeting the minutes would be submitted revised to the original format and to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for errors and corrections. Commissioner Huss pointed out the correct spelling of her first name, Moire and page 4/3rd paragraph correction of term expirations. Chairman Buchanan referred to page 7, he did not inquire about the start of the fire it was possibly Commissioner Sims. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he did not recall having verbatim minutes before. The Planning Director stated that they are verbatim but with correct statements and grammar by paragraph. She did agree that the verbatim previously approved by the Planning Commission was not as detailed only summary verbatim. Commissioner Huss explained the minute content from her previous experience on other boards. Chairman Buchanan stated that the current verbatim is for paraphrasing or summary format and not an attempt to quote anyone. MOTION PCM-92-51 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CONTINUANCE Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to continue the July 16, 1992 and August 20, 1992 minutes to the next regular scheduled meeting. Commissioner Munson second. Praise was extended to the Planning Secretary for the detailed work on the minutes by Commissioner Wilson. 10 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-51 Motion carries, all ayes. 6-0-1-0, Commissioner Sims absent. ITEM 2 ELECTIONS OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR TWO YEAR TERMS Discussion was conducted to substantiate who would be qualified for the two year term. Chairman Buchanan opened the floor for nominations of Chairman. Commissioner Munson nominated Dan Buchanan as Chairman for the next two years. Commissioner Wilson nominated Stanley Hargrave as Chairman for the next two years. Chairman Buchanan closed the floor for nominations. Vote Discussion on method of voting by electronic or hand motions. Chairman Buchanan asked for those in favor of Dan Buchanan as Chairman indicate by hand, 5 commissioners were in favor, Commissioner Sims was absent and Chairman Buchanan abstained. Vote Chairman Buchanan asked for those in favor of Stanley Hargrave as Chairman to indicate by hand, one commissioner was in favor, four were against, Commissioner Sims was absent and Commissioner Hargrave abstained. Motion failed. Chairman Buchanan opened the floor for Vice Chairman. Commissioner Van Gelder nominated Commissioner Sims as Vice Chairman for the next two years. Chairman Buchanan asked for any additional nominations and there were none. Chairman Buchanan asked for those in favor of Jim Sims as Vice Chairman to indicate by a show of hands; five commissioners were in favor, one commissioner abstained, and Commissioner Sims was absent. Motion carried. Chairman Buchanan announced the results as Chairman Buchanan and Vice Chairman Sims elected. ITEM 3 BUSINESS RESOLUTION SPECIAL EVENTS, BANNERS AND LARGE HELIUM BALLOONS The Planning Director made a short presentation of the proposal to align with the City's approach to assist business owners by fast tracking and expeditious handling 11 of permit processing. The proposal was to allow special outdoor activities, banners, and large helium balloons during two City events, Grand Terrace Parade and Tour de Terrace, for one week periods. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how many times a year this would be allowed and what size balloons, and how many. She stressed the dangers of balloons to the environment. The Planning Director stated that the City Code already allows special event banners and balloons. Special event signs can be for 30 days within a 90 day period and not more than 120 days a year. The City presently does not allow helium balloons. Staff has received requests for allowing the usage of those type of balloons. The Planning Director stated she is proposing continuing the allowance of regular balloons plus the addition of helium balloons. Discussion on types of balloons proposed mylar versus helium for advertisement. Commissioner Huss asked if there was to be a size or height requirement. The Planning Director stated that she did not intend to put any regulations as to allow the business owner two weeks of flexibility in their advertisement. She was basing her proposal on the previous requests by business owners. The Planning Director agreed that Commissioner Huss's concern was a good point. Usually the helium balloons are attached directly to the roof and the blimps usually are at higher elevations. Discussion on the City special event permit processing and fee schedule. As soon as the balloons and special event items are removed, usually at the weeks end, they will be reimbursed $100 of the fee. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what type of helium balloons are currently allowed. The Planning Director responded that no helium balloons are currently allowed in the City. Chairman Buchanan clarified that this proposal is to basically suspend the restriction on helium balloons but would still require an administrative special event permit. The Planning Director stated that now a Conditional Use Permit is required for the outside merchandising display. Discussion on types, height and costs of erecting helium balloons attached to the buildings. The Planning Director pointed out that all special event items and balloons would need to be removed after the event or else it would become a matter of code enforcement. 12 Chairman Buchanan mentioned that the resolution should be altered to accommodate the effects of the code change. The Planning Director pointed out that the resolution contained verbage that required the City Council to direct staff to prepare the necessary City Code amendment, thus the details of the code amendment are not incorporated at this time in the resolution before the Planning Commission. She pointed out that this resolution only contained the concept of the proposal. Chairman Buchanan pointed out that he felt the necessity to incorporate restrictions and criteria in the resolution such as not allowing rides in the balloons. The Planning Director explained that the Crime Prevention Group of the City is presently preparing a package to distribute to the business tenants sometime during October. She hopes to include the conceptual idea of this proposal into the article to the business tenants, to do so the Planning Director indicated she needs this resolution approved by the Planning Commission this evening. Chairman Buchanan asked of the Planning Director what method of approval she was seeking either by amendment or guidance. He perceived that the intent of the resolution was for recommendation to the City Council for approval. Therefore, he did not feel the resolution need to be reconstructed by the Planning Commission as it would reviewed by City Council. The Planning Director indicated she was in agreement however if there were basic changes that the Planning Commission felt were necessary prior to her submittal of the proposal to City Council, such as the requirement of the balloons being attached to the building, exclusion of hot air balloons, code enforcement starting period, and exclusion of mylar balloons should be included in the resolution. Chairman Buchanan opened the floor to entertain a motion. MOTION PCM-92-52 Commissioner Huss made the motion to amend the resolution to read that the balloons allowed be advertisement balloons attached to the building excluding mylar and hot air balloons. Chairman Buchanan asked if Commissioner Huss was making the motion to amend the language of the resolution. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that some wording in the resolution should deal with code enforcement time frame. Commissioner Huss replied yes that it should include removal of banners and balloons after the activities are completed. 13 Commissioner Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-52 Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0, Commissioner Sims absent. Chairman Buchanan asked if there was a motion for the adoption of the amended resolution. MOTION PCM-92-53 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to adopt the business resolution as amended. Commissioner Munson seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-53 Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0, Commissioner Sims absent. ITEM #4 CUP-92-02, E-92-03 An application for additional use and environmental review for waste water pretreatment system in an existing nickel plating company. K&J Engineering Plating Division 21750 Main Street Grand Terrace The Planning Director stated that this item should be deleted from the agenda per counsel from the City Attorney. This item was subject to categorical exemption instead of a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The item was being deleted and handled administratively by the Planning Department staff. Chairman Buchanan officially informed the Planning Commission that this item was deleted from the agenda. 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED ITEM #5 SA-92-14 An application for Site and Architectural Review of an overhead deck, staircase, and room addition in the R172 zone. ANTONIO AND SARAH LOPEZ 12887 S. MT. VERNON AVENUE GRAND TERRACE Applicant was not present, although they had been informed by telephone and noticed by mail of the hearing. The Associate Planner proceeded with the staff report. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the part of this relative to the exterior staircase running along side the south portion of the house facing Main Street, would make the staircase visible from Mt. Vernon and Main Streets, and was there any indication they are going to try to hide the staircase from the street. The Associate Planner said they have not proposed anything at this time; they are also in the midst of a dedication which they are doing with the City, so some of that alignment of the property will change. There is so much land there that they will have no problem with setbacks. They haven't indicated any plans for landscaping yet to shield the staircase. Commissioner Hargrave then asked the Associate Planner if their main reason for having the exterior staircase was for fire relief and she answered yes due to the age of the house and that staff has reviewed with applicant the administrative site and architectural process, the overhead deck guidelines, but they still wished to submit the project as proposed. Planning Director stated they had offered to the applicant that if he stays within the parameters of the guidelines, you can process administratively, but he wanted to try to come here, because he felt it was needed. It is similar to an earlier applicant that had the impression in case of a fire, she would not be able to get out of her house and that was his impression also. Commissioner Hargrave felt this is somewhat of a weak argument because in order to build the addition, you need to make sure that bedroom has access to the downstairs so they can get out of the house, or if they just had the porch built facing 15 the south, it would be logical to have a rope or something that they could shimmy down should there be a fire. Planning Director said she doesn't know the exact dimensions of the lot, but it has a lot of land around, so the staircase wouldn't make a big impact visually. Commissioner Hargrave didn't agree with this, but admitted that is his own personal opinion. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that her recollection of the situation on Brentwood was not a matter of whether there was room, not a matter that it would ruin the facade, it was simply a matter of safety and we did not allow it. It was not an architectural thing that was opposed at that time. Commissioner Hargrave stated his concern runs the other way, that there are adverse safety concerns with the existence of that outside staircase, such as children going up and down, requires a self -closing gate. We had safety concerns about the existence of it creating a potential safety hazard. The Planning Director added that at the time, that other house was close to a park. In this case, it's not. Commissioner Buchanan said one of the concerns about overhead decks is that they become entertainment areas and concurred that the dimensions and configurations of this, although he could live with the extra square footage across the back of the house, the narrowness helps in that regard. However, similar to Commissioner Hargrave, had a hard time with the exterior staircase, beyond the availability of an extra fire escape, the other concern was the exterior access making it more for recreational purposes, rather than private access through a bedroom. It facilitated the ability to close off a couple of doors inside the house and make convert it to a rental. It created safety concerns for burglary and vandalism, children wandering upstairs and falling down, thus being a strong advocate against external stairways. The Planning Director asked him if this was actually two issues: the location of the staircase, and safety. The fact that the staircase is visible from the street was one issue. The other issue is the fact that it may facilitate kids to go up and encourage rental use. Commissioner Wilson stated that this particular piece of property because it is a 1900-style house, an exterior stairway probably would not take away from the aesthetics of that particular building. He had to echo Commissioner Hargrave's concern about the view from the corner, but thought it should consider the age of this building and just how intricate it is to get in and out of the house. When one has as much square footage as this, even with smoke detectors if a fire took place in I the dark, or in an earthquake circumstance, another exit would really be worthwhile. If it's going to be painted the same, he felt due to the age and architecture of the building and because it is in keeping with those types of buildings for an exterior stairway, he thought it might be something worth considering. Commissioner Van Gelder agreed with Commissioner Hargrave as to using the rope ladder. She also stated that due to the age and architecture of the house, the stairway and deck would make it look like a Southern mansion and agreed with staff for approval. Commissioner Munson agreed with the Chairman that this would lend itself for a rental application and would be against the staircase. The Planning Director indicated staff just recently reached the applicant by telephone to see if he could come to the meeting. He understood that he had made all the revisions that he needed to make, so he was not prepared for anymore revisions. He had worked with staff a great deal already. Commissioner Van Gelder asked staff if when working with applicants, if staff made it very clear that theirs was not the final word? The Planning Director said they had, but some people need to be led and explain every detail and this applicant did change his plans to incorporate staff s recommendations several times, so she felt he assumed that he had done all that was needed. The Associate Planner added that as a policy they make phone calls and contact them, they get things in the mail to inform them of the public hearing, plus verbally told at the counter, and phone calls prior to the meeting to inform them of the meeting. Chairman Buchanan asked if the applicant requested a continuance, request the Planning Commission to proceed and take action or make any comment. Associate Planner said he directed whatever the body decides, but would prefer action taken. Currently, he was working with the City to do the sidewalk improvements, and he dedicated the land. He has been working with the City with procedures everyday for the last three months. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD SA-92-14 ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Commissioner Hargrave asked if applicants were married. The Associate Planner responded that the application had two names on it, but recently I noticed on delivery of the plans, he had indicated Mr. and Mrs. Lopez. 17 Commissioner Hargrave also said that he had driven by the house prior to this evening and thought he saw a "For Sale" sign in front of it. The Associate Planner said the sign has an arrow pointing to another house down the street. Commissioner Van Gelder said that the Planning Director had indicated this was going through a bid remodeling project now, and asked if this was a new owner. (Taped inaudible conversation.) The Planning Director said that the applicant has been cleaning up, dedicated land, building sidewalks, curbs and gutters for the City. Commissioner Huss asked if the applicants were elderly people and the Planning Director said No. She stated that usually people do not think about rope staircases, sometimes it is mentioned to them, but they are not aware. The Associate Planner mentioned that the room would be used by adults, responding to an earlier question. Commissioner Buchanan stated his inclination was in opposition to the outside staircase, although he understood the additional fire escape safety aspect, and not sure that he couldn't be persuaded to think that it would be appropriate in this particular situation, but he thought there was detrimental potential from the existence of this that isn't outweighed by the safety aspect, because there are other alternatives for escape, such as rope ladders, not that it would make any sense to do it in this situation, however if that was a real concern, one can install the fire escape type ladder that was retractable until one needs it. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the staircase was located in a different location, would that make a difference. Commissioner Buchanan replied no, because architecturally, he did not have a problem with the staircase, the aesthetics and architecture were not a big concern. He felt it could be done in a way that made it look very much a part of the structure and integrated into it. His biggest concern had to do with the fact that the square footage was oversized to begin with, that was mitigated somewhat by the narrowness of it, but that mitigation almost disappeared when one added the exterior access. The exterior access, meant a couple of things, such as it made it right for recreational use as opposed to private, more intimate use, and it created safety hazards. It appeared to open it up for internal subdivision, subletting rooms with separate access that may not be in the best community interest. If he could be conviced that it is something not to be concerned about, he would reconsider. The Planning Director asked if the position of the staircase was facing the side of the lot, would that decrease the safety issue. Commissioner Buchanan said that anytime a child can walk along, see it, walk up it, and fall back down it, presented a concern. That did not mean there are not other places in the city where children can climb up and fall down. He did not know if applicants have children, since they are not present for questioning. The Planning Director stated for the Planning Commission's ruling, it goes back to the property values, was it going to be negative for the property value or was it going to be positive. She wasn't sure if this could be denied just on the safety problem because it was also up to the property owner if he was willing to take that risk. Chairman Buchanan felt that risk went beyond the risk just to the property owner, that was where public safety and general welfare issues come in. His inclination would be to not approve it at all without some sort of safety gate. That wouldn't keep intruders out, although the burglary issue becomes a lot more personal. The safety for their children and other children is viable, the use of the property for access for subletting. He also felt there was a lot higher usage of something for recreational activities when one can get up to it from the backyard. Given the oversize and the exterior access, he would be inclined to live with the oversize in the absence of the exterior access. MOTION PCM-92-54 SA-92-14 Commissioner Munson made the motion that a new condition of approval eliminating the staircase from the project be added. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PCM-92-54 Motion carries. 4-1-1-1 Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Huss abstaining. Commissioner Wilson voted no. MOTION PCM-92-55 SA-92-14 Commissioner Munson made the motion that SA-92-14 be approved as amended. Commissioner Hargrave seconded the motion. 19 MOTION VOTE PCM-92-55 Motion carries. 5-0-1-1 Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Huss abstaining. Commissioner Van Gelder made note of the great job that staff is doing and our Director, and certainly staff, do not need to apologize to anyone for any of their actions. Commissioner Buchanan said that none of Planning Commissioners know everything that goes on, but most know if an applicant wants to come to the City and talk to them the applicant is going to have an opportunity to come in and talk to staff and it's not their job to go out and track down applicants to try and do their job for them. The Planning Director mentioned that today was the first time she had heard that Anita Jensen likes the channel letter program, and had no information about that. Commissioner Buchanan said it was his understanding that the sign program needs to be designed, but the tenants who are in place and have permitted signs are acceptable. He stated Ms. Jensen's comments were she felt everyone in the Center was going to have to replace their signs. It was only the people who never bothered to obtain permits for their signs to begin with that are going to have a problem. The Commission and the City Council have never expressed a great deal of sympathy for people who have not bothered to comply with the permit process. He also advised staff and other Commissioners that he had been contacted by the gentlemen who owned one of the apartment buildings, the one closest to the radio - controlled race track and the child care center, and was very concerned about the noise on Friday and Saturday nights from the radio -controlled race track. His tenants complained about the loudness of the speaker system and he indicated his tenants have been harassed by some of the participants there. The way he described it was in the nature "We're not bothering you, are we, we're not bothering you, are we" and he was losing tenants because of the problems he had with that. His problem with the child care center was the noise level during the day. He said he had some vacancies where people have applied, police officers have indicated they are on swing shift and need to sleep during the day, and the apartment manager had to tell them they cannot sleep during the day because of the noise. He was very concerned because it appeared, and he had heard rumors, that the race track was expanding in his direction. He indicated he could live with the race track in its current stage, if it doesn't get worse. His request with respect to the child care center was that he would like some sort of wall or noise abatement between them and the apartments. 20 The Planning Director said that he had also talked with her about this. She spoke with the Assistant City Manager, in the City Manager's absence, and it appears we are going to need to wait until his return, but one thing we could try to do is to decrease the traffic on Britton Way, or at least decrease the speed of the traffic, because right now the traffic is very loud. That is the other thing he mentioned to her. In terms of the day care, she is not sure about the block wall, because the schedule of the kids cannot be changed, since they take kids every hour. The race track owner has asked the City to relocate because there is a lady across from the race track on Mt. Vernon who always complains, so he wants to move farther from her towards just behind La Tijera, which is closer to the apartment complex, but it is farther and closer to Barton Road. He wanted to move the microphones toward Barton Road instead of towards Mt. Vernon, but at the end of the discussion, we realized he wanted to relocate a portion of his equipment, but the other portion that doesn't do any noise he wanted to leave it there, so really he wants an expansion. We suggested to him to relocate to the area of the skating rink. Chairman Buchanan said this gentleman was before the Planning Commission when we considered the RC race track and turned it down, we were later overruled by the City Council, but he was here for that and he was also very grateful that he didn't have to speak because he was the only one here in opposition. The Planning Director said that he needs to renew his CUP every year and I think it expires in October and if there are no complaints, it is automatically renewed, but if there are complaints, the City Council has to review it. If the CUP is amended, it will go back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Director mentioned that the person who called said there was a pile of dirt on this other property and so the staff is going to send him a Code Enforcement notice saying that he cannot start any operations without prior public hearing to amend his CUP. Commissioner Hargrave asked if that person filed a complaint. The Planning Director said yes, but she is not sure if he will take more than one complaint for this to go back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hargrave said he told them at the time of approval, they would live to regret it. Commissioner Van Gelder said she had been somewhat in favor of it for the kids, but there are more adults than kids who go there. After the meeting that night, she talked with "Jack" and told him she was not one of the people who called the Sheriff's Department. She admitted she complained, but didn't call the Sheriff's Department. He told her that anytime it was too loud at her house, to call him and he would immediately go out and turn down the microphones. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED. 21 NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON OCTOBER 1, 1992. Respectfully submitted, Patrizia Materassi Planning Director 091792.MIN 22 Approved by, Dan Buchanan Chairman, Planning Commission