Loading...
03/20/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MARCH 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 March 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: None PLEDGE: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. Discussion of status of G.T.I. Market. Variance withdrawn on Item #2, Ron and Bari Burns. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. 1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None ITEM # 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-23 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 6, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-23 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that the minutes of March 6, 1990 be approved. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Hilkey abstained. ITEM #2 TTM-89-05 RON AND BARI BURNS 11899 ROSEDALE AVENUE G.T. AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE A SINGLE 3.4 ACRE LOT INTO SIX RESIDENTIAL LOTS The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims had a question about easement for water, sewer and storm drain. He asked if there was a city minimum required for easement widths. The Community Development Director stated that this is not mentioned in the conditions, and that the map indicates the width of the easements. Commissioner Sims asked if this was the width of the easement or the actual facility. The Community Development Director stated that it shows five feet on either side of the property line, which is the 10 foot easement. Commissioner Sims stated that, in Lot 2, the water line would be within a sloped area. He asked if this was normally done, and if it was normally okay with the water company. The Community Development Director stated that he doesn't know how the water company reacted as they didn't make any comments on it and if they have to, they can make minor adjustments in the field. Commissioner Sims stated that he didn't see any width on the easement for the storm drain between Lots 3 and 4. The Community Development Director stated that this can be covered at the Final Map stage, and that it doesn't need to be conditioned at this point. Commissioner Buchanan stated that it was indicated by the Community Development Director that Condition 1 should be eliminated. He asked if this was because the applicant intended to sell the individual sites for individual development rather than build homes on them. The Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the condition requiring the will -serve letter from the Riverside Highland Water District sufficient to include the concerns expressed regarding the fire flow problems. The Community Development Director stated that the fire department makes their flow requirements, and then the water company looks at what the fire department says and whether or not they can provide that. He stated that if they cannot provide that, a will -serve letter will not be provided until that water can be provided. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the parcels on the northeast and northwest corner on the map were part of the Tentative Map. The Community Development Director stated that they were not part of the property. He stated that the property to the northwest is developed with a single family home. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the mailing list was in the packet. The Community Development Director stated that it was included by mistake. Commissioner Hargrave asked, if substantial upgrades were required to put a much heavier water line in to increase the pressure, if it would be possible that the line could be financed over five or ten years vs. paid off before permits were issued. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant would have to work this out with the water district. He stated that they have done 3 other things that have helped an applicant in this type of situation where they would foot the bill now and there would be a reimbursement agreement for when other properties in the area develop. He stated that there are a couple of options that can be worked out. He stated that in negotiating with the fire department, if the homes were sprinklered, there may be a reduction in the fire flow requirement, which would then reduce the amount of cost, and it may not even need that improvement. He stated that there are a couple of alternatives that the water department could work out with them, but he hasn't been privy to the latest go-arounds with the applicant and the water department. Commissioner Hargrave asked, if there was a financing arrangement, if they would be apprised of it so they would no the water situation. The Community Development Director stated that they could be, but under normal circumstances they wouldn't be. Commissioner Hilkey stated that no improvements were shown, which the Community Development Director verified. Commissioner Hilkey then stated that the drainage seems to be draining onto the neighbor's property. The Community Development Director stated that, as with all developments in town, the applicant has to continue the drainage and has to accept any drainage from adjacent properties and not create any additional drainage onto adjacent properties. He stated that when the City Engineer looks at the drainage plans, which are yet to be drawn and submitted, then that would have to be taken care of on a staff level by the City Engineer. He stated that normally, at this time, they do not receive drainage plans that show flow amounts and where they are going. Commissioner Hilkey stated that it shows drainage leaving the cul-de-sac heading southeast, and it doesn't show what will be done with it when it gets to the edge of the hill. He stated that it is a fairly steep slope and asked if the drainage problems had to be addressed at this point. The Community Development Director stated that they do have to be addressed, but for the Tentative Map, the City Engineer includes it in his requirements. He stated that the grading plan is to be approved by the City Engineer. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is not comfortable with this, because what is submitted shows him mitigating his drainage to the property next to him, and he needs to not show it this way, or it needs to be addressed more fully. The Community Development Director stated that it will be addressed more fully. He stated that the question is whether or not he feels that he needs 4 that information in order to make his decision on it. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he would be giving permission on the tentative based on their drainage on a pretty good sized piece of property, and it is all going to somebody else's property, and he doesn't understand how this could be acceptable. He stated that he is concerned that they would allow buildings so close to that big of a hole with no retaining or protection from erosion. The Community Development Director stated that how those particular properties will be developed will be looked at during the Site and Architectural Review stage, and if they feel that it is not safe based on geological reports, then they can set the setback back even further at Site and Architectural Review hearing. He stated that this is not a major developer and they won't be looking at a lot of homes and site plans. He said that this is simply a property owner dividing the property up for future subdivision on sale basis, and each property owner would then come in on an independent basis and apply for that Site and Architectural Review. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is concerned about that much of a drop. The Community Development Director stated that all they are doing is dividing the lot up, and there is sufficient room on that side in order to site a house within the normal setbacks, and they are requiring that the grading plans be submitted and approved by the engineer. He stated that if the engineer decides that there is sufficient justification for a geological report, then that has to be done before they site a house. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they have been provided with both the post -tentative tract map and the preliminary grading plan. He asked if the preliminary grading plan was simply for their reference, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the pad locations that show up on that were simply for background information. The Community Development Director stated that staff has looked at them and made sure that they are buildable. He stated that it is not required in order to be part of the Tentative Map. He stated that they can take it into consideration and include it in their approval but asked that they keep in mind that it is a preliminary grading plan, and that the formal grading plan would have to be submitted to the engineer to be approved on an independent basis. 5 RON BURNS 11899 ROSEDALE G.T. Mr. Burns stated that he made some contacts with the City of Colton in regard to the fire service. He stated that Riverside Highland said they could supply the domestic water but not the fire service. He stated that he has gotten some response back from the City of Colton, and Gene McMeans, Terry and Rex said that they have made a plan showing the new fire hydrant location that could serve that area, and apparently they have the fire flow to do that, based on what Riverside Highland came back with. Commissioner Hilkey asked for an explanation of the drainage. Mr. Burns stated that the drainage is being taken out to LaCadena, and will go into the storm drain at that point. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for discussion and action. He asked if it was very complicated to have two jurisdictions serving regarding the water service. The Community Development Director stated that he didn't know that it was extra complicated, and as far as the conditions on the map, it is indicated that Riverside Highland would provide a will -serve letter. He said that they will generically interpret that as whoever will provide the water will provide staff with the required letters of service. Commissioner Sims asked if they would need a separate letter from Colton. The Community Development Director stated that they would require that. Commissioner Sims asked if that would have to be a condition. The Community Development Director stated that if they felt more comfortable with that, he would suggest taking the condition regarding the Riverside Highland's will -serve letter or its equivalent to provide adequate water service, and leave staff with the flexibility to work with whoever ends up providing the service. MOTION PCM-90-24 TTM-89-05 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that the Planning Commission adopt the findings set forth in the resolution attached to the staff report as Attachment A and that they recommend for approval of the Tentative Tract Map 89-05 as conditioned in the resolution with the deletion of Item #1 T and that they recommend for adoption the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is stuck on the drainage. He asked if this was underground or above -ground drainage. CATHY CONNER/ABEL ENGINEERING 140 WEST ORANGE COVINA Ms. Conner stated that the drainage is going into a pipe, and they haven't specified the size because they haven't done a hydrology on it at this time since it is at the tentative stage. She stated that this will be addressed if it is approved and they do the improvement plans. She stated that the pipe is flowing into an existing storm drain that goes under LaCadena Drive, so it is not flowing over anyone's property, it is in the ground. She stated that they have not been able to find plans for the storm drain yet, and if they have to, they can connect it out into the right-of-way. Commissioner Hilkey asked how they connect to the storm drain if it is not on their property. Ms. Conner stated that the storm drain is in the public right-of-way. Commissioner Hilkey asked what the chances were of the storm drain being on somebody else's property. Ms. Conner stated that it normally isn't done that way, but it is a possibility. She stated that if it was on someone's property, they would have to get an easement from them, otherwise they can change the direction of the storm drain so it will be in the right-of-way of LaCadena Drive. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they would see this again. The Community Development Director stated that they would not, as it would be done on staff level. He stated that they are looking at a tentative map and what work has been done to date. He stated that they look at it for conditions, and this is an opportunity to make any special conditions. He stated that the pipe is shown where it is on the map, but they will come back with the final map with their improvement plans that will be done to detail, and if they find that the line is actually a bit to the north and doesn't cross that person's property, it can be moved over, as long as it is not substantially affecting the map. Ife stated that the City Engineer will sign that final map, stating that it is not substantially different than the tentative map that was approved. Commissioner Hilkey asked if someone might interpret their action that they 7 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-24 were giving the applicant permission to do any type of work on someone else's property. The Community Development Director stated that they are giving them permission to provide those services in that manner, and legally, they can't say it is okay for them to do anything on anybody else's property, so they are doing it on an assumption basis that, no matter what they say is okay, their permission is needed in order to do it. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. ITEM #3 CUP-90-04 TAYLOR LUMBER 21800 MAIN AVENUE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WHOLESALE AND RETAIL LUMBER SALES, CUSTOM WOOD MILLING, AND BULK LUMBER STORAGE The Community Development Director presented the staff report Commissioner Sims stated that the light and the glare were indicated on the Negative Declaration, and that it was reiterated in the mitigation portion that there may be a glare. He asked if some solution was offered. The Community Development Director stated that the normal code restrictions restrict any light that is being provided on that site for an industrial project to be directed away from any residential areas, and this could be added on to the comment that the City's code requirements regarding light and glare are adequate to mitigate. Commissioner Sims stated that there would be no milling after 6:00, which means the operation of the saws. He asked if, between the hours of 6:00 and 9:30, they would still be loading, unloading, and hauling in and out of lumber. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant could say what goes on, but staffs intent is that their public hours be restricted from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., which means that a subcontractor would not be able to come in after 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Sims asked if the anticipated parking would happen toward the Main Street area. The Community Development Director stated that it would happen in the same area that is indicated on the plans, and that they are simply stating they need to have that dimensioned. Commissioner Hargrave asked why there needs to be a block wall on the southerly part of the property. The Community Development Director stated that, first of all, it is a requirement for this type of business to have an opaque, six foot high, block wall. He stated that, from personal point of view, he feels they are trying to upgrade the City of Grand Terrace, and this type of block wall is really a standard condition for communities that are developing new manufacturing areas of a restricted manner, which this is, as it is not a heavy industrial area. He stated that it provides sound attenuation between the business and the residents across the street, and it provides visual improvements so that you don't see just the storage of materials. Commissioner Hargrave asked if we had a block wall as a requirement of the municipal code for this type of development. The Community Development Director stated that it has to be a six foot high, block wall. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they had any jurisdiction since it was a municipal code as far as using something other than block. The Community Development Director stated that it has to be block, and this is why they conditioned it the way they have. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the wall that is being allowed to be developed at a later time is the wall on the westerly side. The Community Development Director referred to the transparency, indicating the location of the block wall which staff is willing to defer. He stated that the wall will be required when the adjacent property develops. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the only wall being required tonight as part of the CUP was the one on Main Street, and if anything along the sides and extending to the back was being deferred to the future. The Community Development Director stated that this was correct, along with temporarily having the chain link fence repaired and having some type of opaque fencing. I Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was currently fencing there. The Community Development Director stated that there is, but it is not in really good shape, so most of it would have to replaced. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the conditions indicate to the applicant that this is what they would have to do; that if it is in disrepair, he will need to replace the chain link fencing. The Community Development Director stated that this is true. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the Community Development Director had thought of an alternative in order to get the block wall put in at this time. The Community Development Director stated that they hadn't discussed that, as they felt comfortable deferring it to a later date and just having the chain link fence with some type of landscaping material to create the opaque effect desired, and that staff recommends this at this time. Commissioner Buchanan asked what is meant by the phrase, "any adjacent industrial property develops". The Community Development Director stated that with that phrase, he intends that any time an adjacent property is going through the same requirements or any review that would require them to put up a block wall, that would kick in this requirement for this applicant also, so that it could be done at the same time. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there was any restriction on retail in an M-R zone. The Community Development Director stated that retailing in the sense of it being a home improvement center wouldn't meet the code, but this is basically a quasi -wholesale -retail; retail in the sense that they are not selling to you and I, but rather to a sub -contractor. He stated they are actually retailing the sale of the property so the City would be receiving sales tax on sales of the materials. Commissioner Buchanan asked if this facility really isn't supposed to be opened for off -the -street, customer traffic. The Community Development Director stated that they have indicated that they are flexible and will sell to anyone, but they are not geared toward the individual homeowner unless the individual homeowner is coming in and doing a substantial repair or large patio cover or deck, for example. He stated that it is not a hardware store. O 10 Commissioner Buchanan asked if there was a problem with zoning compliance of this facility. The Community Development Director stated that they felt it was in conformance as they have it conditioned. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the nearby uses seen recently include a recycling facility. The Community Development Director verified this. He stated that directly adjacent to it is the Edison facility, and across the railroad tracks is Central City Recycling and Domtar Gypsum. Commissioner Buchanan asked what the hours of operation restrictions were. The Community Development Director stated that they were 8:00 to 6:00. Commissioner Buchanan asked if they had done summer extensions with Domtar. The Community Development Director stated that they had, and they could anticipate them coming in again. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they are looking at allowing a 7:00 to 7:00 operation in terms of customer traffic, but the milling and saw -cutting operations restricted to 8:00 to 6:00. The Community Development Director verified this. Commissioner Buchanan stated that there is a lumber facility next door to this proposal. He asked if the operations would be similar in terms of the type of customer traffic they have. The Community Development Director stated that he didn't believe so, but the applicant could clarify that. Commissioner Buchanan asked if Inland Lumber did any cutting. The Community Development Director stated that he believes they do, but that all of their operations are grandfathered in from before the code was in effect. Commissioner Buchanan asked if, other than the noise ordinance, they had any specific restrictions on their operations. The Community Development Director stated that this was correct 11 Commissioner Munson asked how the hours of operation compared to Inland Lumber. The Community Development Director stated that he believed Inland Lumber runs somewhere from 7:00 to 10:00 but was not absolutely certain, as they don't have any restrictions or any way of controlling that, as they can change week -to -week if they want. Commissioner Munson asked how late they run their saws. The Community Development Director stated that he does not have that information, but that for several years, they have not had any real complaints from the neighborhood regarding noise. He stated that previous to that, there had been complaints, but his understanding is that they are pretty much adhering to the noise ordinance now, and at least they are not getting any complaints on it. He stated that without it having been an actual CUP since they've incorporated, they don't know their operation hours or procedures. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the City had any problem with the portable office. The Community Development Director stated no, not in this area, and they've approved at least two others in this area, and considering how the property will be blocked off from view with the block wall, they don't have a problem with it. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the photograph shows a ground -level positioning of the portable. He asked if this was what they were going to do, as he didn't see this as a contingency. The Community Development Director stated that they would require that the unit either be ground -mounted or be skirted so that there would not be any visible area between it. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they could specify that it be level. The Community Development Director stated that they could specify that it be level or actually mounted on the ground, but they could ask the applicant what their intentions are. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the photographs show a ground level position. He asked if they would tap on to the Colton sewer. The Community Development Director stated that he wasn't sure of the status, whether or not there were already sewer facilities to the property from the prior use, or if they would need additional sewer facilities. 12 Commissioner Hilkey asked if there were any septic tanks in the area. The Community Development Director stated that he didn't know. Commissioner Buchanan asked if staff was satisfied with the current appearance and condition of the structures present, or would they be having rust removed or repainted. The Community Development Director stated that staff looked at it, and they would love to have it look better than it does, but they are substantial structures, and they are types of structures that do not lend themselves easily to upgrades without tearing the entire structure down. He stated that they are industrial structures, and staff did not recommend that there be any upgrade required. DENNY HUTNIK 3446 HILLSIDE NORCO Commissioner Hargrave asked for justification of being open until 9:30 p.m. on any day of the week. Mr. Hutnik stated that they are not looking forward to staying open that late, however, there will be times when, should trucks have to be loaded at night, or something comes up where Southern Pacific has a problem getting rail cars to them on time, they'll have a crew stay late to unload those cars. He stated that they don't want to make it a precedent to have the facility open every day until 9:30 at night. Commissioner Hargrave asked what he would do if Southern Pacific said they would have their cars to them at 9:45 p.m., and they would have to be unloaded by the next morning at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Hutnik stated that they don't do that. He stated that they drop the cars and may drop five cars and say they will pick them up in two days. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he just gave him the justification for not letting them stay open until 9:30 p.m. He stated that, if they have a couple of days to unload the cars, why should they allow them to stay open until 9:30 at night. Mr. Hutnik stated that if the amount of work happens to carry on a little bit, they would like to work those extra hours in order to get it done. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he visualized them having trucks coming into the yard for delivery or pick-up purposes after normal hours. 13 Mr. Hutnik stated that they don't expect that to happen, and that the most they may run into is a driver coming back in, being tied up in traffic with a wreck on the freeway, and maybe rather than getting back at 6:00 at night, he may get back at 8:00 at night. He stated that this would be a matter of him coming in, shutting off his truck and leaving. He stated that they wouldn't take the chance of loading his truck at that time of night. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was any reason why they should say 9:30 on any day of the week. Mr. Hutnik stated that six days is fine, in fact Saturday would be more of a half -a -day, catch up day. Commissioner Sims asked if they actually deliver the lumber. Mr. Hutnik responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sims asked if, after 7:00, they would be loading up for the next day's delivery. Mr. Hutnik stated that this was correct. Commissioner Sims asked how many trucks they are planning to have. Mr. Hutnik stated approximately six. Commissioner Sims asked what the loading time would be for one truck Mr. Hutnik stated that it varies, anywhere up to an hour, depending upon what the customer wants. Commissioner Munson asked if, on the retail end, they pay tax to the City of Grand Terrace. Mr. Hutnik stated that this was correct. Commissioner Munson asked how they would separate their volume, retail vs. wholesale. He asked if it was primarily a retail yard. Mr. Hutnik stated that everybody pays sales tax. He stated that one of their reasons for setting up in Grand Terrace is that they are bringing a dollar value to the City of Grand Terrace. He stated that there business is selling lumber, and when they sell on the wholesale end, whoever buys the lumber has to pay tax, and the City of Grand Terrace gets their percentage of it. The Community Development Director stated that they have been discussing this with the applicant. He stated that they could anticipate bringing in 14 potentially 100,000 to 130,000 dollars to the City through sales tax revenue, and if this project goes as anticipated, that would mean increasing the City's revenue in sales tax by one-third of what they receive right now. Commissioner Munson asked if they would compare themselves to Champion. Mr. Hutnik stated he believed so. Commission Hilkey asked if the plan on the office was for it to be ground level. He stated that, as he looked closer at the pictures, it is skirted. Mr. Hutnik stated that they are skirted, portable offices. He stated that this is an example of what their office would look like. He said their office would be of the same, identical materials. He stated that it is skirted because the utilities are plumbed in from the bottom, and it is next to impossible to set one of those on the ground. He stated that the skirting would be the same material as the siding. Commission Van Gelder asked how soon they planned to have the railroad spur in place and ready for use. Mr. Hutnik stated that the problem they have now with Southern Pacific is that they require a four to six month waiting period to hook up to a main feed line. He stated that they would have a private contractor come in, build up the spur, bring it up to Southern Pacific's requirements, and then Southern Pacific would come in and do it. He stated that they hoped they would speed up their operation, but the four to six month figure is an outside figure. Commission Van Gelder asked how much of a hindrance that would be for them in starting up. Mr. Hutnik stated that they have a tentative track agreement with Inland next door, and if they need to, they are more than welcome to use their spur. He stated that they are trying to negotiate right now with Champion so that they can use theirs if necessary. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they had a lease agreement or contract on this spur usage. Mr. Hutnik stated that Southern Pacific is required by Federal Law to provide service to anybody who needs it, and if you need rail service, you provide the facilities to have their cars brought into your yard. The Community Development Director stated that this is different than the situation they had with Domtar Gypsum, as the spur was actually on railroad 15 property rather than Domtar's property, so they required that they provide them lease and access approvals signed by the railroad company. He stated that this instance is different, as the spur is actually on the applicant's property, which will be tied into the railroad. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the spur from this proposal to the main line crossed anybody's property. Mr. Hutnik stated that it does not. He stated that Southern Pacific has a track that runs parallel to the yard, and they will be coming right off of their property onto Taylor Lumber's property. He stated that it is the main feed track that feeds Stater Bros. main warehouse as well as the Edison Company and Inland Timber. Commissioner Buchanan stated that condition 9 says that the applicant shall provide in writing to the Planning Department railroad company approval for access of the proposed railroad spur. He asked why this was a condition, and if this means that they don't get their Conditional Use Permit until they have railroad access. The Community Development Director stated that the intent was to clarify the whole situation regarding the railroad. He stated that the applicant provided a letter from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company this afternoon that satisfies this as far as staff goes. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there were a lot of similarities between what Taylor Lumber and Inland Lumber do. Mr. Hutnik stated that Inland Timber is strictly a wholesale timber outfit that brings in big lumber and ships only to large people. He stated that they do not handle your ordinary contractor. He stated that they have no retail traffic. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they would buy from Inland at times. Mr. Hutnik responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Inland does milling. Mr. Hutnik stated yes, they recut large beams. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Taylor Lumber recuts smaller beams. Mr. Hutnik stated that their milling operation involves, for example, someone wants studs cut, which are 92 1/4 inches, and they are being cut out of 8 foot boards, so you cut off the ends of the boards with a cut-off saw. He stated that they have to, by State of California law, have a sawdust 16 recovery system, so that there is no sawdust blowing throughout the area. He stated that the mill is like a big, garage -type of workshop, where they can custom mill what you might want to build a patio. He stated that as far as the noise level in relation to Inland Timber, where they have the large planers going, they are not even of that scale. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they were on a much smaller scaler than what their saws are cutting away at. Mr. Hutnik stated this was correct, and that also, what they call the mill area will be between two buildings, so there is a 13,500 square foot building in front bordering what would be the residential houses down the street, so it would make a large sound barrier. Commissioner Hargrave asked for a brief history on where Taylor Lumber comes from. Mr. Hutnik stated that Taylor Lumber is now located in the Anaheim area and has been in business for approximately 30 years. He stated that they decided to make a move to this area as growth is rapidly approaching. He stated that Orange County is getting so built up that it is starting to go against their kind of business. He stated that they decided to come out here where they can grow with the city. Commissioner Hargrave asked Mr. Hutnik what his position is with the facility. Mr. Hutnik stated that he is the Special Projects Engineer and he started with the company 15 years ago. Commissioner Hargrave asked who the owners of the company are. Mr. Hutnik stated the owner is Terry Wesseln. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Mr. Wesseln worked on a day-to-day basis in the facility. Mr. Hutnik stated that he is there everyday, and that he opens the door and closes it. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Mr. Wesseln was the only owner. Mr. Hutnik stated that this is a family -owned operation. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for discussion and action. 17 MOTION PCM-90-25 CUP-90-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-25 MOTION PCM-90-26 CUP-90-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-26 Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification on condition 8, that operation of any sort is conducted Monday through Saturday only, or there is no operation of any type going on Sunday. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to amend Condition #8 to read, "The hours of operation for public business shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and no activity shall occur within the facility on Sunday or after 9:30 p.m. on any other day of the week. All milling activity shall be restricted to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday". Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Sims made the motion to approve SA-90-04 and CUP-90-04 as conditioned and accept the Negative Declaration for the project. Commissioner Munson second. The Community Development Director asked what the intent was for the wall requirement. Commissioner Sims stated that the intent was for wall changes as described by staff. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. IN G SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:35 P.M. The Community Development Director requested that Item #6 be moved up as it is only a formal action to approve Site and Architectural. Chairman Hawkinson stated he had no problem with this. He reminded the Commission that this was the same project voted on in Planning Commission. The Community Development Director stated that they needed to have a separate motion from the Site and Architectural Review Board in order to approve the architectural aspect of the modular building. Chairman Hawkinson stated that, for the record, this is SA-90-04. The Community Development Director stated that it was his understanding that they understood they were approving it all at once, but they approved it as Planning Commission and now need to approve it as Site and Architectural Review Board. ITEM #6 SA-90-04 TAYLOR LUMBER 21800 MAIN AVENUE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A LUMBER SALES OFFICE MOTION PCM-90-27 SA-90-04 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-27 C Commission Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-90-04, subject to the same findings, terms and conditions as with CUP-90-04. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. 19 E9 ITEM #4 SA-90-02 JANUS DEVELOPMENT DEBERRY AND WILLET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10292 (TPM-87-08) The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. VICTOR YANASHESKI 11052 SILVER RUN MORENO VALLEY Commissioner Hargrave had a question regarding Plan 2, Lot 1. He asked why, since this was the smallest square footage, they were asking for an architectural design allowing four bedrooms when the other two models, which are of a higher square footage, only allow for three bedrooms. Mr. Yanasheski stated that this can actually be a three bedroom with a den or a four bedroom without the den. He stated that they all have a minimum of three bedrooms, and that particular plan, because of its depth, can either go with a den or fourth bedroom. Commissioner Hargrave asked for verification that they only have 1,663 square feet vs. 1750 square feet in the other models. Mr. Yanasheski verified this. Commissioner Hargrave asked if, just from configuration, they can put in another bedroom. Mr. Yanasheski stated that yes, it works, and he already has the blueprints submitted to Planning, who reviewed them and said it looked okay. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the color scheme of the proposed development is totally different than that neighborhood. He asked if there was any particular reason why he went with the grey tone vs. the earth colors, which is what the rest of the neighborhood looks like. Mr. Yanasheski stated that the area was built in late 1970's or early 1980's, when those colors were very prevalent. He stated that in today's market, the colors are much different, with more pastels. He stated that the dark brown trim and yellow stucco is obsolete. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he already had buyers for the houses. 20 Mr. Yanasheski said that he was spec -building. Commissioner Sims commented on the plot plan, which shows retaining walls in between the lots, but then it appears that 6 foot fencing is shown on either side of the retaining wall. He asked if this was the intention. Mr. Yanasheski stated that the retaining wall is required for grading. He stated that there will be a 6 foot fence on this side of the property (referring to plan) surrounding all the property lines. Commissioner Sims asked if they are straddling the retaining wall with the fence. Mr. Yanasheski stated that, where the existing house is, there is no fencing on that property line at this time. He stated that the retaining wall will be set 1/2 foot inside the proposed project, and the fence will be put on the inside of the retaining wall. He stated that, as for Parcel 2 and 3, the fence would go on the uphill side, so from Parcel 3, you would see the retaining wall. Commissioner Sims asked if there would be two fences. Mr. Yanasheski said there would not be. OChairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. c Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she likes these colors very much. Commissioner Hargrave had a comment regarding the cedar fences. He asked if they could convince the applicant to upgrade the fencing from cedar to something more aesthetically pleasing on Parcel 3, which faces DeBerry, would they still be within the provision of the municipal code. The Community Development Director stated they are acting as Site and Architectural Review Board and they certainly have the ability to dictate what materials would be used for what. Commissioner Hargrave asked if anyone has come up with anything that may be reasonably priced to put in other than cedar fencing. The Community Development Director stated that the immediate alternative would be a fencing material similar to what T.J. Austyn is putting in their development. He stated that he isn't sure what the material is, but it is not the dog-eared cedar. He stated that it has a running, horizontal cap at the top and a horizontal footing at the bottom of the fence, which is much more formal and finished looking. 21 Commissioner Hargrave asked what he would call this if he made a motion as such. The Community Development Director asked that they just leave it up to staffs approval with his understanding that this is what they were looking for. Mr. Yanasheski stated that the industry refers to this type of fencing as cap and rail. He stated that it is cedar material. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is willing to upgrade it even more if they would go along with it. Mr. Yanasheski stated that this was the fencing he was intending to use all along. Commissioner Hargrave stated, regarding Parcel 3, the right elevation that faces DeBerry appears to need some architectural relief, as there is just a big, blank wall with a bathroom window in it. The Community Development Director stated that it is fairly blank, and there are some windows that are breaking it up, but if they would like some architectural treatments that could certainly be conditioned as such. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there were any improvements on the standard, bathroom windows that are really small and don't seem to serve any function other than to have a window in a bathroom. The Community Development Director stated that it comes down to cost and individual taste. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he can see why a window is needed in a bathroom, but it seems like such a terrible use architecturally of a space that needs a window. He stated its like they have to put something in there, so let's just put the smallest thing they can put in a bathroom. Chairman Hawkinson asked if window would upset the interior design for furniture arrangement. The Community Development Director stated that his impression from what Commissioner Hargrave had stated was that there not necessarily be an additional window, but a treatment around the windows. Mr. Yanasheski stated that he could put trim around there and clip the top of the roof so that it would take down the steepness. He stated that adding a window would take quite a bit of space out of the bedroom. 1 22 MOTION PCM-90-28 SA-90-02 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-28 MOTION PCM-90-29 SA-90-02 Commissioner Hargrave asked about the window toward the chimney. Mr. Yanasheski stated that this is the other side of the house. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he could center the window next to the chimney a bit more to the left. He stated that he is trying to continue the architectural relief on that side. Mr. Yanasheski stated that this was a window over a tub, and if it were moved down the wall, it would be in front of the sinks where the mirror would go. He stated that because the pad is higher than the sidewalk, a good portion of the wall should be hidden by the fence. He stated that it was about a two foot elevation, and that there is a slight slope up to the top of the pad. He stated that he could detail the small window and then clip a little bit of the roof so that the wall would not seem quite as blank. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to direct staff to work with the applicant to improve the relief features of the right elevation. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve SA-90-02 as amended. Commissioner Hilkey second. Commissioner Hargrave, referring to the Cape Cod model on Lot 1 with reference to the four bedroom vs. the three bedroom, stated that since this house is 1,663 livable square feet, he could see where they could impact the cul-de-sac potentially, if the applicant sold the house to somebody who wanted to bring in more than a regular sized family because of the four bedroom situation. He stated that he would like to amend that elevation design and restrict it to three bedroom, one family room, two bath and three -car garage, and strike the "or" four bedroom, two bath, three -car garage. 23 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-29 Chairman Hawkinson stated that technically, they have a motion for approval on the floor, and would have to vote that down before they consider his motion. He stated that he personally does not have a problem with the size of what is proposed. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Sims suggested that the Commissioners get a copy of the floor plan for Site and Architectural Review projects. The Community Development Director stated that normally they try and provide that for them. Commissioner Hargrave asked to clarify that it was understood that the fencing would be cap and rail vs. cedar. The Community Development Director stated that this was understood. ITEM #5 SA-90-03 OUTDOOR DESIGNS 22720 RAVEN WAY G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PATIO COVER AND OVERHEAD DECK FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about the drainage problem noted by the City Engineer. The Community Development Director stated that this was a standard condition. He stated that when the home was first developed, it had to have certain drainage patterns that would flow run-off water from the backyard to the sideyard out to the frontyard and into the street. He stated that anytime there are improvements such as a pool, patio or anything in the backyard, they have to show that the drainage patterns still remain the same. Commissioner Munson asked if it is necessary that the neighbors on either side of the house be notified about this structure. 24 MOTION PCM-90-30 SA-90-03 The Community Development Director stated that they put this requirement in the residential district zoning so that they would be able to do that because of the impact this type of situation has on potential adjacent properties. He stated that currently, Site and Architectural Review does not require them to notify the adjacent property owners. He stated that it is not a public hearing, so they don't have the ability to speak at the hearing. He said that it is staffs intent that when they do the Site and Architectural Review, they anticipate recommending that it will be a public hearing and will require adjacent property owner notifications, but they haven't done that yet. He stated that, no, this item was not advertised as a public hearing, so the adjacent property owners were not notified. Commissioner Munson asked, if they approve this project tonight, will it go to a public hearing where the neighbors would have to be notified. The Community Development Director stated that it would not, as this is the only time they would look at it, and after tonight they would have approval to build it. Commissioner Munson said that he would be against this project, then. He stated that the patio cover is going to look down into both back yards and until the neighbors have been notified, he would be against this project. The Community Development Director presented some options regarding this concern. He stated they could do one of the following: 1) Deny the project based on concern of layout on the site; 2) Continue the item and direct staff to notify the adjacent property owners and ask if they have any considerations regarding this; 3) Continue it based on coming back after reworking the zoning to determine if they will require 300 foot noticing or adjacent property noticing in the future; or 4) Approve it based on the same reasoning that they would deny it, that the Site and Architectural Review Board is making the decision that this would not have a negative impact on the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Munson made the motion that this item be continued until April 17, 1990, after the adjacent property owners have been contacted regarding the proposed addition. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Hilkey stated that there is an observation deck on Main Street, which he feels is an eyesore, and if this was built next to his house, he would be very upset. He stated that maybe the neighbors should be told to look at the one on Main Street, as they may think it is a cover, as right next to this house is a patio cover. 25 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-30 Chairman Hawkinson stated that he has more difficulty with this than with the satellite dishes. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he believes they actually discussed this kind of situation in making the 8 foot height limitation when they were making recommendations with regard to the ordinance. He stated that it is imperative that the neighbors have an opportunity to find out what is proposed and comment. Commissioner Hargrave stated that when they come back for the continuance of this item, without seeing any materials, it would be difficult to visualize. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 9:15 NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD APRIL 17, 1990 Respectfully submitted, David .Sawyer Community Dev opment Director 04-12-90 Approved by, 26 Planning Commission