Loading...
02/20/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 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 20, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner PLEDGE: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. Discussion of necessity of presentation of staff report. Discussion of whether or not the Barton Road Specific Plan forces any business to change existing sign. Presentation by Mike Raven of proposed residential development in the R1- 20 and RH districts located at the east end of Main Street. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Public Participation - No comments. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP RECONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Continuation of workshop presentation. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 7:10 P.M. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-16 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-16 Commissioner Hargrave made the motion that the minutes of February 6, 1990 be approved. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Buchanan asked for correction of word on page 20. Motion carries with correction. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. ITEM #2 CUP-90-01 JEREMIAH F. AND LINDA O'CONNOR 22184 MCCLARREN G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND -FAMILY UNIT IN AN R-1 ZONED AREA The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Van Gelder asked, if this was recorded, what would happen if the home was sold, and the new owner had no need for a granny flat. The Community Development stated that there would be a couple of options. First, they could make the necessary improvements to the property 2 to change it to a second unit and create a duplex -type of situation on the lot, second, they could use it as a storage facility, or third, it could be used as additional family area for the family living on the site, but not an outside person coming in. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they could assume that, since this is a recorded document, the new people purchasing the parcel would know this. The Community Development Director stated that about the only thing the recording of the document does is let them know that when the new person buys the property, he or she is made aware that it does have restrictions on it, but it doesn't guarantee that they will abide by it. He stated that it does give them the ability to respond to a complaint by doing code enforcement as they were aware of the situation. He stated that it is important for staff to determine whether or not it is a granny flat because, if it is a granny flat, there is the possibility of a third unit being placed on the property since it is R-2. The City Attorney stated that, as long as it meets the requirements of .the code, the statute specifically provides that as long as granny flats meet certain criteria, they are permissible; whether or not the owner is interested some time in the future in changing or adding a second unit really isn't relevant to their decision because they really don't have any choice. He stated that cities used to regulate granny flat because of the problems being talked about now, but the statute was amended to say that the city shall have granny flats if they meet these criteria, including, among other things, that it can't be rented. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the applicant knew that if the granny flat was put in, there was a possibility that they could not have a second home there. The Community Development Director stated that he is not saying that the granny flat would prevent them from doing this, but this is an option that is still open to them. Commissioner Sims clarified that the proposed addition has to occur before the granny flat can be occupied. The Community Development Director stated that yes, they need to put the additions and improvements onto the home in order for him to feel comfortable in recommending that the granny flat is clearly subordinate to the existing main residence. The City Attorney stated that Grand Terrace's ordinance is more liberal that the statute, which would provide that a granny flat can't exceed 15% of the living area of the principal residence, with the living area being defined as 3 the habitable area excluding the garage or accessory structures. He stated that in order for this to pencil out, improvements have to be made to the existing primary structure. Commissioner Sims asked if they could construct the granny flat but not occupy it. Commissioner Buchanan stated that it was worded so that they could not get building permits until there was Site and Architectural approval, but they can't occupy it until the proposed additions to the residence were completed. The City Attorney stated that it would not be habitable until there was enough square footage and the improvements were done to the other structure. The Community Development Director stated that there were two conditions which he was confusing. He stated that they are recommending that the additions and the granny flat be subject to Site and Architectural Review prior to building permits being issued, and that the proposed additions be required and completed prior to the granny flat being occupied, which allows Site and Architectural issues to be seen for the entire site as well as how the architecture is going to tie in with the two different units. He stated that this also lets the applicant move forward with both the additions and the granny flat at the same time. He stated that the commission will see it again as Site and Architectural Review. He said that they would have permission to build the granny flat, and they would be looking at whether it ties in to the existing structure. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the Community Development Director felt comfortable asking them to approve potentially a granny flat without a certainty on the structural additions to the existing residence. The Community Development Director stated that he felt comfortable in that they would not get gas or electric or any final approvals for the granny flat if they did not go forward with those additions, and also that they would run into problems once they were going to sell the property, because within the real estate laws and disclosure laws they have to show permits and approvals for any additional structures. He stated that he can't guarantee that, even if they conditioned that, they wouldn't go forward with the granny flat and just move someone in who would camp off of a stove. He stated that if this was to occur, they would be able to act on health code and code enforcement violations. The City Attorney stated that, theoretically, the applicant could be told that, looking at the existing structure, their granny flat does not pencil out under either the state law or code, and therefore, they would have to deny their application. He stated that, rather that doing that, since they are 4 going to make improvements to the existing structure which would allow it to pencil out, they are just approving both at the same time. Commissioner Sims asked why they are not seeing both at the same time. The City Attorney stated that, in part, this is because the improvements that they are doing to the principal residence don't require Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the Community Development Director made the decision that it is unfair to the applicant to require that they actually do construction without really knowing that they are going to get a granny flat. He stated that they are really hearing the Conditional Use Permit on the granny flat now, and one of the conditions of the CUP is that they do the improvements that aren't subject to a CUP as condition of being granted that CUP. Commissioner Sims expressed concerned that they may not like the results of a Site and Architectural Review, after they already approved the Conditional Use Permit. The City Attorney stated that the State Legislature approached granny flats by making sure they were small enough so they couldn't be converted, and that Grand Terrace decided to expand that to 25%. He stated that when the statute was originally adopted, they couldn't exceed 10% but later amended to 15%. Commissioner Sims then stated that the square footage would be set The City Attorney agreed, stating that this is a complicated problem, but it seemed to be the simplest and most expeditious and fairest way of proceeding. Commissioner Hargrave, referring to the map, asked if the 70 foot area in the back was in landscaping now. The Community Development Director stated that it was basically just open - grass area. Commissioner Hargrave asked how many feet it was from the beginning of the storage structure all the way back. The Community Development Director stated that from the existing house garage wall, they are looking at 40 feet to the end of the proposed granny flat, and then an additional 71 feet, so it would be 90 feet going straight back. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was any break or if it was just one continual wall going back, once the addition was put on. 5 The Community Development Director stated that there would be 60 feet of structure, then an additional 71 feet of open lot. He stated that one of the things they could look at in Site and Architectural Review is how they could treat this and what would be required. Commissioner Hargrave asked where the property line was on the east side. The Community Development Director stated that the existing garage is approximately 9 inches from the property line. He stated that they are not utilizing the garage area for purposes of the granny flat. Commissioner Hargrave asked what separates this property from the property on the east side. The Community Development Director stated that there is a 6 foot block wall that goes back to the center of the granny flat area. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the patio on the west side showing on the rendering is already in existence, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Hargrave asked what kind of patio it is. The Community Development Director stated that it is an arboretum -type of patio. Commissioner Hargrave asked how the single-family unit on the west side was separated. The Community Development Director stated that this is a wire fence for the entire length. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the duplex on the east side was a single or double -story. The Community Development Director stated that it is an older, single - story structure. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the duplex to the south was. The Community Development Director stated that the property to the south is a single-family home in front and a rental unit in the back, separated. Chairman Hawkinson asked the applicant to come forth. JEREMUH F. O'CONNOR T 22184 MCCLARREN G.T. Mr. O'Connor stated that he thought this project was going to be pretty simple. He stated that they were going to put grandma in the back and give her about 610 square feet and they were going to add 720 to the rear of the home which they purchased in November, but with the amount of restrictions that they have received from the Building Department, they have decided to scrap the idea of building a granny flat, and they are just going to do the addition to the home. He stated that he doesn't see why they should have to close off their driveway and put a curb and gutter across that and dig up the concrete for 25 feet back and re -landscape that. He stated that this is where he parks his work truck, and he needs this parking area, as he has a boat and they will soon be getting an R.V. The Community Development Director asked for verification that Mr. O'Connor was withdrawing the granny flat application. Mr. O'Connor said that this was correct. The Community Development Director stated that the improvements to the home do not require Site and Architectural Review or anything from the Planning Commission. The City Attorney stated that, in terms of any action on this item, there isn't any approval or denial. He stated that they just close the public hearing and move on to the next item. Chairman Hawkinson stated that they would close the application for CUP- 90-01. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:55 P.M. ITEM #3 SA-90-1 T.J. AUSTYN VAN BUREN/OBSERVATION G.T. The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Buchanan asked if staff had any input based on experience during the construction of the first phase. The Community Development Director stated that the only thing they have 7 dealt with was a problem with another project regarding gang mailboxes causing parking problems. He stated that one of the conditions that they have here, which is what the applicant intended to do originally, was to have independent mailboxes on different lots. He stated that the existing project has a minor gangbox, which consists of one post with a mailbox for each lot extending off of the side of it on or near the property line down near the curb, which he stated is acceptable. He stated that they have looked at fencing situations on the existing property, and they have worked out the different conditions that were necessary because of fencing problems that have come up, and that most of these have been on a staff level. He stated that this development has been very professionally and well done, and that the landscaping has been done in a very professional manner. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the City has received any complaints or comments from any of the new homeowners in the first phase that might be addressed. The Community Development Director stated that he is not aware of any complaints from homeowners. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the final decision was with the first tract in regard to the drainage over the front door. The Community Development Director stated that they have gutters over the front doors, and the same treatment will be used here. Commissioner Sims asked what the fence treatment was for the previous tract and what it will be here. The Community Development Director stated that it would be cedar. He stated that it would be similar to Fieldcrest, but a little bit taller, and this fencing will be dog-eared, with a more finished look. He stated that he has no problem with the style, and as far as discoloration goes, there isn't much that can be done due to nature. He stated that the only real condition they can set is that the fences be treated with a weather -resistant, water seal treatment, or that they be stained and painted. He stated that they have never had that condition before. Commissioner Sims asked if the Community Development Director felt there was a problem with this. The Community Development Director stated that he doesn't like the way the fences have weathered, but it has been the history of the City that those types of things have been approved, and it is a minor issue. He stated that where he has a problem with that is where there is a lot of exposed fencing where the watering will hit it. He stated that if they would like to make a recommendation that the fence be treated with a water repellent -type 8 treatment they may, but he is not sure how successful this would be over time. Commissioner Sims stated that he feels they should be looking at these issues. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that staff has been working with the applicant to correct the appropriate setbacks and asked if this has been solved. The Community Development Director stated that they have not received back an approved site plan for that, but they don't anticipate having any problem getting this taken care of prior to building permits. Chairman Hawkinson called the applicant to the microphone. MARUNNE ELLIOT 22700 MAIN STREET G.T. T.J. AUSTYN PROJECT MANAGER Ms. Elliot stated that they are in their third phase of Tract 13205, which basically is totally built out, and they have six houses left to sell. She stated that the tract being reviewed this evening is 13050, and consists of 85 single- family homes. She stated that both of the homes are 7,200 square foot lots and some are 8,000 and 11,000 based on their conditions of approval. She stated that the houses have been received well by the buyers and they really haven't made any changes as everyone seems to like what they have. She stated they have dual -glazed windows throughout, which was something that they questioned the builder at the last meeting. She stated that this provides for cool homes in the summertime and warm homes in the winter, and it also serves as soundproofing. She stated that they have R-30 insulation in the ceilings and R-11 and R-19 where it is required. She stated that she lives in one of the houses, and they are very well insulated. She stated that she would respectfully request that they approve the site as submitted. She commented that she would prefer not to treat the fence, because it gets into what to treat it with, and if you try to determine what kind of stain to use, you get into trouble with the earth tones and the greys. She stated that she would comply with whatever was suggested, but it really provides a hardship if they have to figure out how to seal these as there is a lot of fencing, as they have provided complete fencing for the entire project. Commissioner Buchanan asked if T.J. Austyn has received any complaints or suggestions from the homeowners that would be appropriate for modification or inclusion at this stage. E Ms. Elliot stated that they have had no complaints. She stated that any bugs were worked out at the time that the models were constructed. She stated that they may have added a window to give more light into some of the bathrooms, but basically, they try to plan ahead. She stated that when the condition of the drainpipes was put on the homes, this was helpful. Commissioner Buchanan stated that, with respect to the fencing, his concern was with locations where there is a large expanse of fence facing outward from the project. He stated that, on the site plan, it would be the exterior of the western -most fence going from the cul-de-sac on Van Buren down across the canal easement. He feels the homeowners would not have much interest in preserving that side of the fence, as it is not visible to their lots. He stated that it may be helpful to take steps to insure that the exterior portion of the fence along these areas is done in such a way that it has a maximum life span. Ms. Elliot stated that she wouldn't have a problem working with the Community Development Director as the time comes up. She stated that what is being looked at basically backs up to Irby's project, and the one above backs up to Carter's property, and those two would be coming in after her project. She stated that they will be painting the block wall fence along Oriole which has the graffiti in about four different colors. She stated that would use a graffiti -type paint which would be washable in case someone decided to put graffiti on it again. The Community Development Director stated that, if it would be acceptable to Commission, the treatment of the fence could be left on a staff level to find any areas in the tract where the fence is exposed to public view on the outside portion of the fence. He stated that it could be treated in a clear manner so that the natural color could be maintained. Ms. Elliot stated that Tract 13205 has a park that runs through it, and there is some fencing there. She stated that they talked about doing something to it to make it uniform, but they don't want to just go ahead and do it because its been approved for the wooden fence the way it is. She stated that there used to be a silicone product out, but with the chemical restrictions, she doesn't know if it is still available, and she doesn't know if it would keep the would from taking one of the Olympic stains. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was much of a difference in cost for a developer to use tempered glass. Ms. Elliot stated that there is a considerable difference, but from a marketing standpoint, she feels that sales can overcome that. She stated that it doesn't restrict the design as to the amount of glass that you use. Commissioner Sims, referring to corner lots, stated that there would 10 MOTION PCM-90-17 SA-90-1 MOTION probably be fencing along the parkway as well as landscaping. He asked who would be responsible for the care of these areas. The Community Development Director stated that if it is dealing with the parkway, the property owner would be responsible to maintain this. He stated that if this doesn't happen, the City tries to enforce this through code enforcement. Commissioner Sims asked if there would be irrigation. The Community Development Director stated that there would be irrigation, but the exception is along Observation, which was a mistake. Commissioner Sims stated that he disagrees with the fencing issue, and that the builders have a talent to solve this type of problem. He stated that it is just a matter of applying it in the proper way. Commissioner Munson asked how long staff had been working with them on the site plans and the setback corrections. The Community Development Director stated that the corrections were sent back to them approximately 1 1/2 weeks ago. Commissioner Munson asked how long it would be before they reply. The Community Development Director stated that they have to reply before they get their building permits, so he anticipates they will come back in the next week or week after. Ms. Elliot stated that the engineer calculates the setbacks for them and works with staff on it. She stated that she FAX'ed corrections to the engineer on Thursday, and they were being put on the grading plan that the City Engineer was still looking at. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that SA-90-1 be approved with the noted amendments during testimony on this issue. Commissioner Van Gelder second. The Community Development Director clarified that they were referring to the fencing issue, to which Commissioner Buchanan agreed. 11 VOTE PCM-90-17 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED TO MARCH 6, 1990. Respectfully submitted, David R. Sawyer Community Devel pment Director 03-02-90 Approved by, f: er kinson r,l C an Planning Commission 12