Loading...
02/06/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1990 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 February 6, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner (arrived late) Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Maria Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT: David Sawyer, Community Development Director PLEDGE: Ray Munson, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to the Planning Commissioners. Information from the Planning Commissioners to staff. Discussion of satellite dish at Palm and Observation. Discussion of residence at 12063 Preston and bulldozer carving away at bank. Discussion of Fieldcrest fencing. Corrections to January 16, 1990 Planning Commission minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Public Participation - No comments. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 16, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-4 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that the minutes of January 16, 1990 be approved. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Sims abstained. ITEM #2 HOP-87-3 RHONDA SANTINI 12242 REED G.T. REVOKATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT APPEAL OF VIOLATION OF G.T.M.C. 8.04(14) Commissioner Hawkinson suggested that this item be moved until later in the meeting as the applicant was not yet present. ITEM #3 CUP-89-07 JAMES A. BLAISDELL 22400 BARTON ROAD, #200 AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF AN "ASSEMBLY ROOM" The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. She stated that Mr. Veseley, the architect, brought in a color rendering of what is being proposed. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is not sure staff should accept these things at the time of the meeting, because in order to get a fair hearing for any of these materials, he cannot make a decision on things given to him after the start of a meeting. He stated that he felt this was a terrible time Pa to bring this in if this was meaningful to this discussion. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the residential units to the west and to the north were separated by security fencing. The Assistant Planner stated no, that directly behind where the meeting room is proposed to be, you could actually walk across the street to entrances to the apartments. LARRY VESELEY ARCHITECT 22400 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Veseley stated that the concerns the Community Development Director had were legitimate based upon the assembly room on the other side of the freeway. He stated that they have geared the hours of operation around the parking availabilty, that being breakfast meetings, and meeting during lunch, which would be limited to a maximum of 46 or 47 people. He stated that this allows for parking to be within the 33 spaces right around the building and approximately 10 to 12 spaces within the rest of the complex. He stated that when the larger hall was proposed to be used during off - hours, from 6:00 to 10:00 during the week and 6:00 to midnight Fridays and Saturdays. He stated that, at that time, parking in the center is presently limited to Gina's, and they take up 20 to 25 spaces, and that the remainder of the center is vacant. He stated that weekend use is limited to Gina's on Saturdays and on Sundays noone is there, except for the tanning salon, which averages 2 to 3 cars. He stated that, in terms of reducing the impact of the parking to be generated by the two rooms, he feels that they are limiting the use to the available parking. He stated that in terms of the noise generation with the residential to the south, the noise that would be generated would more than likely be from music from a disc jockey, and the hall has control over the sound level and can be regulated. He stated that they have contacted the manager of the apartment complex to the north and they are in favor of the project since they don't have a hall for their tenants to use. Commissioner Munson asked to review the hours. He stated that the hours will be 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. with 75 people, 7 days a week for breakfast meeting and lunches would be from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. He asked who would control the number of people allowed. Mr. Veseley stated that the owners, the Blaisdells, could only book so many in. Commissioner Munson asked what would be a fair penalty if they had a breakfast with 110 people. C Mr. Vesely stated pulling the Conditional Use Permit would be a fair penalty, but that only a certain number of people would be booked. Commissioner Munson expressed concern that more people might show up. Mr. Blaisdell stated that everything would be booked by schedule, and there would be a maximum number of people. Commissioner Munson asked what would be a fair penalty if more people show for any function. Mr. Blaisdell stated that it would be fair to have the Conditional Use Permit pulled. He stated that it would be his obligation to control the number of people based upon what was booked. He also stated that there would be a security guard on any large function serving alcohol. Commissioner Munson asked what would happen if there was a noise violation and someone comes down and finds the maximum number of people has been exceeded. He asked if he would be prepared to lose the license under these circumstances. Mr. Blaisdell stated that, yes, he would be, because he would not allow that number of people in, and that he would have a security guard to control and maintain the situation. Commissioner Munson asked if he would be adverse to an automatic revokation of the permit if it was overbooked for any manner beyond his control. Mr. Blaisdell stated that it wouldn't be beyond his control, other than maybe one or two people, but as far as booking for 100 and having 150 people show up, there is no way this would happen. He stated that they wouldn't have the food or the service. He stated that this is intended to be a very high-class type of facility for the business man, groups that wish to hold seminars or meetings. He stated that he has been contacted by numerous organizations that have told him they would like to hold functions at this location, which he feels is a very central location. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was any evidence that there is a demand for this type of facility. Mr. Blaisdell stated that they have been approached by numerous business for seminars, numerous people for wedding receptions and Cal Trans for seminars, due to the fact of the location. Commissioner Hargrave asked if this has been over a long time period that 4 they have had this type of inquiry. Mr. Blaisdell stated that they have been working on it in their minds and talking with people for about six months. Chairman Hawkinson stated that one of the rooms is marked "Catering Room". He asked if there would only be catered meals or if there would be cooking facilities. Mr. Blaisdell stated that there would be no cooking facilities and that this would only be a preparation area. Commissioner Sims stated that his biggest problem is with the parking situation. He stated that Mr. Vesely made a comment earlier about meeting the Community Development Director's concerns regarding the total number of spaces available for this type of facility. He asked for verification that there were 33 spaces. Mr. Vesely stated that there are 33 spaces right around Suite 200. Commissioner Sims stated that he had a hard time seeing the relevance of that to the numbers in staff report, with 110 spaces being required. Mr. Vesely stated that they will limit the number of people who are able to be at the facility during business hours. He stated that the tenants and applicant have shown concern regarding the parking, but that the tenants are for the use. He stated that they feel that if they run the business when businesses aren't there, there is no problem with parking, because everything is within the 250 foot distance that the ordinance reads, and also that there is joint parking between all parcels. Commissioner Sims asked about the flexibility of the code's figures as 20% and whether this was 20% of the parking area that is out there or 20% of the parking space that would be specific for whatever use. The Assistant Planner stated that the interpretation actually would be 20% of what the project would demand. She stated that the Community Development Director has not come up with any compatible figure that would work. Mr. Vesely stated that the ordinance does not state time periods for the requirements and that it is understandable that the 20% limit would take place during business hours. Commissioner Sims asked what would happen if there was a conflict with another business there. C Mr. Vesely stated that he can't say that it won't happen, but based upon the working hours of the tenants that have been there over the past year, he does not see this as a problem. He stated that on this night there were 27 cars in the parking lot for Gina's. Commissioner Sims stated that he is just cautious and feels that a risk is being taken by allowing functions to occur with a promise of only having so many people for parking places. He stated that he feels there are some things that just can't be controlled, for example, when people just show up. Mr. Vesely stated that they have contacted Security Pacific Bank with the possibility of being able to use their parking facilities on the weekend when they are not open. He stated that they have shown interest, but because of the liability problems they would not sign any agreements. He stated that if there is a problem with the parking, alternative arrangements could be made, for instance, creating a shuttle with the Security Pacific parking lot, which he feels would be an extreme. Commissioner Buchanan asked how many of the existing suites are currently vacant. Mr. Vesely stated that four of the small suites (1, 2, 7 and 13) and Suite 200. DR. WING CHOI PROPERTY OWNER Dr. Choi stated that he bought this property about two years ago and has been trying to work with the City to upgrade it, and until June or July of last year, Mr. Vesely helped him to get the landscaping and detailed planning. He stated that the problem is that the space has been vacant since August. He stated that when he bought this property, both major suites were occupied and there were seven vacancies. He stated that he has to come up from his medical practice in Pasadena to manage things, because he likes the property and the city. He stated that the problem that is taking his effort is the almost 50% vacancy rate. He stated that at first he was skeptical about this kind of facility in this area with the population being low, but at this point, he has no choice, and as far as a landlord concern, he would like to get it occupied. He stated that in answer to the question regarding what penalty would be fair, he offers the following conditions: They will enter the lease if there is any overload on the hour that is indicated in the proposal, and there would be a penalty on the security deposit; they have agreed to hire an outside security guard on the premises for particular functions; and being the landlord, if anything were to happen, he should know about it, and he is very sensitive about tenant complaints. He stated that his effort should be considered, and more consideration should be given to granting the permit for the applicant. C Chairman Hawkinson asked if the project would be more successful if alcoholic beverages were not served. Dr. Choi stated that, personally, the American people seem to be accustomed to having alcohol after hours. He stated that Gina's has been serving alcohol since they opened the business and seem to have no problem. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he feels a successful meeting can be held without alcohol, and there are even wedding receptions that do not serve alcohol. He asked Dr. Choi if he felt the serving of alcoholic beverages was a necessity for this project or if it could be done without. Dr. Choi stated that, in his opinion, it could be done without alcohol. He stated that he hasn't talked to them yet about this, and that they feel very strongly about serving alcohol. He stated that if the Commissioner would like this to be one of the conditions, he will try to convince the applicant. Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. or Mrs. Blaisdell to come back up to answer this question. Mr. Blaisdell stated that he felt it would be very difficult to operate without being able to serve alcohol, a wedding reception without being able to serve serve champagne. He stated that he is not disagreeing with Chairman Hawkinson, but he believes alcohol has to be permitted for those who request it. BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA ST G.T. Ms. Pfennighausen stated that the discussion of shared parking brought to mind the Terrace Pines project of 1986. She stated that she recalls the project was shy of guest parking, and part of the area in question right now was under agreement for shared parking with Terrace Pines. She questioned whether or not anyone is really keeping tally on how many of these parking places are being used by Terrace Pines in the evening hours and on weekends. She stated that she understands that in March, Security Pacific is going into seven day operation, and this could have some bearing on the use of their facilities. She stated that it seems ridiculous to her to consider shared parking that is divided by a major highway. She stated that we listened to a lot of this when the freeway was being conditioned, and the serving of alcoholic beverages would be going on. She felt that the prohibition of serving alcohol in a facility of this sort does not prohibit its consumption, and it might be better to have it controlled on the inside than have the participants and the activity going from the location to their cars to get what they want to drink. Mr. Vesely, while referring to plans, stated that the shared parking with the apartment complex was not taken into consideration in their calculations. Chairman Hawkinson stated that this is the area to the north of the building that the Chocolate Forest is in. Dr. Choi stated that the full capacity would accomodate 100 to 115, so by calculating the allowable parking spaces, there are 110. He stated that he would like a mathematical calculation of whether guests come as one person per car on that evening or by joint carpool and would like the Planning Commission to consider this. He feels that most guests will not come with just one person per car, and this would reduce the parking requirement. Commissioner Hargrave asked how they could regulate the number of people per car. Dr. Choi stated that the fire department could post regulations of maximum capacity. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she understands that when it is decided how many parking spaces are needed, this is derived from number of square feet per building. This was verified by the Planning Assistant. Chairman Hawkinson closed the public participation and brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that agrees that competition is good in the City, but that two wrongs don't make a right. She stated that they made, rules, regulations and conditions that were impossible to enforce; previous parking arrangements were not adequate in the other facility and she stated that she feels the same mistakes are being duplicated. She stated that Grand Terrace needs an adequate facility of this nature, but that we shouldn't settle for second best. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he agrees the General Assembly Room is something that Grand Terrace needs, but on a fundamental basis, he doesn't feel that we can say that the parking meets the zoning ordinance requirements for this facility. He stated that if we cannot make a finding that the requirements are met, then a Conditional Use Permit could not be granted in the absence of a variance from that. He asked if the Conditional Use Permit process could be used in the same manner as granting a variance. The Assistant Planner stated that this is basically what the Community Development Director pointed out at the beginning of the planning issues. 8 MOTION PCM-90-5 CUP-89-07 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-5 She stated that he was referring to the parking code, and under a Conditional Use Permit, certain findings must be made, and that he stated as to which findings had to be made in the positive or the negative, so they are legally bound to come up with certain findings. Commissioner Buchanan stated he doesn't think that in the absence of a variance on the parking requirements for this facility, he could even consider a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that, to save the applicant some time and expense, if he was considering a variance at this point in time, he wouldn't be inclined to grant one. He stated that there is a significant portion of this complex that is vacant, and this would be unfairly limiting the available uses for them in the future. He stated that his most fundamental problem with this problem is the proximity to the apartment complex, that this is an inappropriate location. He believes that the parking will spill over more easily into the parking than into the center's parking. He stressed the difficulty of living in an apartment complex and trying to find a parking space outside of a designated spot and how quickly these spots are consumed. He feels, although the management has expressed some support for the project, the parking will impact the apartment complex. He stated that he doesn't feel the residents at the south-east edge of the complex would be too favorable once this project is in operation. He feels there is a very real concern about noise and pedestrian traffic, especially because there is no real, physical separation. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that the resolution is adopted, included in the packet as Attachment A, that finds that the proposed use is detrimental to the general health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, and further finds that the proposed use is not consistent with the City's zoning ordinance, and deny the application for a Conditional Use Permit, CUP- 89-07. Commissioner Hargrave second. Chairman Hawkinson clarified that the motion was to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. ITEM #4 Z-89-03, TTM-89-04 01 RICHARD K. CHURCHWELL 23081 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AMEND SECTION 18.12.020 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE REQUIRED REARYARD SETBACK IN THE R1-10 DISTRICT FROM 35' TO 20'; SUBDIVIDE 4.9 ACRES INTO NINE RESIDENTIAL LOTS Chairman Hawkinson stated that the applicant has requested that this item be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 6, 1990. MOTION PCM-90-6 Z-89-03, TTM-89-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-6 Chairman Hawkinson made the motion that the item be continued to the March 6, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. ITEM #2 HOP-87-3 RHONDA SANTINI 12242 REED G.T. REVOKATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT APPEAL OF VIOLATION OF G.T.M.C. 8.04(14) Chairman Hawkinson stated that this is an item that was carried over from a previous meeting, and per the information in the packet, it he stated that it looked like all the items that had originally been a problem had been abated, however, that there subsequently have been a couple other complaints registered. The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Hargrave asked, in reference to the complaints, if there is, in fact, debris and mattresses in the backyard. The Assistant Planner stated that when staff went and inspected for the staff report, the fence portion had been completed. Regarding the complaints, she stated that the location isn't very clear other than backyard or if the items were actually in the sideyard setback. 10 Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was staff verification that these items are in the backyard. The Assistant Planner restated that staff did go out, and there was debris and other items that were on the sideyard setback in the visible area, but she stated she couldn't confirm what was in the backyard because the gate was shut at the time. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was anything in place right now that does control what you have in your backyard. The Assistant Planner stated that we have nuisance abatement and different subsection that deal with property maintenance. She stated that regarding the backyard, staff can't go on the property. She stated that it has to be visible from the street. Commissioner Munson asked if anything was denied tonight, would they just be telling her she could not operate her business in her home. The Assistant Planner stated that this was correct, but that actually what they are doing is making a decision on whether the violations had been properly abated, and if not, they would set up a schedule to have them abated. She stated that on the Home Occupation Permit, they would make a decision finding whether or not those conditions had been violated, and if so, then revoking the Home Occupation Permit. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they were looking at two things: the municipal code violations and the Home Occupation Permit. He asked if, with respect to the parking on the front or rearyard setbacks, staff is indicating that that problem has been resolved. Regarding the violations of the Home Occupation Permit, specifically Conditions C, D, F, G and H, he asked if staff made a determination as to whether or not the matters referenced in the citizens' complaints that were included deal specifically with those same violations. He stated that he didn't think we could really act on information that the applicant wasn't cited for, and that there may be adequate grounds for revoking the Home Occupation Permit, but he was concerned that they couldn't just do this based on information that wasn't included withing the scope of the initial citations, and since this is basically an appeal, he didn't feel they should be hearing new evidence of violations that weren't addressed in the initial citations. He asked if staff has determined whether or not this additional information is within the scope of the initial citations. The Assistant Planner stated that, at this point, when the Community Development Director attached them, they were at the point of clearing out the project, then the complaints seemed to be referring back to the original 11 condition, so during those times, he wanted the Planning Commission to be aware that perhaps it had regressed back to its original situation. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they were talking about revoking the Home Occupation Permit on the grounds that the abatement may not have been taken care of. She stated that if this is true, then she didn't see the relevance. The Assistant Planner stated no, that they were looking at the violation of the municipal code. She stated that the Home Occupation Permit initially dealt with a commercial vehicle parked there that had been taken care of. She stated that there were also vehicle repairs which were taking place on the property, but the completed fence now shields that. She stated that in addition there was an extra vehicle, while the sole vehicle of transportation for Ms. Santini was the pink water truck, and she was supposed to be getting rid of the excess vehicles that were there. She stated that these items were being looked at as of the last meeting. Commissioner Van Gelder asked, then, if the problems existing before had been taken care of. The Assistant Planner stated that yes, the fence was put up, the vehicles were gone and the commerical vehicle was gone when staff did inspect for the staff report, and the debris and materials were not out there. She stated that this was on the date of the staff report, which was January 2, 1990. ROBERT PARKER 12242 REED G.T. REPRESENTING RHONDA SANTINI Commissioner Munson stated that he drove by the property Sunday and saw a fence that was open. He asked if this would be better secured, as no one seemed to be home. Mr. Parker stated that they were home all weekend, and that he had the final inspection of the fence signed by the City Inspector. Commissioner Munson asked who owned the trailer. Mr. Parker stated that the trailer had some material on it that they were going to use for landscaping. Commissioner Munson stated that he thought the permit was only for use as an office and for parking of the water truck, and that he didn't know it was for storage of construction items. 12 Mr. Parker stated that this was for home improvements, as this is their residence also, and they would like their property to appreciate. Commissioner Munson asked how long the trailer would be there. Mr. Parker stated that it was removed as of this moment. He stated that he completed unloading the material on this date and the trailer was gone. Commissioner Buchanan stated that apparently City Staff received a complaint dating back to January 24, 1990, where a 7 axle truck was idling for three hours at the property and also referred to a lot of vehicular traffic. He stated that one of the primary concerns remaining over the situation is that the Home Occupation Permit allows it to be used for the office for the water truck business, and because the water truck is Ms. Santini's sole source of transportation, she can come and go in it. He stated that his concern is the other commercial traffic, and that he realizes that when Ms. Santini was at the last Planning Commission Meeting, she testified that a lot of her friends and associates are in the construction industry and drive vehicles like this for either personal or professional visits to the property. He stated that this is what is inappropriate about the behavior that is taking place, as it seems they are stretching it to allow the commercial vehicles to be parked there if they are the source of transportation. He asked Mr. Parker for some kind of assurance that this property isn't going to be the site of commercial traffic other than simply the water truck coming and going as necessary. Mr. Parker stated that it would be ignorant on his part that he could assure him that there would be no commercial traffic being that they are both in the construction industry, himself for 17 years, and they have a lot of comrades that come by and will be driving their work vehicle, and he can't say there will not be any commercial traffic. Referring to the date of January 24, 1990, he stated that there was a cross-country driver that stopped by, and he had a problem with shutting down his rig, and he needed some help. He stated that people in this industry help each other out, and this is what they did, and as soon as the damage was repaired, he was gone. He stated that they are very conscious of the fact that the neighbors are their neighbors, and they know that their hours don't always coincide with normal hours and they try to make a conscious effort of keeping the noise down and the traffic to a minimum. He stated that they don't know what more they can do, and that normally the people that they associate with are told to call first and they try to meet them elsewhere, which is an inconvenience for them, and this doesn't make them look hospitable, but they are trying. He stated that they are probably doing a lot more than what the council is aware of. He stated that they do work at night, but they try to keep it down to a minimum. He stated that even if the permit was revoked, this wouldn't stop people that they have known 13 for years from coming by, and just because their form of transportation happens to be a 10 or 18 wheeler, he doesn't feel they should be accused of doing something wrong. Commissioner Buchanan asked if these people are coming over for social visits or for visits related to the water truck business. Mr. Parker stated that normally the type of business that is being conducted is on a business level, not on a social level. He stated that he is not going to say that they don't mix, but 90% of the time, there is business involved. ALAN SLOCUM 12274 REED G.T. Mr. Slocum thanked Mr. Munson for looking at the property. He stated that this street is also his personal residence and it is not a truck stop, but it is being turned into one. He stated that the trailer mentioned earlier that he felt was full of debris was at the end of the street at this time. He stated that he towed it down to the end of the street and left it there just for the inspection. He stated that he can't understand the trucks idling for hours. He stated that he went over and asked him once when the truck was idling, and he hit the jakebrake and made a very loud noise. He told Mr. Parker that it was 9:00 p.m. and he had children trying to sleep and to please knock it off, and he stated that Mr. Parker stated, "I have a permit". He stated that he told Mr. Parker that he would have to work on that, as this was not a truck stop. He stated he did not know what else to do, that they've called City Hall and they've been very helpful, but this has gone on too long - this is a neighborhood and kids play up and down the street. He stated that when he jogs at 6:00 a.m. they are out there hammering on the truck. He said he has seen the engine torn apart in the street. He said that they don't just park it there and have an office, but they do general maintenance. He stated that have the hood open, at 9:00 p.m. they have lights on and they are over there hammering with there impact wrenches and they do oil changes. He stated that he doesn't see where that kind of business mixes with a residential neighborhood, and it is not like they are making an effort to get around it. He stated that the neighbors next door have complained, he has complained, and nothing has changed. It may change for a day and then it goes back to the same way it was before. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was some kind of an ordinance stating how long large trucks can be parked on a street. The Assistant Planner stated that her interpretation of the code is that commercial vehicles are not allowed in residential zoned areas. She stated 14 that she wanted to remind the Commission about the Home Occupation Permit and that the ordinance states that clientele cannot come to the residence, and that basically, the Home Occupation Permit is for the business being operated out of the home in an office capacity, or the services being provided outside of the home, and that customer traffic is not allowed into the home itself. Commissioner Hargrave stated that this is unfortunate that Ms. Santini was not here at the meeting, as Mr. Parker completely reversed his opinion of the whole situation. He stated that, prior to tonight, he had an inclination to allow the Home Occupation Permit to stand, but Mr. Parker, being a resident now, does not have a Home Occupation Permit for his business, and Ms. Santini stated that he was in a different business than she is in. He stated that from Mr. Parker's own testimony, he is now conducting some of his business there. He stated that this is a residential area and commercial traffic is not allowed to be in that area except for normal traffic, there is a provision for 72 hours for parking commercial vehicles within certain constraints, but he thinks that this is not the case here, as there is more than 72 hour parking here. He stated that the intent of the Home Occupation Permit, according to the testimony given tonight, is definitely being violated, so at this point, based upon the applicant's representative's own testimony, he stated he was prepared to vote to revoke the Home Occupation Permit. Commissioner Buchanan stated that this is a tough situation, as he understands the neighbor's concerns, but he doesn't see that what they do here tonight would help them out much. He stated that he was inclined to say that this kind of thing is social oriented and nothing really could be done about it, and he didn't see any direct relationship to the Home Occupation Permit, but that Mr. Parker indicated that this was about 90% business traffic, and based on this, he stated he had to agree with Commissioner Hargrave, that the Home Occupation Permit is being violated. He stated that he has to also agree with Mr. Parker, that the revokation of the Home Occupation Permit will probably not change the situation in terms of minimizing the traffic, but since that is all that is before them tonight, that is about all they can do. He stated that in terms of the abatement issue, they don't have anything further to act on. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she was confused as to how we can include in this package the new things that were brought up tonight, that this seems to be a different ball game. She stated that she didn't think all of the trucks that are there or the business that Mr. Parker's involved in were mentioned in the original problem looked at at the last Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Buchanan stated that his recollection was that, with respect to the Home Occupation Permit, there were comments and complaints 15 recorded about truck traffic, idling trucks and commercial traffic. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it was correct that the Home Occupation Permit was going to revoked because of all of the truck traffic, noise, etc. Commissioner Buchanan stated that this was correct. He stated that the Home Occupation Permit was for office use with incidental, to and from transportation in the water truck, and what they've seen in the past and continuing on, including Mr. Parker's testimony, that there is an inappropriate amount of commercial traffic to this site for business related purposes, which is inconsistent with the use of the home being used solely for bookkeeping purposes. He stated that based on this, he is prepared to find violations of the Home Occupation Permit. Chairman Hawkinson stated that residential and commercial don't mix. He stated that he had a parade of people from Main Street, when the lumber company was there, and this seems like a classic case of the same thing. He stated that Commissioner Buchanan has probably come close to the real issue here, and that is the spirit of the Home Occupation Permit, which was originally issued on the basis of an office, but not necessarily the coming to and from of the commercial vehicles, which seems to be the prime mode of transportation that both Ms. Santini and a lot of people frequenting the home office are using. He stated that after the last meeting when Ms. Santini was here, he came outside about the time she started the water truck to go home, and he stated the vehicle sounded like it needed a muffler on it, and that he does have some appreciation for the consternation of some of the people in the neighborhood. He stated that Commissioner Buchanan raised an interesting issue because of the fact that it does indicate in the staff report that the original items had been abated. He stated that he is not sure if they can legitimately go as far as revokation of the Home Occupation Permit. The Assistant Planner stated that staff could refer this to the City Attorney for feedback since other information was given this evening. Commissioner Sims stated that he was not at the last meeting, but read the last minutes, but he perceives the complaint as being of a different nature, of a public nuisance type of situation. He stated that he understands what Chairman Hawkinson was saying about whether or not the penalty is to revoke a permit that was issued on a completely different basis, and that it sounds like there is some abuse going on. He asked if this is an avenue for a separate complaint to be brought forth, which is really a public nuisance complaint type of situation. He stated that he will abstain from voting since he didn't feel he had enough exposure since he missed the first meeting, but he stated that it seems some other avenue should be taken, as he is not certain the actual permit that was issued is being abused in that sense. 16 MOTION PCM-90-7 HOP-87-3 The Assistant Planner stated that originally, it was a public nuisance complaint regarding the repair of vehicles and commercial vehicles at the residence. She stated that then, in checking out the property site, realizing there was a Home Occupation Permit there brought in that issue also, and they were bound to check the conditions of the Home Occupation Permit, and this is why they were both incorporated as they could reflect off of each other. She stated that there was a nuisance ordinance that originally drew them in to look at the property. Commissioner Sims asked if when the statement is made that abatement has occurred, does this mean that the noise and other issues are gone. The Assistant Planner stated that initially, it was just the parking in the front and rearyard setbacks in a residential zone. She stated that they were doing maintenance work on the vehicles, but this has been taken care of by construction of a fence, and when staff went and did visible viewing on that particular day, that was not visible. She stated that complaints have still been coming in. Chairman Hawkinson made the motion that they find that the original violation of G.T.M.C. 8.04(14) be deemed to have been abated. He stated that he would like to ask that they continue the item on the Home Occupation Permit pending further information. Commissioner Hargrave asked, with Chairman Hawkinson's concurrence, if they just ask for a continuation on both items. He stated that he is prepared to vote on HOP-87-3, but if the fellow commissioners wanted to continue this again he would go along with it. However, he stated that there is very clear evidence based upon the testimony that the Home Occupation Permit has been violated, and that Mr. Parker even testified to this on 1-19-90, after the original complaint. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the Home Occupation Permit was part of the original appeal. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the minutes were reasonably clear as to what they were trying to, and it is unfortunate that they had two issues. He agreed that the G.T.M.C. issue had been corrected, but HOP-87-3, which was used to conduct clerical business only, and in fact the water truck was not part of this permit. He stated that based upon testimony tonight, the Home Occupation Permit had been violated, and that Ms. Santini is allowing another business to operate within her home, which is definitely in violation 17 MOTION PCM-90-7 MOTION PCM-90-8 HOP-87-3 MOTION PCM-90-8 of her Home Occupation Permit. Chairman Hawkinson stated that it has been his observation throughout this evening and at the previous meeting that due to the circumstances, Ms. Santini is using a commercial vehicle as personal transportation, which also seems to be adding more difficulty to the whole situation. Motion died for lack of second. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to deny the appeal of HOP-87- 3 and uphold the appeal of G.T.M.C. 8.04(14). Commissioner Buchanan second. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they were ready to do this without any legal counsel. Commissioner Hargrave replied in the affirmative. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Sims abstained. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he doesn't feel this will solve the problem of the commercial traffic in the area, and the neighbors need to make a concerted effort to work with the City in gaining appropriate law enforcement action if there is a violation of a law for that commercial traffic to be taking place. He stated for the applicant that they were all very sympathetic of her situation at the last hearing, and they were hoping for an opportunity to see her come out of this in a positive fashion. He stated that perhaps if sufficient corrective action was taken, he certainly wouldn't think that this denial of the Home Occupation Permit was with prejudice to ever seeking a similar item again, and if things get straightened out perhaps they could make an application for a new Home Occupation Permit that is propertly conditioned by staff. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he agreed that the best way to go would be to start the whole process over again with the conditions being clear. 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:55 P.M. ITEM #5 SA-89-11 EMBLEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 22738 PICO STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF 17 FAMILY RESIDENCES The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims asked if sidewalk treatment is a part of Site and Architectural Review. The Assistant Planner stated that this would be the time to look at it. Commissioner Sims stated that a question he has is that on the plans he sees sidewalk adjacent to the curb and across the street the sidewalk is not adjacent to the curb (Fieldcrest Development). He asked if there is a purpose behind varying this throughout the city. The Assistant Planner stated that she is not really familiar, and she would refer to any comments the City Engineer may have put in because that is something they would look at, other than if there are city easements that run through certain areas. Commissioner Sims stated that this effects the nature and the appearance of the street, and people don't tend to take care of landscaping that is only two feet wide. The Assistant Planner stated that the condition of maintaining has been brought in as well as whatever conditions were put in on the map. Commissioner Sims had a question regarding fence treatment and how this is handled, as he has become very disturbed by what he has seen as far as the type of materials being used and the shabby state they end up in after a short period of time. He stated that many fences in Foxboro are a shame compared to the homes. He stated that the Fieldcrest fences at the model home complex at Van Buren and Observation show a drastic difference in shade of color of the fence material after water has hit it. He stated that he doesn't feel this gets enough attention. He stated that developers put up the cheapest fence they can think of and then walk away from it. The Assistant Planner stated that the code doesn't address the specific 19 materials. Commissioner Sims stated that as part of Site and Architectural Review, they should start thinking about this and setting this kind of condition. He stated that he feels they should see these things rather than leave them up totally up to the Community Development Director. He stated that they should know what materials will be used and how they will be treated. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that regarding Condition # 1, they have had problems in the past with projects not being constructed exactly in accordance with the Site and Architectural Design. She stated that she has spoken with the Community Development Director a long time ago about the possibility of making # 1 much stronger, and she suggested that the last portion of # 1 which reads: "Minor changes and/or clarification may be made by the Planning Department", might instead read: "All changes must be approved by the Planning Department". She stated that this happened in one particular area where apartments which were supposed to be made 2 bedroom apartments were made 3 bedroom apartments and weren't supposed to be. Commissioner Sims stated that as these projects are approved, he sees situations, for example, like the big slopes which are not taken care of. He asked what enforcement could be applied. He stated that there are big slopes in this project, and that they are anticipating that they will be established and maintained and kept in good shape. Commissioner Buchanan asked if her was referring to the backyard or frontage slopes. Commissioner Sims asked about the backyard slopes and whether or not they had any or no jurisdiction. The Planning Assistant stated that properties owned by individual homeowners are responsible for maintaining them, and there is the nuisance abatement process. Commissioner Munson asked if, in the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District, there are any monies appropriated to stoplights, and is any money collected from the individual tract. The Planning Assistant stated that she is not familiar with this, and referred him to the City Engineer. Commissioner Munson stated that there are 100 homes coming in here which would bring in 200 to 300 cars, which would also contribute to traffic congestion. He wondered if it would be appropriate at this time to start assessing these people in addition to apartment projects stoplight monies. 20 The Planning Assistant stated that this should probably be dealt with on a council basis. She stated that she does not know specifically how much money is taken aside. Commissioner Munson asked why individual mailboxes were being recommended as opposed to clustered mailboxes. The Assistant Planner stated that at another Site and Architectural Review that had been brought up, she believes the consensus was against clustered mailboxes. She stated that this was put in as a condition shortly after another Site and architectural review, and that this should be checked with the Community Development Director. Commissioner Munson stated that his personal preference was for clustered mailboxes. Commissioner Hargrave stated that traffic studies don't say that this development has a signalization need, but perhaps in the future. He asked if, referring to Condition #6 involving the gutter system over the door, what the Community Development Director's druthers were. The Assistant Planner stated that this came about from another Site and Architecural, and there was nothing specific that was assigned, but if there was a problem with drainage there, then he would actually be going out and checking each house for drainage problems and for run-off and for some directional flow. She stated that they are not specific on this, and that they are trying to make this as a standard since they had so many problems with other housing projects. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Community Development Director informs the developer of what the system is going to be prior to the issuance of occupancy permits or is it done after the fact. The Assistant Planner stated that at this point, this would be something that he would let them know ahead of time, before occupancy. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he wants to make sure they don't get into the deflector system versus the gutter system, as the deflector system doesn't work. Commissioner Hilkey asked if along Oriole is the only part of the assessment district. The Assistant Planner stated, referring back to City Council on October 9, 1989, when they approved the Tentative Tract Map, that the area containing the proposed rearyard slope in Lots 14 - 17 were going to be offered for 21 dedication to the City for the purpose of inclusion of the City's Lighting and Landscape District. Then, if the area identified in Condition #3 was not included in the Lighting and Landscaping District, then a homeowner's association will be established and shall, at minimum, be responsible for the maintenance of the rearyard slopes in accordance with the property maintenance. Commissioner Hilkey, referring to a page called "Assessment District", stated that it showed one specific part of this tract. He asked if this was the only part that was part of the assessment district. The Assistant Planner stated that, actually, the subject property was going to be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District. Commissioner Hilkey asked if this was part of the property that belongs to the owner, but was maintained by the assessment district. The Assistant Planner stated that she was not certain. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the wall between the people's back yard and the assessment district is anything other than just a wood wall. The Assistant Planner stated that she believes the rearyard fencing is wood and the retaining wall would be the brick. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the way the condition on the tract map was worded was that the developer has an alternative to either dedicate the slope area to the City for inclusion in the Landscaping and Lighting District and make it City maintained, or the developer can convey the ownership of the slopes to the individual homeowner. The Assistant Planner stated that what she read previously was actually the applicant's approved Conditions 3 and 4 from City Council. Commissioner Buchanan asked, with respect to Lot 17, why there is only a 5 foot setback indicated, when the sideyard setback on the side of the house had to be 10 feet, unless it is because it is a corner lot. The Assistant Planner stated that on street -sides of corner lots it is 15 feet, and on the other side it is 5 feet. PAT BROWNING EMBLEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr. Browning stated that regarding the curb adjacent sidewalk, he personally prefers to have a sidewalk with a planter strip in between, but they decided in the long run there would be a maintenance problem. He stated that with 22 regard to the fencing, they would use a high -quality cedar fencing. He stated that he didn't get a copy of staff report until late Friday afternoon with regard to the existing residence, but the roofing material on the house is a crushed, red brick, and staff recommends going to a concrete tile roof, which he would not object to, but it does present some structural problems, in that the house was not designed for a concrete tile roof. He stated that as far as structural requirements go, concrete tile is in the area of 9 pounds per square foot weight -wise, and the type of material which is on there now is more near a couple of pounds per square foot. He stated, then, that they are proposing a roof material that is probably four or more times heavy than the existing one. He stated that he hasn't had a chance in this short period of time to review what they do have in existing plans for the house and to talk to the structural engineer, but he can already ascertain that this would represent substantial problems to put a concrete tile roof on it. He stated that they are going to tear down the existing garage and build a new garage, and that will be primarily what will be seen from the street scene on that particular lot, as the house sits up and has an elongated driveway, so it won't be that much of a visual impact. He stated that the new garage will be seen, and it will have the concrete tile roof. He requested that that condition either be worked out with Planning Director and be given some consideration as to whether or not it is structurally feasible. Commissioner Sims asked what would happen to the fencing when it is exposed to water and sun, and if there was any way to help the situation. Mr. Browning stated that different treatments could be used, but he didn't know how effective they actually are. He stated that a lot of it comes down to what people are willing to spend. Commissioner Sims asked if he felt it was the homeowner's burden to worry about this. Mr. Browning stated that it does give people some flexibility and opportunity to make some changes. He stated that in a lot of cases, wood fencing is not even required, depending upon the area. He stated that fencing and yard treatment is something a homeowner can work on over a period of time, otherwise a lot of buyers might be knocked out as they probably won't be approved for a loan. He stated that this gives them some flexibility as they still may have a lot of disposable income that could be used for landscaping. Commissioner Hargrave asked where the walls were going to be on Lots 14, 15 and 16. Mr. Browning stated that the rear fences would be at the top of the slopes, along the dedication area. 23 Commissioner Hargrave asked if they would be wooden, to which Mr. Browning responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Hargrave stated, referring to the plans, that he had some questions on the architecture on 17-A2. He stated that the one he was looking at had two windows in front, two doors, and a big stucco space between the windows and doors. He stated that he didn't feel this had any aesthetics, and wondered if there was an architectural reason why the two windows were clear to the left rather than centered. Mr. Browning stated that the living room occurs to the left of the entry way with a fairly nice foyer. He stated that they built these houses before and modified the exteriors to reflect a Meditteranean style based upon a marketing study, and he stated that the wall was probably left that way for more feasibilty in decorating. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was no living room area behind the stucco wall. Mr. Browning stated that the living room was confined to the front wall and the fireplace wall on the other side. Commissioner Hargrave asked if, on the rear elevation, the windows above the sliding glass door to the right are double -paned. Mr. Browning stated that it is all controlled by the energy calculations, and they have to meet certain compliance requirements. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they were meeting the minimum or were they higher than the minimum requirements. Mr. Browning stated that meeting the minimum requirements is fairly stiff sice the new energy codes went into effect, and it usually mandates dual - glazing. He stated that he would have to look at the specifics on this tract as it varies from zone to zone, but they also drape all the eye -level windows as a standard in the houses, and they offer some benefits on energy, but they also don't have the sheet and newspapers hanging in the windows as they're completing the houses. Commissioner Hargrave stated that they have a lot of glass effect for the homeowner, but they need some efficencies other than the drapes. He feels this is too much light, because now there is a heating and air conditioning problem, and this seems architecturally a little bit out of position. Mr. Browning stated that this is the rear facing to the rearyard with beautifully landscaped yards with slopes. 24 Commissioner Hargrave stated that they will not be looking out of the window panes up above them. He asked which way the rearyard was facing. Mr. Browning stated that there would be slopes facing west and east. Commissioner Hargrave stated that all the houses facing west will have the hot, afternoon sun, and the upper windows will cause them to heat up more unless they have some good efficiency ratings. Mr. Browning stated that the energy packages are computer generated. He stated that typically this house would require an R30, generally to Plan 17 as it has an extensive amount of glass and will require a lot of dual glazing in addition to the draperies they will use, and they will have the thermo- mass, hard surface flooring. He stated that the climatic zone is zone 10, and this house would generally require an extensive amount of dual glazing. Commissioner Hargrave, referring to site elevation 18-A2, asked for justification of the window above the front door. Mr. Browning stated that it is aesthetically pleasing, and the sunburst radius windows are extremely popular, and it also fits the general design, as they have replicated that arch feature at various times around the front of the unit. Commissioner Hargrave asked, referring to the stairway window adjacent to it the window above the door, if the stairway goes past there or if it looks into a room. Mr. Browning stated that this is the landing of the stairway. Commissioner Hargrave asked why they would want two windows there versus one, as noone is going to go out the window. Mr. Browning stated that there is a rectangular window, and above it is the arch -radius window, which is a separate unit. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he feels this is to much window effect, having a window above a window. Mr. Browning stated that these plans reflect a $10,000 study. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he understands fully the justification for the cost of the plans, but this is a Site and Architectural hearing, and this does not mean that he has a vested right to these architectural plans. He stated that the amount of money spent is not a justification. Mr. Browning stated that the reason he brought the fact up is because it 25 represents experts in the area soliciting opinions of homebuyers. Commissioner Hargrave stated that this is justification, but he doesn't want to hear about the cost of the plans. Mr. Browning stated that it may add some weight to the fact that they just didn't arbitrarily decide this. Commissioner Van Gelder asked, regarding the specification for the glass, who comes to inspect this. Mr. Browning stated that all of the energy requirements dictated must be reflected on the building plans, and then it becomes the job of the Building Inspector. Commissioner Buchanan stated that it was elected that the Oriole facing slopes be dedicated to the City. He asked for any thoughts on the outside portion of the wood fence behind 14 through 17 being appropriately treated to minimize water damage and discoloration. Mr. Browning stated that he wouldn't say it would be out of the question and would first like to find out what the cost and effectiveness would be. He stated that he is cost and waste conscious and is concerned about environmental dangers. He stated that he is willing to check into it. Regarding the slope, he stated that the planning of it was developed through a meeting with San Bernardino County Agricultural Department and representatives from U. C. Riverside, who were trying to do a model of low maintenance, aesthetically pleasing, slope treatment, for which they have a tentatively scheduled follow-up meeting with them. He stated that it is going to be more of a drip system, irrigation system on the slope, so they may not have the overspray to be concerned about. Commissioner Buchanan stated that his concern is that he hates to see the fence at the top completely detract from the maintenance and planting choices, as the exterior obviously won't be maintained by the individual homeowners to any great extent. Mr. Browning stated that he agreed, and perhaps a coat of Thompson's Water Seal, if this is still an acceptable product. Commissioner Hilkey asked for clarification of the assessment district. Mr. Browning stated that this is what they have chosen to do, and that it is dedicated to the City and becomes City property. Commissioner Hilkey asked how this would effect the size of the lots. 26 Mr. Browning stated that the lots still meet the minimum requirements. Commissioner Hilkey asked for clarification on the northwest corner of the assessment district, which runs from the corner of Lot 14. He stated that some landscaping is shown wrapping up around the side in the Edison easement. Mr. Browning stated that there has been some modification on that slope. He stated that they will be putting a retaining wall in and eliminating a good portion of the slope, and whatever slope is left will end up in the sideyard - rearyard area of that particular lot, so the Edison easement will not have any slopes or landscaping on it. Commissioner Hilkey asked where the easement district ends on the southeast corner of Lot 17. Mr. Browning stated that he doesn't believe that it wraps around, but he didn't have the plans in front of him. Referring to the assessment district map, the assessment district wraps around the corner. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he has very little idea of what the shrubs or trees are that are picked out, and asked if there was a standard list. The Assistant Planner stated that there is a street tree list, but if there is shrubbery, then that could be directed to the Community Development Director for erosion control. Mr. Browning stated that the City had a list of acceptable planting materials for the slopes and street trees, and they were going to confer with the landscape architect, and the items that would be selected would be ones that were acceptable with the City. The Assistant Planner stated that the Community Development Director did check the shrubbery and the items and no comments were received from him on that. She stated that on the final inspection, they go out and check the list for the plant and the quantity and location. Commissioner Sims asked for a description as to what the limits of where the retaining wall at the Edison easement would be, and if all landscaping withing the realm of the Edison easement to the street would be eliminated. Mr. Browning stated that, as shown on the assessment district plan, there will be a fence separating the easement area from the assessment district, so basically the easement will be screened from the street. He stated that there will be a gate and some provision for Edison to get in and out to the street. r 27 Commissioner Sims asked the Assistant Planner to make a note that there would have to be some revisions pertaining to the Edison access. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the pricing had been decided upon. Mr. Browning stated no, but they have some budget numbers for the houses. He stated that they would be between $150,000 and $200,000. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the view would be from the street of the existing house. Mr. Browning said that mostly, the garage will be seen in the lower, right hand corner, as the house sits up with an extended driveway. He stated that they would match the house to the color scheme. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the roof on the existing house is. Mr. Browning stated that it will be a built-up, asphalt roof, with crushed, red brick as the material on top, so the color is as close to matching as they can get. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the roof needs to be replaced. Mr. Browning stated that the roof is not really that old, and it is water- tight now, and he is concerned about just tearing it up and creating problems. But beyond that, he stated there is a significant difference when putting a tile roof on. Commissioner Hargrave asked if what he builds will depict what is reflected in the pictures of the different models, to which Mr. Browning responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he didn't see the arch window on a particular rendering (which he referred to) but he did see them on the rendering in the packets. Mr. Browning stated that it could that, at the time the renderings were done, they were done off of a preliminary set of plans that they bad developed late in the fall. Commissioner Hilkey had a question regarding the roof weight. He stated that there is a lighter weight tile which costs more, but it is a possible. He stated that he thinks its a not particularly attractive home. He stated that if the Planning Department has specified a new tile roof, he sees this as a point to consider later on; either they will have to change the requirement or find some way to put a tile roof on it. He stated that the rock roof is not an attractive roof at all. 28 Mr. Browning stated that the concrete tile at 9 pounds per square foot is considered a lightweight, concrete tile, and he doesn't know how much lighter they get. He stated that, on the one hand, a good roof would be wasted, and it won't really be predominantly seen from the street when the tract is finished. The Assistant Planner stated that staff could reword the condition and have it approved by the Community Development Director. Mr. Browning stated he can look at alternatives in roofing material, and see what the project looks like as it comes together and have the Planning Director come out once things take shape. The Assistant Planner stated that the Community Development Director was approaching from the aspect of blending in. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how he arrived at the conclusion that the tile roof would be too heavy for the structure. Mr. Browning stated he has on 20 years experience as a general contractor and he has a ceritificate in construction inspection and structural systems analysis, and he stated he would almost guarantee that the roof is not adequate to support concrete tile. He stated that 10 years ago they didn't have concrete tile, so why would it have been structurally designed for it. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she would be very much in favor of the department working with him in determining some alternative, as she feels they should do away with the current roofing. Commissioner Hargrave stated that since they don't have enough information at this point, this is all they can do. Mr. Browning stated that he will check into the structural aspects this next week, but he is not really confident in an alternative that would match red tile. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the concrete blocks the were presented were for. The Assistant Planner stated that this was a sample of the materials for the retaining wall, including the two available colors. Mr. Browning stated that he suggests they use the tan as an alternate to the grey. The Assistant Planner stated that the condition reads that the conditions 29 would be agreed upon between the applicant and the Community Development Director. Mr. Browning stated that, in most cases, their walls are fairly short, perhaps 3 feet. Commissioner Hargrave stated that most everything is in earth tones, but either one would probably work. He stated that he has a problem regarding the fences, and he understands the cost side of it, but on Oriole across the street is a solid, block wall that goes down that tract of homes, and he feels to put a stake fence at the top at Oriole is not too aesthetically pleasing. He feels it is a mistake to leave it up to the homeowners, as they all won't agree on the same thing. He stated that this is the showcase of the development, so when they come to the conditions, he is going to ask for a condition that stake fences not be allowed on 14-17. Mr. Browning asked what he is requesting. Commissioner Hargrave stated he would like to see a more aesthetically pleasing fence line, for example, some sort of wrought iron with pilasters. Mr. Browning stated that he really doesn't like the wrought iron thinking, in that it doesn't offer privacy and you lose control of what goes on in the backyard. He stated that there probably isn't anything that would make everybody happy. He stated that he would rather see their money spent on the slope and more expensive planting. He stated that other alternatives are brick or stone, and they would be four or five times the cost of the wood fence. He stated that perhaps they can try and go with trellis -type plants and creepers that will grow on the wood fence. Commissioner Sims stated that the lots facing Oriole are elevated about 15 feet above Oriole, as far as the situation of privacy goes. He asked if there was any view advantages for these homes, as they are somewhat elevated over the homes on the other side, and he expects they would be able to see down the hill. He stated that the wrought iron actually could be advantageous to the homes and make them more desirable, expensive and sellable. He stated he would really oppose putting up a block wall. Mr. Browning stated that they are higher lots, but with wrought iron, it isn't much for keeping kids and pets in, as well as keeping people out, and he stated you do lose privacy, as 15 feet of elevation isn't really that high, and you will see right through that backyard, as there will be traffic going down the street. Commissioner stated that perhaps pilasters and wood fencing could be alternated, or some treatment of that type. Chairman Hawkinson brought this back to the Commission for discussion. 30 MOTION PCM-90-9 SA-89-11 Commissioner Van Gelder stated that there are many areas where the post office requires cluster mailboxes, and she asked if this would apply to any place in Grand Terrace. The Assistant Planner stated that she did not know of any specific locations offhand. Commissioner Buchanan stated that there is nothing they can do about it right now because it is part of the City Council requirements. Mr. Browning stated that the developer provides the mailboxes, and they are uniform and consistent. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if plants could be planted that would crawl up the fence, which might be less expensive than replacing with some other type of wood. She stated that she did not feel there were too many windows. She stated that she would be in favor of letting the Community Development Director take care of the existing house roof and coming up with an alternative, and she expressed concern for changing Condition # 1. Commissioner Sims had a question regarding Condition #5. He asked if the Community Development Director was indicating that, beyond what these drawings show, that additional windows and sidings would be added. The Assistant Planner stated no, that what they were trying to do was devise some set standards for a lot of the Site and Architectural Projects that come through. She stated if there was something needed, they would be more specific. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he wants to make sure that he and Mr. Browning understands that he is or is not required to have his window treatments the same on the sides and on the front. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to modify Condition #3 to state that the roofing material of the existing house shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director, and, if structurally feasible, shall be consistent with the proposed roofing material on the new construction, and if not feasible, some compatible material approved by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Hargrave second. 31 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-9 MOTION PCM-90-10 SA-89-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-10 Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. All ayes. Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that Condition # 1 be changed to read all changes must be approved by the Planning Department. Commissioner Munson second. The Assistant Planner asked what might happen with the large changes, as the intent of the Community Development Director was probably minor changes, and then anything on a larger scale would come back to Planning Commission. Commissioner Hilkey stated that perhaps the sentence could state that all changes must be cleared through the Planning Department or the Planning Commission, and minor changes or clarification may be made by the Planning Department. Commissioners Van Gelder and Munson concurred. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. All ayes. Commissioner Buchanan stated that, with respect to #7, he feels this is the appropriate place to add some language about the improved fencing treatment at the top of the slope. Commissioner Buchanan asked if staff thought it was necessary to have a separate fencing plan for the entire project. He stated that all he is really concerned about is the fencing at the tops of the slopes along Oriole. He asked if he should word the condition that a detailed fencing plan for the project shall be submitted for approval to the Community Development Director, specifically the west - facing portion of the fence along the rear of Lots 14-17. Commissioner Hargrave offered justification as to why he thought it should be all fencing, as this gives the developer a chance to figure out what they want to do from a cost standpoint. He stated that specifically, the Community Development Director has stated that all rear lots are to be enclosed with 6 foot cedar fences. 32 MOTION PCM-90-11 SA-89-11 MOTION PCM-90-11 MOTION PCM-90-12 SA-89-11 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add Condition #13, stating that a detailed fencing plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director, and special attention shall be made to the rear fencing of Lots 14-17. Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion purposes. He asked if this meant that the Community Development Director could just say they could just go with the 6 foot wooden fences. Commissioner Buchanan stated, the way the motion is phrased, yes. He stated that the alternative would be to require that final fencing choice be approved by the Planning Commission, but he personally has enough confidence in the Community Development Director and the developer working something out. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is not opposed to this, but he is opposed to 6 foot cedar fencing, period. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they would accept it if she amended the motion to include some verbage regarding making it aesthetically pleasing, for example, with plants. Commissioner Hargrave stated that this probably would not make a difference. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he would put a four foot block wall from the northwest corner of Lot 14, across the back to the comer of the house on Lot 17, and on the other side of the street, he would put a matching block wall back about 100 feet between Lots 5 and 6. He stated there is already footing there, so an additional five or six feet on top of the retaining wall would not cost much more. Commissioner Buchanan withdrew the motion with Commissioner Hargrave's concurrence. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that they require a detailed fencing plan for the development to be submitted and approved by the 33 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-12 MOTION PCM-90-13 SA-89-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-13 MOTION PCM-90-14 SA-89-11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-14 Site and Architectural Review Board prior to certificates of occupancy. Commissioner Hargrave second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that the frustration they are experiencing with the fencing is maybe not so much the material, but the fact that if you go around the City and look some of the fencing material in existence, most everything you look at is a monotonous situation. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. All ayes. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion that the verbage on the existing house be that the existing garage be demolished and rebuilt according to the Site and Architectural renderings. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. All ayes. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion that SA-89-11 be approved with noted changes and the conditions for approval as discussed. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. All ayes. 34 ITEM #6 SA-90-1 T.J. AUSTYN, INC. VAN BUREN AND OBSERVATION DRIVE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF 85 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH 2 AND 3 CAR GARAGES MOTION PCM-90-15 SA-90-1 MOTION PCM-90-15 Chairman Hawkinson requested that this be moved to the next meeting due to the late hour, asking the applicant if this would cause any difficulties. Commissioner Hargrave stated that we could promise the applicant that Site and Architectural be first on the agenda. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue SA-90-1 to the next regularly scheduled Site and Architectural Review Meeting of February 20, 1990. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. All ayes. Commissioner Munson asked if it was necessary for staff reports to be read. The Assistant Planner stated that certain items needed to be entered into the record, but she would check on the legal aspects. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the people in the audience probably haven't heard it. Chairman Hawkinson stated that this is a question for the city attorney to make a determination on. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what kind of control they had over whether or not the City Attorney is present. The Assistant Planner stated that he always receives a Notice of Public Hearing from staff and if there is something very unique, they contact him. Commissioner Van Gelder said she felt that she should be here. The Assistant Planner stated that she would bring this up with the U-1 Community Development Director. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, David R. Sawyer Jr wl nson Community Develop ent Director �: Ch 'r an Pla 'nR Commission 02-16-90 L 36