04/17/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 17, 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 April 17,
1990 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson.
PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman
Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner
Herman Hilkey, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner
David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director
Maria C. Muett, Assistant Planner
Maggie Barder, Secretary
John Harper, City Attorney
ABSENT: Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman
Jim Sims, Commissioner
PLEDGE: Ray Munson, Commissioner
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M.
Information from staff to Planning Commissioners.
Information from Planning Commissioners to staff.
Discussion of League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Institute
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEM #1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1990
MOTION
PCM-90-31
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1990
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-31
Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that the minutes of March 20,
1990 be approved. Commissioner Hargrave second.
Motion carries. 4-0-3-0. Commissioners Buchanan, Hilkey and Sims absent.
ITEM #2
SP-90-01; TTM-90-01; E-90-01
ROGER PETER PORTER DEVELOPMENT
EAST SIDE GRAND TERRACE ROAD/SOUTH OF VIVIENDA
AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AN APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 19
UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; AN APPLICATION FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A 19 UNIT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
The Community Development Director presented the staff report.
Commissioner Hargrave asked for an explanation of a P.U.D. as well as its
function as far as it relates to our city ordinances.
The Community Development Director stated that a P.U.D. stands for
planned unit development, which is usually a closed development which has
a specific plan which is prepared for the document and allows you to design
an independent cluster of homes and step back from the zoning a little bit
and have some clustered in one area, other clustered in another area. He
stated that often times a P.U.D. consists of multi -family units. He stated that
RP
it is not uncommon for a planned unit development to have 100 units, 50 of
which would be single family homes, 25 of which would be in duplexes, and
another 25 which would be in two or three multi -family units. He stated that
there can be a mixture of different types of housing styles within a planned
unit development. He stated that this particular one has only single family
homes, and that the intent of this was to develop and put on the market and
in our housing stock single family homes at a price that would be affordable
to first-time home buyers. He stated that if this development was required to
develop at the zoning per this, because it is R-2, the single family homes
would be on 10,000 square foot lots, which is larger than our standard single
family homes zoned in the rest of the City, and it would make the homes
more expensive, and in an area that they wouldn't be attractive to pay that
much money because they are surrounded by property which can develop as
duplexes or triplexes. He stated that this was a compromise concept that
would allow single family homes to go in, and yet not have the large lot
requirements that are necessary. He stated that this particular project is built
on R-2 property which is 9 units per acre, which would have allowed 19 units.
He stated that they are building 17 units, so it is under the density. He stated
that it breaks out to a 7.8 density rather than 9 units per acre. He said that
this allows us to do that and also have a map so that people can own property
individually. He stated that the people who move in will be buying the house,
but not the land. He stated that they will be buying the structure, everything
in it, and the ground underneath it, but only underneath the structure. He
stated that the remainder of the ground would be common ground, as P.U.D.
allows you to do that. He stated that this project is very much like a
condominium project, except that instead of a building with 8 units in it,
they've got a building with one unit in it.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the curb and gutter and roadway is
specified, and the rest of the street does not have a curb and gutter or street
maintenance. She asked if there is anything that the City can do at the
present time to cause that to happen.
The Community Development Director asked if they were speaking of Grand
Terrace Avenue, which Commissioner Van Gelder verified. He stated no,
unless the City wants to go in and develop and put in the curb and gutter or
if there are any properties on the street which have deferment agreements
where they were allowed to build and sign the deferment agreement that yes,
they would put in the streets, curbs and gutters at a time when the City would
say it is necessary for them to go in. He said that these are the only two ways
that the City can make that happen right now.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there were any plans in the immediate
future to do that.
K
The Community Development Director stated that there are not.
Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant.
ROGER PETER PORTER
3837 EAST 7TH STREET
LONG BEACH
Mr. Porter stated that they have tried to bring a quality development to the
City, and that they have had a team effort in striving to create a healthy and
livable environment within this development. He stated they feel honored to
be in the City and to present this project. He stated that he had the Project
Architect, Sergio Estevez and Bozena Jaworski, one of their spokesmen and
architect, and their marketing expert, Gary Oakes with him this evening,
should they have any specific questions.
Commissioner Munson asked if they had developed any other projects like
this in the area recently, to which Mr. Porter responded in the negative.
Commissioner Munson asked if this was a new concept as far as they were
concerned or if they had seen it somewhere else.
Mr. Porter stated that he had seen it many times. He said that he is a
registered architect and has worked with many developers in the past that
have done this type of development.
Commissioner Munson asked if this was something they were going to see
more of.
Mr. Porter stated that he really doesn't know, but he thinks in this particular
case there was an initial choice of putting in duplexes or triplexes as opposed
to single family dwellings, but a single family dwelling has more pride of
ownership and connotates a better development.
Commissioner Munson asked what he would guesstimate one of these units
to cost.
Mr. Porter stated that the selling price would be approximately $140,000.
Commissioner Hargrave asked how he and his staff felt about how the 32 inch
culvert in the back of the property was going to function.
Mr. Porter stated that the way he understands it after discussing it with one
of the City officials is that the drainage from the adjacent property is coming
4
up against their wall and consequently, they are putting weep holes through
that wall to accept the drainage into the culvert. He stated that they have a
civil engineer that will engineer the slope of that culvert to drain the water
out and it will be maintained through the homeowner's association.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if this would be an open culvert, to which Mr.
Porter responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if this would pose safety problems, as the
development lends itself to first-time families, and assuming there would be
lots of kids here, an open culvert could be a safety problem.
Mr. Porter stated that he understands the open culvert is simply a V-type
construction, concrete trough, as opposed to any indentation of any depth, so
it would be very similar to any concrete paving with the exception that it
would have a slight slope to it.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was a reason why the architect didn't
propose to put the culvert on the other side of the fence line versus putting
it in the backyard.
Mr. Porter stated that as he recalls when they met with the City, it was
determined by the City official to put it on their property as opposed to on
the other side, which they agreed to.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if the idea was that there was not enough room
within the setback to transfer it to the other side, to which Mr. Porter
responded in the affirmative.
The Community Development Director stated that part of staff s
recommendation was that the culvert be on the property owner's side of the
wall as it is their maintenance problem. He stated that if it is on the other
side of the wall, people tend to forget about it and expect the City to take
care of it.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he has two children, aged 7 and 12, and
there doesn't seem to be enough area, based upon his experience with his own
children, for children to run around into a park -type of area. He stated there
is a pool area, which is fine, but he didn't notice any significant amount of
park -type of atmosphere for the children to be playing in. He stated that he
surmised that most kids would then be playing in the streets, and the
circulation element would give him some cause for children to be playing
within this development in the streets.
E
Mr. Porter stated that each residence does have a yard area, like any type of
development of subdivision, where you would have private, outdoor play -
space. He stated that they are not opposed to providing some playground
equipment, including a sliding board, gym, and so on. He stated that as far
as providing more open, park space, it is just a matter of limited space. He
agreed that this would be ideal, but in a development this small, it really puts
a constraint to try and give up more open area. He stated that there is an
attempt to provide a recreation building and pool, and with the homeowner's
association, that would be very nicely maintained.
Commissioner Hargrave asked how he would feel about taking Lot 5 out and
putting in a park -type of atmosphere.
Mr. Porter stated that they wouldn't want to do that. He stated that going
into the economics of this, although he doesn't like to bring up numbers, when
you get into developments now with the cost of construction going up and the
cost of land, the developer is constantly put under a squeeze. He stated that
they feel comfortable with this, but they would not want to drop their density.
Chairman Hawkinson asked for any public comment.
JAMES RAY
21969 VMENDA
G.T.
Mr. Ray asked what type of wall would be put in on the west side of the
property.
The Community Development Director stated that the requirement would be
for a decorative, block wall, but the material of the wall is not decided upon
at this time. He stated that it can be discussed at this time and decided upon.
Mr. Ray stated that his problem is that the drainage from La Crosse, all the
way from the comer, to Vivienda and across will make a lake if a block wall
is put in on the west side of that property. He stated that there would have
to be some kind of access to let the water go on through.
The Community Development Director stated that the City Engineer and
himself met with the applicant and talked about the drainage, which was one
of the major concerns the engineer had regarding this project. He stated that
there are ways to have the water pass through the walls, and could have
openings at the base of the walls that are large enough to continue to accept
that drainage. He stated that it is a requirement to continue to accept the
drainage in the pattern that it comes in now.
Z
LYNN ROBERTS
21934 GRAND TERRACE ROAD
G.T.
Mr. Roberts asked about the drainage, as his property slopes down from
Grand Terrace Road. He stated that this is the first he has seen anything of
it and really doesn't know enough about it.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that this is the process for working through
this, and if anyone in the audience has any concerns, this is the time to get up
to the microphone and voice their concerns.
Mr. Roberts asked if the wall was going to be on the Grand Terrace Road
side which is the west side of the property.
The Community Development Director referred to the colored rendering and
pointed out wall placement and its description.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that the City Engineer has determined that
this property, when developed, cannot change the direction of the water. He
stated that if there was a material change in the direction of the water, then
this would have a negative impact on the project, but the City Engineer, based
upon the development standards, says that the flow of the water on that side
of the street will follow its normal channel and can be handled in a normal
manner without jeopardizing Mr. Roberts side of the street.
Mr. Roberts stated that he wonders what would happen if it does.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that then they would have a problem.
Mr. Roberts asked if it would be his problem or theirs.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that it would be both his problem and the
City's, but development standards and the City Engineer states that this
should not be a problem.
Mr. Roberts stated that the general flow of the water would be toward his
house according to the slope.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that the street is above his house, and there
is a natural drainage on both sides of the road.
The Community Development Director stated that much of the drainage from
the property developing to the south, which is the recreational vehicle park,
7
is going to be coming along their accessway out onto Grand Terrace Road,
and there are street improvements being required of that development in
order to handle that drainage, and this drainage will be in a combination of
that. He stated that the developer of that project was here this evening also
and would be willing to give any detailed comments on what the drainage and
improvements actually are. He stated that the City Engineer has looked at
it and determined that the improvements that are being put in the street to
handle that drainage will handle the runoff produced by this project also.
Mr. Roberts stated that once they pave the road for emergency access, there
won't be any water soaking into the ground, and it will all hit Grand Terrace
Road.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that the development up on the map and the
one he is alluding to, Mr. Keeney's, are required to put in curb and gutter to
take that flow coming from their properties and put it into its normal
drainage, so they aren't going to build the property and not take care of the
drainage.
Mr. Roberts stated that they have no curbs and gutters, so it is kind of a
strange drainage problem anyway.
Chairman Hawkinson requested Mr. Keeney come up and explain.
BOB KEENEY
12139 MT. VERNON
G.T.
Mr. Keeney stated that, in conjunction with their project, they are coming out
with the emergency road, and they are being required to take all of the water
coming out of the R.V. park and put in a culvert down in front of the existing
trailer park to a new drainage structure that will go under Grand Terrace
Road between Lyle's place and the comer of Barton Road and Grand Terrace
Road, and then it will go into the 48 inch line that goes underneath the
industrial park. He stated that if there is a problem now, it should be better,
as they are taking all of their water, and he knows they will be required to put
their water into the same culvert on the east side of Grand Terrace Road, and
they have to plan for a 100 year flood.
Mr. Ray stated that he noticed there is quite a bit of landfill which came from
the R.V. park and it is up against his fence, and the drainage is going to be
a problem. He asked how much the property level will be raised.
Mr. Keeney stated that they felt that they might need the dirt, and they were
12
taking it up onto Clark's property and spreading it out there, and if they don't
need it there, they will transport it up onto Clark's property. He stated that
if it is against Mr. Ray's fence, they will get it out of there.
Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action.
Commissioner Munson asked the City Attorney if this was the appropriate
time to ask for monies for traffic signals and stop signs to add to the fund that
the City will need because of the increased traffic that this project will bring.
The City Attorney stated that, in a sense, yes, except that the only way that
the City is able to do that is pursuant to its existing ordinances, as it is not a
condition that the Planning Commission has to consider, if they have an
ordinance in place which requires the payment of a fee or contribution to
potential signalization or other type of district, then that is taken care of as
part of the standard conditions. He stated that it is not within the perimeter
of the Planning Commission to require it or not require it.
Commissioner Munson stated that the monies for the apartments started here.
The Community Development Director stated that the Planning Commission
made the recommendation and gave it the Council and the Council did it. He
stated that the Planning Commission made it as a condition of approval to go
to the Council for their consideration.
Commission Munson stated that he remembers that the City would go in and
curb and gutter a particular road, then back -charge the property owner on a
ten year plan on taxes to pay for the improvement.
The City Attorney stated that this is the formation of an assessment district
which requires a number of other things including, under most circumstances,
the approval of at least 60% of the affected property owners. He stated that
it is often a condition of a larger development, and actually a request of the
developer more often than not that an assessment district be formed in order
to fund public improvements because it allows the developer to finance over
ten years at a different interest rate those improvements. He stated that if
they are talking about signalization, there is the potential in the law to form
a district to effect signalization under some circumstances; the City has the
ability through ordinance to adopt a fee based upon certain findings, which
is more normally what cities do, as it is pretty hard to form an assessment
district based on one 17 or 19 project. He stated that, as indicated by
Commissioner Hargrave's earlier speech, a City can require that a developer
pay the cost of what he is causing, but not pay to remedy past situations that
were a result of prior property development. He stated that a City can
9
require that a developer pay a fee related to signalization, but this city does
not apparently require this as a matter of course. He stated that there would
be a very limited number of circumstances where they could do it simply as
a condition of approval. He stated that if it were internal to a project, they
could require the installation of a signal, because all of the traffic would be
affected by the project.
Commissioner Munson stated that if they didn't have the increased people,
they wouldn't need the signalization and the traffic stops. He stated that he
feels that the people that are building today are causing their problems and
therefore, they should pay for it, and until the City starts hitting the developer
in their fees for monies for this, he feels it is only right that they tag each
development as it comes through for additional monies to be put into a traffic
fund.
The City Attorney stated that this is, as a general matter, okay, it is just that
the way of doing that is by adopting the fee by ordinance.
MOTION
PCM-90-32
SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01
Commissioner Munson made the recommendation that it be added as a
condition that after due thought and study, this project be taxed for
signalization or stop signs. Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion
purposes.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could present this as a suggestion to
Council to review the traffic coming out of this project for this general area
and to decide on mitigating measures based upon their findings or the City
Engineer's findings, as this would give them a broader view of this problem.
He stated that he knows he is going for signalization down on Grand Terrace
Road and Barton Road, but what if the traffic just goes over to Vivienda,
down to La Crosse and out that way.
Commissioner Munson stated that he feels the City, because of growth, is
going to require more signalization. He stated that he doesn't think it is
proper that the current residents pay for it, and until the ordinance is in place
so that the developers pay, he feels they should catch each one as they go
through.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he agreed with this, but he was trying to
see if Commissioner Munson would expand his motion to be a little broader
so they can look at the whole area with regard to this project.
O 10
Commissioner Munson stated that if they don't tag the developer now, he will
sneak through.
Commission Hargrave stated that they were in the Tentative Tract Map
hearing, so certainly it is a suggestion they could put on approval of the
Tentative Tract Map.
Commission Munson stated asked if the City Attorney or Community
Development Director had any suggestions.
The City Attorney stated that he was not sure if it would solve the problem
with this development, but he thinks what he is suggesting is well advised for
the City Council to consider. He stated that is more than just simply saying
they are going to charge $5 per house, as engineering staff is going to have to
do a study of the cost of the signal and look at what the benefit area is for the
signal, and based upon that cost, do some calculations as to what an
appropriate fee might be. He stated that probably getting going on it now
based upon a recommendation from the Planning Commission is a good idea,
but in order for a city to adopt any fee, it has to reasonably related to the
services being provided, and the only way of doing that is by doing a
comprehensive study to show what costs are, and what, in general, the benefit
to those in the affected area might be. He stated that the best they can do
tonight is suggest whether it is a condition of this project or not and the
Community Development Director can pass the word up to the City Council
as a formal action from the Planning Commission that they think, since the
City does not presently have any vehicle for getting a fee which will result in
signalization in the future, that this is something to be immediately explored
and that a fee ordinance be developed.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if this was going to be a condition or a
suggestion.
Commissioner Munson stated that it was a condition because he does not
think the City will act fast enough on this particular project and they won't get
any of their money.
The City Attorney stated that they could require as a condition of this project
that, if in the event there is a future signalization or assessment district
formed, this project participate in it.
Commissioner Munson asked if this assessment director would only affect new
development and not the current residents.
The City Attorney stated he couldn't answer that, as it is an assessment
11
engineering question. He stated that if you have 100 residents there now, and
101st means they need a signal, should that 101st be the only one that pays
for it?
Commissioner Munson stated that they aren't after the single homeowner, but
rather the projects, and that he thinks a lot of projects have gone through
when they should have asked for more money.
Commissioner Munson stated that basically, the recommendation is that the
Planning Director and appropriate others make a study to determine what
feasible costs might be incurred in either traffic lights or signals or signs and
that this particular development pay their appropriate fee.
Commissioner Hargrave asked, based upon that motion, would this not, in
essence, stop the Tentative Tract Approval until some finding was made to
justify the fee.
The City Attorney stated that all Tentative Maps go to the Council, and he
presumes that this would be a subject of some discussion at the Council
Meeting. He stated that he doesn't know he can suggest that they adopt
unenforceable conditions of approval. He stated that it would be a condition
that would have to be addressed by the developer one way or another prior
to obtaining the final map. He stated that the enforcement problem can be
difficult, which is one of the reasons why he suggested that the condition be
if, in the event that there be a district formed in the future, the project
participate. He stated that since this is a P.U.D., there will be a requirement
that there be CC&R's developed, and that could be reflected in the CC&R's,
and as a consequence, every new homeowner is aware of the potential of that
occurring. He stated that a City would prefer to have the developer pay up-
front fees rather than having a to -be -determined fee in the future potentially
paid by the future homeowner, but it comes out of the homeowner's pocket
one way or the other, whether they see it or not.
Commissioner Munson stated that they did it before. He stated that all the
major apartment projects paid.
The Community Development Director stated that what the City Attorney is
talking about doing for this area was done for that area, the Mt.
Vernon/Barton Road area. He stated that the City Engineer's Department
did do a study and did determine how many traffic lights would be required
and what the cost would be and noted certain properties which would be
generating the need for those developments and those particular properties
were assessed accordingly on a per unit basis. He stated that this was a
closed -area project. He stated that this is out of that area, just as the 23 unit
12
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-32
apartment project was out of that area. He said that what they had talked
about at that time was that from looking at that property, the Council
basically came to the decision that the property probably should have been in
that area because the traffic generated from that really was going to be going
out Vivienda and down Canal to the intersection, where one of the lights was
to be. He said that based on that, they made the suggestion that the City
Council consider including that property in that manner, and the project
proponent didn't have any problems with that, so it was never really
challenged. He stated that this is even further removed from that area, which
should very likely have its own study. He stated that he doesn't know if the
engineer would want to put a second intersection light as close to that going
in for the off -ramp. He stated that perhaps they won't want a light there, but
they haven't looked at that yet. He stated that if they need that, they should
get these people to pay for it when they come through, but unfortunately, this
development is stepping in before this has been done. He stated that one
thing they can do is make a recommendation to the Council that they do that.
He stated they can make it a condition of this project that the study be done
to determine if there is a negative impact on the traffic, and that this be
required as a mitigation measure. He stated that they didn't feel it would be
significant, so they didn't include that at staff level in the environmental
review as a condition. He stated that if they feel that it is important enough
to do that, they can make it a mitigation measure of this project.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that if they go the Negative Declaration, Item
13, which states, "Will the proposal result in generation of substantial,
additional vehicular traffic?" and the answer is "no", if the body so chooses to
make this a "yes", then they would have to mitigate the "no" answer on the
Environmental Impact, and that would be the catch-all that would make this
thing come up with some reasonable plan.
Commissioner Munson stated that basically, an ordinance should be prepared
so that they don't have to do this at each project. He stated that he is
prepared to vote.
Motion fails. 2-3-2-0. Commissioners Van Gelder and Munson voting yes.
Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she agrees with Commissioner
Hargrave's comment about omitting #5, as it appears that this would be a
beautiful place for park area. She stated that she doesn't think that asking for
O 13
an omission of one out of nineteen units is asking too much. She stated that
the other concern she has is with the front elevation of most of these. She
stated that for a long time, they were receiving prints with basically a block
house with no design at all, and that was certainly not desirable, but that
these units have gone too much overboard. She stated that with colors, for
instance, there are warm and cool colors; the cool colors make one very
serene and calm whereas warm colors are very energetic and moving. She
stated that the same thing holds true with the elevations of houses, and if you
see a house with a small amount of design, this is more peaceful and serene,
but it appears to her that there are squares, circles, half -circles, rectangles,
and all of this in addition to the particular style of roofing that is used. She
stated that she would like to keep enough of it to make it attractive, but it is
just not relaxing; that there is no focal point because the whole thing is a focal
point. She stated that she would like to see a little bit of that "gingerbread"
removed.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like more discussion with the
developer on how to work in more area for the children to play in. He stated
that this is a give and take process here, and the project will be here longer
than he will be alive, and this is what they need to plan for. He stated that
this P.U.D. lends itself to a family type of atmosphere, but they need more
forethought as to the play area, as there is no reasonably close park area on
this side of town for children to go to, which is unfortunate. He stated that
they need some type of measure to allow children to stay within this
development and stay off of the street as much as possible. He said that he
is not so much concerned with having a swing -set or jungle gym, but rather
open area for children to be able to play in. He stated that he picked Lot 5
because it was closest to the pool area, but he is not stuck on Lot 5. He
stated that this is his big hang-up with the project. He said that he would also
like more discussion on the out -take area, which he assumes are guest parking
areas. He asked if their were five guest parking lots and what the
requirements are.
The Community Development Director stated that there wouldn't be any
requirement since it is not a multi -family development. He stated that under
R-2, they'd be looking at one guest parking space per every five units, so they
would meet the R-2 requirements, but technically, there are no requirements.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that the P.U.D. allows them to do more
creative planning, and this is the reason they have a P.U.D. He stated that
maybe there is a little give and take with the three parking spaces, and they
can do a little work to come up with a reasonable approach to the open-air
situation.
14
The Community Development Director stated that staff looked at the concept,
and they felt the recreational facilities were adequate partly because they are
not so sold on the fact that it is a young family development; staff kind of
leaned the other way, that it is more for a husband and wife who both worked
and wanted their own single family home and don't have kids but want to get
into the housing market. He stated that if he had kids, he would not buy in
this development, as it does not have space for the kids.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he thought the same of the condominium
project behind Town and Country.
The Community Development Director stated that this is different as those
are rental units and these are for people buying their homes.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he may be wrong about a lot of kids in
there, but certainly 1/4 of the population will be families, just from the sheer
price of the homes, which is a good entry level for families to get into. He
stated that he doesn't think they are being creative enough with the P.U.D.
concept; when they allow a little bit more open air, it does well for the
project, and they can afford to upscale its price a little to pay for that. He
stated that all the studies that he sees and are informed about by other
agencies show that the more quality you put into the development, the more
the people are willing to pay for it. He stated that the developer can get back
their cost on this, but he understands they are taking some risk.
The Community Development Director stated that there are good points in
order to justify both sides; if the price is low, the family can afford to buy it.
He stated that staff certainly wouldn't argue against more recreational space,
but they simply felt what was available would be adequate for the type of
project they foresee.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could have some discussion from Mr.
Porter or his architect about the dimensions of the pool area.
Mr. Porter stated that as developers, they don't know all the answers, and that
the exchange of ideas is constructive for all. He stated that they certainly
want to have a development that will provide a healthy environment, and that
the first idea that comes to mind is to eliminate the swimming pool, as it
would reduce homeowner's fees, there are always liabilities, and it adds more
atmosphere than actual use. He stated that if they eliminated the pool and
did a little study in that area with the equipment he spoke of that would offer
more physical exercise, perhaps a sand area and so on, he thinks maybe they
can accomplish what they are after.
15
E*
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is not a big pool fan, so he would tend
to agree as far as eliminating the pool, but there is some aesthetic value to
that and certainly for the adult purchaser, this is a desirable type of aesthetic
asset to have.
Mr. Porter stated that they could provide the large spa, and as a matter of
fact there are many developments going in now that do not have the pools.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked what plans they had for security or
lifeguards for the pool.
Mr. Porter stated that the safety of the pool is a concern of the local health
department, and they have to post the local signage, it has to be fenced, the
fence has to comply with all of their requirements, there has to be safety
equipment available, and so they meet the governing codes in all respects, but
to have an individual there, no, they did not plan that.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked what the height requirement was on the
fence.
Mr. Porter stated that the height of the pool fence is six feet and the pickets
have to be six inches on center, and the locking device on the gate has to be
out of the reach of small children. He stated that all of these safety features
are built in.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that according to Commissioner Munson, if
they took out Lot 5, it would add $7,000 to the sales price in order to
recapture their money back, so they would be selling for $147,000 as opposed
to $140,000.
GARY OAKES
ROGER PETER PORTER DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Oakes stated that as far as the pricing, he doesn't see why there would be
any impact at all on the price.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is just trying to approach it from the
developer's viewpoint, that if they have one less lot to develop on, then they
have taken away $140,000 in sales price.
Mr. Oakes stated that the problem is convincing the buyer to pay that money
because they lost the one unit.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that they would never know that, and asked
16
how many buyers come in and ask to see the cost sheet.
BOZENA JAWORSKI
ROGER PETER PORTER DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Jaworski stated that recently, there has been a big problem with the
public parks, as the insurance is going up because of the liability of
unsupervised children and potential accidents. She stated that the more open
space they provide and the more equipment they provide, the insurance cost
has to be carried through the budget for the homeowner's association, so the
people that will be living there would be liable for what is happening in this
development. She stated that they have to be in control of the situation, and
even having a 15 year old teenager, she feels even this open space would not
be satisfactory, as he wants a baseball field, biking path, and a lot of space,
and there is no way a 19 unit development is going to provide open space for
a 15 year old boy.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would agree with that.
Mr. Porter stated that by eliminating the pool, they come up with 100 feet in
length. He said that if the road is included in the play area, they would have
100' by 65'. He stated that the emergency road could be used in the play area
and yet serve as an emergency surface. He stated that one of doing this
would be by using turf -block, which is a concrete block which is perforated
and lets certain grasses grow through it, so they would provide more open
area that way, and probably a much larger area than from eliminating one of
the houses. He stated that it is difficult to conceive all of this, but he thinks
the area is there. He stated that they rely on Jay Molder, a landscape
architect, and he thinks if they could do a study to see how that area might
actually be utilized for a play area, it might be more meaningful than just
trying to assume this, if possible.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that the likes this suggestion as it is difficult
on the spur of the moment, and if he and the rest of the Commission would
agree, Mr. Porter and the Community Development Director could work on
this and come back if they could get a continuance motion.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if a two week delay would be injurious to this
project.
Mr. Porter stated this would be fine.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Community Development Director
saw a problem with counting part of the emergency road as part of the park
17
area.
The Community Development Director stated that this would depend upon
what is proposed for it and if the Fire Department would approve it. He
stated that they have had mixed emotions in the past regarding turf block, so
perhaps they could get fire department comments within the next two weeks.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if any of the other Commissioners had a
problem with the elevations.
Commissioner Hargrave asked what they were, as he couldn't tell from the
map. He stated that he would like to hear her thoughts about it.
Commissioner Van Gelder said that you see squares, rectangles, half -circles,
full circles plus all of the goodies on the roof, and there isn't one focal point -
the whole thing is a focal point. She stated that she has a problem with that,
and she feels the whole thing is unattractive.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if she would rather each structure have its own
focal point as opposed to the whole project blending together.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he thinks she would like to see it simplified.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she would like to see one focal point,
but tone it down for the rest of the building.
Commissioner Hargrave asked what she suggests they do not have on the
houses to be bring it into conformity with what she wants.
Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the colored elevations, stating that on
these particular renditions, it is not as distinctive as those in the packet. She
stated that she possibly remembered seeing a particular type of garage door
on every one. She stated that one elevation not only had squares and
rectangles, but also the half -circle. She continued to point out particular areas
which caused her concern. She stated that there is no focal point.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that this is a Site and Architectural matter,
and they are in the Tentative Tract discussion at this point.
The Community Development Director stated that they are discussing the
Specific Plan, and Site and Architectural is all wrapped up into that.
Mr. Porter stated that many architects cannot agree themselves on what it
good or bad design; it is a matter of individual taste. He stated that in this
18
case, they have to design for a market that is going to buy, and if he was
designing this for someone else, it would be an entirely different elevation, but
Mr. Oakes does a detailed study on many projects that are successful and
what sells, and they find that by introducing many shapes and cut-up roof
lines, it provides a more exciting design. He stated that they are looking at
a flat drawing without the shades, shadows and landscaping to soften it, and
consequently he can see the concern. He pointed out that the color board is
probably more important than the elevations, or at least equally important.
He stated that they used a lady by the name of Marian Tate, and all she does
is coordinate exterior colors, and they went through a long session of what
colors they were going to use on this. He stated that if they look at the colors
on the renderings, they are much more vibrant and vivid as opposed to the
color board, which is more subtle. He stated that they would like to leave
their elevations as is.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked for matching of elevations and color board.
Ms. Jaworski explained this while referring to the color board.
Mr. Porter stated that their roof lines lead to better interior spaces, as
everybody is now playing with volumes in rooms, and this is another reason
they like to get the various roof lines.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if they found out where the door was on the
rendering on the left side.
Mr. Porter stated that he would have Mr. Estevez explain where the door is,
as it is an indirect entry.
SERGIO ESTEVEZ
ROGER PETER PORTER
Mr. Estevez referred to the elevation and pointed out the door on the side
elevation.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that, based on the previous discussion, he
would like to make a motion to continue the item.
The City Attorney stated that they need to reopen the public hearing, as
presumably they will have public comment from both the applicant and
audience members.
19
MOTION
PCM-90-33
SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01
Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue with the public hearing
for the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Van Gelder second.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that he thought it was important to get all of the
comments out now. He stated that he has a problem with some things and
would like to have them change it before they bring it back in two weeks.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he has no problem with that, but he could
also bring up his concerns in two weeks.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that he would like them to change it before the
two weeks. He stated that on the elevations they looked at, they were kind
of mixed and confusions, and once colored, they look quite a bit different.
Regarding the swimming pool, he stated this is quite a liability. He stated
that he saw a similar situation in Las Vegas, where they had a spa and a very
shallow wading pool, which provided the cosmetics of a nice pool but has a
low liability problem. He stated that the guest parking concerns him a great
deal as he thinks it will become a place for the extra car to be parked or the
motor home to be parked, and no one would have any responsibility for the
visitor parking, unless it is required. He stated that the three parking spaces
next to Unit 5 would give them a lot more green area. Regarding the turf
block, he stated that the San Bernardino County Fire Department doesn't
have any problem with that and have approved it in other situations. He
stated that it looks like an extra parking place or a turnout in between Lot 1
and 5, and feels this is too tempting of a parking place.
The Community Development Director stated that they would need road
surfacing material to be in the area required for the vehicle access to the
homes back there, and any other, you could radius the curve the opposite way
and pick up the turf block in that manner.
Commissioner Hilkey asked, on house #5, if it would be advisable to include
the side of the house with the wood house to give it more privacy or give the
pool privacy from house #5. He stated that he noticed they all had the
backyard fenced in, but house #5 seems to share the public area. He stated
that one thing they have done in Grand Terrace is ask for an upgrade in the
side elevations that are on comer lots, and they don't have that problem too
much in this development because they have Plan B on all the corner Lots 1,
4, 6 and 7, but in the past they have left that up to the Director of Planning.
20
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-33
He stated that he noticed that in the landscaping engineer's plans and the
tentative map that the jacuzzi and pool orientation was different, and he
would like to know which orientation plan was going to be used, but if they
changed the pool, they would see that again in two weeks. He stated that he
wanted the staff's opinion on the style of gutter, which is a middle -of -the -
street gutter.
The Community Development Director stated that they don't have any
opinion one way or another, and in this type of small, private, enclosed
development, it won't have the wear and tear of a public street, and it will be
the responsibility of the homeowner's association to maintain the property, so
if that is what the proponent would prefer, then this is fine, as it has been
approved by the City Engineer as far as drainage is concerned. He stated that
there will be no parking along those curbs.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if the front gates would be locked.
Mr. Porter stated that there will be a security gate.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if they would see the CC&R's prior to
approval of this.
The Community Development Director stated that this was not intended, but
they can make this a condition.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to see them. He asked if
they were made up.
Mr. Porter stated that they haven't gotten into any CC&R's yet because they
don't really know if they have a project.
Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he assumed Mr. Porter would have some
discussion with the Community Development Department on this issues..
Mr. Porter stated that he appreciates the input and understands the main
concern is recreation. He stated that they will work with staff and return in
two weeks.
21
Chairman Hawkinson declared a ten minute recess.
ITEM #3
CUP-89-07
JAMES A. BLAISDELL
22400 BARTON ROAD, #18
G.T.
AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE OPERATION
OF AN "ASSEMBLY ROOM".
The Community Development Director presented the staff report.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if anything was included from the section
designated A in the calculations of parking, to which the Community
Development Director responded in the negative.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the number of square feet is reduced to
750, how many persons would they be talking about that would attend any
given meeting.
The Community Development Director stated that the applicant would have
to answer that, but staff is looking at 50 people as a maximum occupancy.
Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant.
GABRIEL ADAME
LARRY VESELEY ARCHITECT
Mr. Adame stated that they would like to comply with Condition B with one
modification, being the retaining of 1,200 square feet of assembly room area,
and the 15 spaces of shared parking in Area D. He stated that he
understands they cannot do this under Item C under the times located here,
but they would like to propose that another study be conducted for weekend
or evening use, since the study conducted by staff did not include any parking
established after dusk.
Commissioner Hargrave asked how many more spaces his client was looking
for based upon that scenario, or what is the objective.
Mr. Adame stated that the objective is to get the maximum amount of
occupancy; to increase it from 50.
Commissioner Hargrave asked what he was proposing for maximum
occupancy.
22
Mr. Adame stated that with 15 extra spaces under Item D, they calculate that
they can get from 50 to 80 people maximum occupancy in the assembly area
at a 1,200 square foot room size.
Commissioner Hargrave stated, assuming that this works out, how would he
propose that they coordinate this with the operating hours as proposed by the
staff.
Mr. Adame stated that the only thing that would change with the operating
hours would be the maximum occupancy at the time of Saturday and Sunday
and also during the evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.
Commissioner Hargrave asked how they would control the following scenario:
Assuming there was an event scheduled for 8:00 a.m., which would be for 75
people, thereby parking would be needed out or Area D.
Mr. Adame stated that they are not proposing to change the morning hours
or afternoon hours - just the evening hours. He stated that they would retain
the maximum occupancy of 50 during the morning and afternoon hours.
Commissioner Hargrave stated then, that evenings, Saturdays and Sundays
would go to 75, which Mr. Adame verified.
OChairman Hawkinson asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak,
then brought it back to Commission for action.
Commissioner Hargrave asked for the Community Development Director's
comments.
The Community Development Director stated that if the applicant's
suggestion is to limit the number of attendees to an event to 50, which would
represent the parking spaces that Area B and C can handle during weekday,
working hours, and allow the development of the area in the building to be
1,200 square feet and only utilized to its fullest when the shared parking
would be available in the adjacent Area D, then in order to do this, the
applicant would have to show a parking study that would indicate that this
would not be a hindrance to the existing and potential tenants in Area D. He
stated that this would settle the parking issue if that works out, but staff still
feels that the number of people that would be generated from the 1,200
square foot space would be a potential conflict with the residential units only
75 feet away with no barriers at all between them. He stated that they felt
this was an issue from the very beginning and feel it is still an issue.
Mr. Adame stated that the barriers would be the fact that nothing would be
23
conducted outdoors, but rather on the interior.
The Community Development Director stated that this is a good point, but
his concern is the people that will not want to park in Area D and walk to the
building, and would rather park along Britton Way or in some way adjacent
to the parking areas of the apartment building. He stated that he is speaking
not only of activities, but of after -hour activities. He said that one thing that
hasn't been clarified is the type of use that they will be looking at in this
assembly room. He asked if they would be talking about weddings, as this
was one of the things staff had a problem with, and not weddings per se, but
the celebrations that go along with them that close to a residential use. He
stated that if this is a use that is not willing to cater to weddings or uses
where alcohol or other things will be served late in the evening, that might
lessen some of the concern regarding the proximity of the residential uses.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that it sounds like the project ought to be
continued until some of these other issues are resolved.
Mr. Adame stated that they understand that at the last board meeting, a
petition was submitted and presented to the board, which indicated signatures
from the residences to the north of this property. He stated that the
apartment complex does not currently have a meeting or assembly room of
any type, and they would be much in favor of having something like this in
close proximity for their assembly uses, whether they be for recreational or
administrative uses.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he was not aware of such a petition.
The Community Development Director stated that there was a petition
submitted to the City Clerk at the time of the City Council Meeting, and it
did contain signatures of residents of the apartment project, stating that they
were in favor of the proposed project.
Chairman Hawkinson stated there has been no presentation to this body yet.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she assumes that at least part of the
time, the people who will be coming to use this facility will not be familiar
with a location, and it is not the easiest place to find if you are not familiar
with the complex, and she believes that people being as lazy as they are, they
are going to pick the first spot they come to for parking, and if they happen
to come in on Britton Way, they are going to park in the area designated as
A. She asked how they are supposed to know that they are not supposed to
park there. She stated she is also concerned about #8, 9 and 10 on the
recommendations, as they've been through this before with the other facility
24
in Grand Terrace. She asked the Community Development Director how he
proposed to control these items, being the use of the alcohol and people being
given a notice and they have to sign it. She stated that it doesn't mean
anything - you can't enforce it.
The Community Development Director stated that they can enforce it if it
becomes a problem, and unfortunately they often times have to wait until it
becomes a significant problem in order to spend the man hours to go out and
deal with it, particularly in these types of hours they are talking about. He
stated that Item A is certainly a self-imposed regulation; Item 10 is a self-
imposed regulation until it becomes a problem, as is #9. He stated that he
thinks all three of these reflects on the quality of the applicant, and whether
or not they are willing to live by their word, and they cannot judge that ahead
of time.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that there is no way they can be assured of
that ahead of time.
The Community Development Director stated that this is correct, so if it does
become a problem in the future, they can deal with it, particularly on an
annual CUP basis. He stated that if it becomes a health and safety factor,
they would address it immediately; if it was one little incident after another
that individually don't amount to much, then they are not going to throw a
block wall in front of them in order to stop them, but when it does come up
for review, they would certainly make note of those incidences to the Planning
Commission for their review. He stated that a lot of it depends upon the
severity of the violation and whether or not they think they are going to get
away with something immediately or if they will answer for it after being in
business for a year.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if Britton Way allows parking, to which the
Community Development Director responded in the negative.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that people park on Britton Way, and he
thought in the conditions, they said there would be no parking on Britton
Way, but every time he has been there, there is plenty of parking.
The Community Development Director stated that Britton Way is a private
road.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that there are semi -trucks that park there now,
and obviously live in that residence, and they park on both sides, and there
is barely enough room for a car to get through once they park on both sides,
so the private roadway issue is something that is out of the City's control.
25
Commissioner Hilkey stated that the applicant has Parking Lot C, and there
are 43 spaces, and his the Community Development Director's has 30. He
asked if there orientation is totally unacceptable.
The Community Development Director stated that it is within the parking
code, but the problem with their design is that the stalls are 16 feet in depth
rather than 19 feet in depth, which is necessary in order to get the two double
bays that they have in there. He stated that unfortunately, there is just not
enough land in order to get the appropriate dimensions for a parking lot
within the code.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that he thinks the City needs something like this,
but the parking is a real problem, and until they mitigate the problem, it is
going to fall back on the apartments to absorb the extra parking. He asked
if it was possible to install gates on the edge of the property, so that the
people coming off of Barton Road can't get back into the apartments, which
would force them to park in the D section.
The Community Development Director stated that they would still have
pedestrian access in there, and they would have to fence off the whole
building in essence, or at least pedestrian access to it.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that then they are talking about crowd control,
as it is not laid out for use on a regular basis, as they are talking about
weekends and evenings. He stated that there is simply not enough parking.
The Community Development Director stated that as far as gating it off, they
would have to have the crash gates for fire access and all of that, and he
thinks they may be breaking new ground doing that in a commercial
development.
Commissioner Hilkey asked, with existing parking, what the largest square
footage and number of people is that they could accommodate.
The Community Development Director stated, with his recommendation, 750
square feet, without shared parking and with Area C. He stated that Area B
has 32 spaces in it, and the square footage in Suite 200, which takes up the
entire building in the back, requires under the current parking code for office
space or retail space 1 space for every 200 square feet of area. He stated that
this building requires 32 parking spaces, so if that building was to rent out for
an office space or retail space, anything that goes under the 1 per 200 parking
requirement, they would not have to provide additional parking. He stated
that they need the additional parking because of the assembly room. He
stated that if they were to do that whole building with office space they would
26
be fine, and if they were to do any use that would require a Conditional Use
Permit or for any reason need Site and Architectural Review, staff would
recommend that the parking areas involved with that be brought up to the
parking code requirements, which would basically be just improving the
landscaping and restriping it differently than what it is. He stated that this
would be a minor change that wouldn't affect the use of the building; it is
when they increase the parking need that they have the problem, and this is
what the assembly room does.
Commissioner Hilkey asked how many people 750 square feet would
accommodate.
The Community Development Director stated that with Area B and C, this
would accommodate 50 people.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that it was then up to the applicant if they
wanted to proceed that way.
The Community Development Director stated that the applicant has indicated
that they would like to have the 1,200 square foot room and try to get the
shared parking in Area D for at least the off hours, and they would only use
the 1,200 square foot space for 50 people, even though it would generate
maybe 30 more people.
Commissioner Munson asked if he heard that the applicant wished to
continue this for two weeks so he could study D.
Mr. Adame stated that they would rather not continue this for two weeks. He
stated that under personal testimony, and also from testimony from other
proprietors in the complex, there are no more than a dozen cars in the
parking lot on the weekend at any given time, and they are assured that any
study that would be conducted would indicate this.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that personal testimony is not doing this body any
good because they would need this substantiated.
Mr. Adame stated that he is explaining how this would be substantiated.
The Community Development Director stated that staff has made a during
the week study, and they feel that the area cannot handle. He stated that
they are suggesting another study be done, which would have to be done
under the shared parking requirements anyway.
Chairman Hawkinson asked who would do the study and who would pay for
27
MOTION
PCM-90-34
CUP-89-07
it.
The Community Development Director stated that is up to them. He stated
that the parking code requires that the applicant put together the study and
show that it will work. He stated that if they would like to direct staff to
conduct its own study, they will do that, but either way, staff has worked with
this project many hours now, and he would prefer that any final decision
regarding whether or not the area in parking lot D can be shared or not be
brought back to them, as they have made their recommendations.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that they have gone a step beyond in coming up
with some proposals that would make it work, but it just looks to him like
they are trying to put a square peg in a round hole, it's just not there with the
parking.
Commissioner Munson made the motion, based on staffs recommendation
and that the applicant does not desire to continue this, that the project be
denied. Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that he would like to give them an option that
makes sense under the calculations that staff has come up with, and if they
don't like it then they can appeal it.
Commissioner Munson stated that staff has given them the option, but they
don't particularly want that option.
Mr. Adame stated that they will consider taking Option C if the board is
leaning toward denial of this case.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he would have to refrain from discussion as
there is a motion before them.
JAMES BLAISDELL
22400 BARTON ROAD
G.T.
Mr. Blaisdell stated that he is the applicant.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he should have come up at the time they
asked if there was any input.
Mr. Blaisdell stated that he is trying to address questions that are being asked
now.
The Community Development Director stated that at this point of the
meeting, after the Planning Commission has closed the public hearing, it is for
discussion by the Planning Commission. He stated that if they want to open
it up and ask any questions, they can do that again, but that would be up to
the Planning Chairman.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if he would allow Mr. Blaisdell to make his
comments if he so deem this to be acceptable.
Chairman Hawkinson accepted this.
Mr. Blaisdell stated that he would like to address the parking situation on
weekends. He stated that he runs a business himself at 22400 Barton Road,
and he is there seven days a week and is open seven days a week from 6:30
a.m. to normally 10:00 p.m. He stated that on weekends, if there are 12 to
14 cars in the whole parking lot on a Saturday, it is very, very rare. He stated
that on Sundays, if there are more than three cars in the parking lot, it is rare.
He stated that the only cars there on Sundays are from people coming to his
own place of business which is may four on hour on an average. He stated
C that on Saturdays, there are maybe 20 to 25 cars occasionally at Gina's, but
it starts drifting off by 3:00 to 4:00 p.m., and in the evening time, it is basically
empty. He stated that he was more than happy to go along with the
suggestions of the Planning Director as far as the 50 people on Monday
through Friday, and that all he is asking is for the 75 to 80 people on the
weekends. He stated that as far as parking goes in Area C, it could be fenced
off and used as valet parking, where he could double the number of cars that
go into Area C. He stated that he feels the parking is there if people are
willing to let him do it.
The Community Development Director stated that the parking code doesn't
provide for valet parking, and if the area is to be used for parking, staff would
recommend that it be developed in accordance with the parking code and the
Barton Road Specific Plan parking requirements. He stated that staff would
be opposed to valet parking without some real justification that it would work.
He stated that part of the problem is that they are approving parking
improvements that are going to be there, and they are trying to look forward,
and this is why the reciprocal parking is up there and why the landscaping is
going to be required. He stated that when La Tijera sells that property or
develops it, that parking back there will be incorporated with their project.
He stated that it could be all torn out completely and done completely
differently, but more than likely it will be incorporated into that project, and
i
29
this is why they have the access across the top of it to have access from both
properties on each side. He stated that the landscaping areas meet the
parking code requirements, and valet parking could work on a temporary
basis, but there is no provision for it in the parking code.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that on the map there are two entrances into
Parking Lot C. He asked if they could eliminate the driveway along the top
and put gates up there.
The Community Development Director stated that they could eliminate the
access up there at this time and work something along that line. He stated
that in closing off any of those access points, they would have to run it by the
fire department to make sure they don't have any problems with it from fire -
access point of view. He stated that with the access points that they have, he
doesn't feel the fire department would have any concerns at all, as it has
plenty of access. He stated that the access point onto Britton Way is really
thinking of the future in servicing that as an independent drive access for
people that would be turning into whatever development would be from La
Tijera. He stated that they wouldn't want more than the one space in order
to keep the driveway spaces apart. He stated that the fewer driveways, the
better as far as they are concerned.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that there are three alternatives, A is theirs, B
is 1,200 square feet and C is 750 square feet. He asked if both are acceptable
to staff.
The Community Development Director said no, that they feel B is still large
enough to create potential problems with the apartments. He stated that they
are more than willing to look at another parking study, and if a study would
show that the parking spaces are available in Area D on a limited time basis,
and the use of that area is restricted to that limited time area, then staff
would be satisfied with the parking issue. He stated that this is very difficult
to enforce, but it would just become an enforcement issue. He stated that
staff still feels that this is quite an intense use that close to the apartment
units.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if staff felt comfortable with the 750 square foot
room.
The Community Development Director stated yes, as it reduces the size of the
assembly room enough to where the number of people attending the use will
have adequate problem and it will not be substantial enough to cause any
real, potential problems with the residential units.
30
Commissioner Hilkey asked if this would be roughly 50 participants.
The Community Development Director stated that it would be 59 parking
spaces limited to 50 people.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if he would be receptive to opening up the 1,200
square feet on weekends or evenings.
The Community Development Director stated that staff still feels there is a
potential problem with the residential units being as close as they are, and it
may be ill-founded, but they don't know.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if they had any more questions of Mr. Blaisdell.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if it came down to 750 square feet or nothing,
would it make sense for him to do this.
Mr. Blaisdell stated that economically, no.
Commissioner Hilkey asked how many parking spaces were needed for 1,200
square feet.
1 The Community Development Director stated that 74 would be needed.
Commissioner Hilkey asked how many they have.
The Community Development Director stated, with Area B and C, as staff has
proposed it, they have 59. He stated that the additional 15 spaces represent
20%, which is how much the code allows shared parking to provide, which
would have to come out of Area D. He stated that they haven't talked about
Area A because basically, it is already a shared parking area between the
shopping center and the residential units.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if shared parking required some agreements, to
which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if the owner of B was the same a the owner of
D, to which the Community Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
The Community Development Director stated that basically, they are separate
lots, and they would need reciprocal parking agreements.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was any way to enforce the parking into
31
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-34
D at off hours or weekends and protect the apartments, with gates, fences,
temporary partitions or guards.
The Community Development Director stated that he doesn't think they
would want to see gates strung up blocking areas off, and he doesn't know
how they would do temporary barriers. He stated that one of the
requirements for the similar project down in Terrace Gateway was that any
time they have 50 people or more, they have to have a security guard, and if
they have 75 people they have to have two guards. He stated that there is no
requirement for such here because the maximum number is limited to 50
people, and if they were to go to a higher number, they would want to bring
that recommendation in. He stated that perhaps one of the duties of the
security officer would be to prevent parking in any area other than identified
parking areas for the use. He stated that this would be self -enforcing until
they get complaints.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked how many parking spaces there are in
Section D.
The Community Development Director stated that they have identified 133
parking spaces, but some of those would not currently be allowed under the
current parking code, so this would be reduced a certain number in order to
get landscape islands into the certain areas. He stated that there are certain
parking areas that are located back in the drive aisle between Area B and D,
which may not be utilized. He stated that they may be able to get anywhere
from 125 to 133 spaces, probably close to 130.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked how many businesses are not open on
Saturday or Sunday.
The Community Development Director stated that he does not, and this
should be included in any study that would reflect that, but this type of issue
is great for what is there now.
Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent.
Chairman Hawkinson informed the applicant that there is an appeal process
that could be explained by the Community Development Department.
The Community Development Director stated that there is a ten day appeal
32
period.
ITEM #4
CUP-87-07R1
ROBERT KEENEY
21900 BARTON ROAD
G.T.
AN APPLICATION TO REVISE CONDITION #6 (PERIMETER WALL REQUIREMENT)
OF CUP-87-07, RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK AND RETAIL SHOPS FACILITY TO
BE LOCATED IN THE C-2 ZONE
Chairman Hawkinson stated that at the last recess, the applicant had
requested that this item be continued.
MOTION
PCM-90-35
CUP-87-07R1
Chairman Hargrave made the motion to continue CUP-87-07R1 to the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Van
Gelder second.
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-35
Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent.
ITEM #5
CUP-88-14R2
DOMTAR GYPSUM, INC.
21516 MAIN STREET
G.T.
AN APPLICATION FOR A REVISION OF CONDITION #4 (HOURS OF OPERATION)
OF CUP-88-14, A STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY FOR GYPSUM
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
The Assistant Planner presented the staff report.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if there have been any complaints in the course
of the last year regarding noise from the operation.
33
The Assistant Planner stated that at this point, staff does not recall receiving
any complaints for the past year on this applicant.
Commissioner Hargrave asked what the effective date was.
The Assistant Planner stated that he might want to check with the applicant
on that.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she knows the City does have a noise
ordinance, but she was not aware that it did not apply to businesses, and she
assumes from that then that construction facilities would not be included in
that. She stated that on the Noise Ordinance, construction was not allowed
to start before 7:00 a.m.
The Community Development Director stated that he does not know that the
Noise Ordinance prohibits construction from beginning before 7:00 a.m., but
they cannot do any construction that would raise the decibels above the
allowable levels before 7:00 a.m., and any type of outdoor construction
normally does that.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she can remember that they were asked
by somebody to start at 5:00 a.m. in the summertime and they said no. She
asked about such things as the commercial leaf blowers.
The Community Development Director stated that the Noise Ordinance does
not address uses; they can do anything they want as long as it is per the
zoning uses they are in. He stated that if it makes noise more than the
acceptable decibel levels, they can't do it.
MIKE SHEELINE
DOMTAR GYPSUM
Mr. Sheeline stated that over the last year and a half, they have had a
wonderful experience in Grand Terrace. He stated that they have done
everything they feel they can do to work within the City's guidelines as far as
noise abatement and keeping the area clean, and to his knowledge in a year
and a half, they have not had one complaint from the surrounding residents
as far as the noise or any unsightly surroundings in their facility. He stated
that they look forward to another successful year in the City.
Commissioner Hargrave asked what the starting date was for the summer
hours.
Mr. Sheeline stated he would like them to start June 1.
34
MOTION
PCM-90-36
CUP-88-14R2
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-36
Commissioner Hargrave asked if this was the same as last time.
Mr. Sheeline stated that he believed so.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if this was inclusive of September 4.
Mr. Sheeline verified this.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak,
then brought it back to Commission for action.
Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve CUP-88-14R2, changing
its summer hours per staffs recommendation. Commissioner Van Gelder
second.
Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M.
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 9:45 P.M.
ITEM #6
SA-87-14R1
ROBERT KEENEY
21900 BARTON ROAD
G.T.
AN APPLICATION TO REVISE CONDITION #6 (PERIMETER WALL REQUIREMENT)
OF CUP-87-07, RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK AND RETAIL SHOPS FACILITY TO
BE LOCATED IN THE C-2 ZONE
Chairman Hawkinson stated that this item is to be continued to the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting.
35
MOTION
PCM-90-37
SA-87-14R1
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-37
Commissioner Hargrave made the motion that SA-87-14R1 be continued to
the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner
Munson second.
Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent.
ITEM #7
SA-90-03
OUTDOOR DESIGNS/DAMES AND JEANETTE GENEL
22720 RAVEN WAY
G.T.
AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A PATIO COVER
AND OVERHEAD DECK ON A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT
The Assistant Planner presented the staff report.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if the Planning Department had received any
comments as a by-product of some of the letters that went out.
The Assistant Planner stated that they had not received any comments as of
the time of the meeting.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if staff still recommended approval.
The Assistant Planner agreed.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if they had thought about the potential of this
application coming before them from another residence or residences for
some comparable type of deck and what effect this would have.
The Community Development Director stated that he doesn't know if it has
any domino effect or anything, but this is why they have Site and Architectural
Review. He stated that they are to be looking at it on an independent basis,
and if they feel there are conditions regarding this application that would tend
to have them make a determination one way or the other, then they would
36
base this determination on those concerns, and an additional one would be
based on its own independent concerns.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he went out to Mr. and Mrs. Genel's
house and he was kind enough to show him what they wanted to do, and he
can understand why they want to do this as they want to have a more
picturesque view of Blue Mountain, which is in their backyard. He stated that
he would have a problem architecturally if a lot of people on that block
decided to do it as he feels it would detract from the previous ones that are
done, as the new ones may block the view of the older ones, and it may get
to be a little bit obtrusive.
JAMES THOMAS
386 NORTHFIELD
ANAHEIM
Mr. Thomas stated that he represents the contractor, Outdoor Designs.
Commissioner Hargrave asked, when they put on the deckings, if they certify
the property owner that their house is structurally sound enough to support
this construction.
Mr. Thomas stated that yes, they ledger into the room joyce on the second
story per building codes depending upon the city or county.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if his firm was a licensed contractor, to which
Mr. Thomas responded in the affirmative.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if their were any comments from the audience
then brought it back to Commission.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if the wood was to be painted or treated in any
manner other than just the natural color of the wood.
Mr. Thomas stated that they use Oak Hill Quaker Stain, and it will be stained
to match the trim of the home.
Commissioner Hargrave asked Mr. Genel what color his trim is.
Mr. Genel stated that it is beige.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that he thinks it is an eyesore. He stated that if
he had an opportunity to stop his neighbor from doing this, he certainly would
speak up, but the Commission has done everything that it could, it continued
37
it and sent letters to the neighbors and they don't seemed to be concerned
about it, so if they aren't concerned enough about it to raise their hand, then
he doesn't think they should be concerned about it.
Commissioner Munson stated that he concurs. He stated that his backyard
used to private but it is not anymore, and consequently, he is going to vote
against it. He stated that were it a roof and not an observation deck, he
could vote for it, but because it is an observation deck, he is going to vote
against it.
Commissioner Hilkey asked staff why the other owners didn't speak up.
The Community Development Director stated that they notified the property
owners by mail and did not receive any response from them, so he can't say
why they didn't respond.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he asked Mr. Genel if any of his
neighbors said anything to him about it, and he said that his immediate
neighbors said it was fine and had no objections, and in fact the neighbor to
the east is going to try to build a similar structure.
JIM GENEL
22720 RAVEN
G.T.
Mr. Genel stated that all of the lots are terraced and every single home is a
two story house. He stated that in reference to privacy, everybody that goes
into the bedrooms, which are all located on the back of the homes, can look
into the lot on the west and east side. He stated that privacy -wise, you are
not going to spend all of your time looking at the neighbors' backyards. He
stated that the reasons they don't object to his having a sun deck up there is
because he is just going to use it when the weather is nice and comfortable
to go up there. He stated that they have been invited once it has been
completed to come up and see, and they still don't object to it. He stated that
he has an empty lot in the backyard which overlooks a church, and if on a
summer night he wants to go out and look at the lights in Colton, Rialto or
the hillside in the back, that is all he is going to be using it for. He stated
that all of his neighbors are in the process of applying for permits to put
deckings on their backyards, so the way they vote now will affect them,
because they have already submitted plans to them.
Commission Hargrave asked if he and his wife consider down -sizing this a
little bit, for example, going to a smaller square footage of decking area.
38
Mr. Genel stated that he only has a very small amount of usable decking, and
all the rest of it is lattice. He stated that his patio does not go from one end
of the house to the other.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that the proposed deck is 171 square feet.
Mr. Genel stated that it will be completed from one side to the other.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would be able to stand or sit above the
actual patio also, according to the plans. He stated that there are 119 feet off
of the bedroom, and there are another 12 feet on the west side, so they have
19 feet as far as length goes from their bedroom right now, and there is a 7
foot area before you get into the patio area of 12 feet in length. He stated
that the balcony area for viewing is just the 19 feet, which Mr. Genel verified.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he was thinking they could leave the patio
area alone, but go over to where they have the 19 feet, and downsize that a
little bit.
Mr. Genel stated that they are going to install the French doors right up in
there which would throw it off.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that if they brought it in from both sides, an
equal distance, then the French doors would still be in the center.
Mr. Thomas stated that they could downsize it from the right-hand side
almost up to the door, which would be about 8 feet, but the balcony is still at
the same height, and aesthetically, it would not look right.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could go 4 feet from both sides of the
19 feet.
Mr. Thomas stated that there are a multitude of ways they could lay it out,
but they would still have the same height of the balcony, and the applicant
would not want to do this.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that if he had a project like this and has put a lot
of work into it and he has a contractor, he wouldn't like people hacking it up
either. He stated that he hopes he understand what their concern is - not
with the balcony or the quality, but simply other residents in the future. He
stated that on the back side, there is a vacant lot that will be developed some
day, and what will they say. He stated that it is a nice looking balcony and
good materials, but how will it affect the neighborhood in five or ten years.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that staff recommended adopting this
W
proposal. She asked if his neighbor up the street, next door, comes in next
week with a proposal, will they recommend adoption of it also.
The Community Development Director stated that staff takes every
application on its own and will look at it independently and he will give them
a recommendation on it when it comes in.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if he wouldn't mind having a whole row of
houses that have this same type of deck on it.
The Community Development Director stated they will look at each one
independently, and he can't say more than that. He stated that the code
allows this to be built as long as it is not over 20 feet, and if it is over 8 feet,
it needs Site and Architectural Review. He stated that if there are neighbors
that are coming in and giving substantial reasons to deny it, if the design is
not in a manner that they feel is appropriate for that particular location, then
they can deny it. He stated that they can make modifications on it. He said
that they can approve this one if they don't feel there is anything wrong with
it. He stated that each case is independent, and it does not create a
precedence on additional cases.
Commissioner Munson stated that privacy has nothing to do with this; if it is
O structurally sound, they approve it or disapprove it. He asked the City
Attorney if this was correct.
The City Attorney stated that if he is asking whether or not the Planning
Commission can consider approving or denying the project as it affects
adjacent residents, which includes privacy, then yes, they can consider that, if
they feel it will be intrusive on neighbors. He stated that it is not simply a
matter of being structurally sound.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that Commissioner Hilkey expressed it as well
as they could. He stated that no one seems enthusiastic about this project,
but no one has responded to say they are opposed to it. He stated that
nobody seems to be bothered by it, so he really sees no reason that they don't
just say go ahead and do it.
Commissioner Munson stated that he heard the applicant make a statement
that his neighbors are considering a similar project for their houses, so now
they are going to look at them up the street.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that now they are into some dangerous ground
because they are talking about projects that have not been proposed. He
stated that they need to look just at this issue tonight.
40
MOTION
PCM-90-38
SA-90-03
Commissioner Munson stated that he thinks they are opening a can of worms
they would rather not open.
Chairman Hawkinson stated they have to look at this project on its own merit.
Commissioner Munson made the motion that they deny SA-90-03.
Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion.
The Community Development Director stated that they need to have some
findings to base denial on. He stated that he assumes he is basing it on the
issue of lack of privacy on adjoining properties as a result of proposed project.
Commissioner Munson said this is part of it. He stated that they have an
eight foot limit and this is nine foot top, and he doesn't see any reason for
this project. He asked if his motion was out of order, stating that all he is
trying to do is get the Commission to make a decision.
The Community Development Director stated that his motion is not out of
order at all, they just need to back it up with findings.
The City Attorney stated that he supposed that the finding is that the patio
is inconsistent with the general character of the existing neighborhood, and
that it is intrusive on adjacent properties.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is going to vote with Commissioner
Munson on this motion to deny, but he would really like to see the Genels
come back and give them another proposal on this with a downscale model
in keeping with what their theme is.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he has a problem with that, as downscaling
this is not going to change it.
Commissioner Hilkey stated he doesn't want to redesign the project as this is
a very sensitive thing, but the supports are nine feet away from the house, so
it will stick out a foot or two beyond that. He stated that they are really
talking about a 19 by 10 foot observation deck, which is very large. He stated
that on the west side, there is no problem, because there is only the patio
cover. He stated that on the east side, there isn't too much of a problem
because the house is higher than theirs. He stated that there is no one on the
north side yet, which seems to be the only place they have concerns. He
41
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-38
stated that he will go along with the others and vote against it because he
thinks in five years it will come up again, and it will be an eyesore.
Motion carries. 3-2-2-0. Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Van
Gelder voting no. Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent.
The Community Development Director stated that the project is denied and
there is a ten day appeal period that they may appeal the decision to the City
Council.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if the vote of 3 to 2 is based only upon the
Commissioners present or is it based upon the entire body.
The City Attorney stated it is the majority of those present.
ITEM #8
SA-90-05
RICK AND JANIE ALPERN
22996 PALM AVENUE
G.T.
AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SATELLITE DISH
IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT
The Assistant Planner presented the staff report.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that, according to the drawing, where they
place the dish seems to meet all the recommendations.
The Assistant Planner stated that other than the ground mounting, when
looking at the height aspect.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if this would mean that the applicant would
have to move the dish right on top of the pole down to ground level.
The Assistant Planner stated that either that or any other location as long as
it meets setback requirements.
42
RICK ALPERN
22996 PALM
G.T.
Mr. Alpern apologized as he did not know they needed a permit to put it up.
He stated that they have a problem in that the satellite they have has to face
south. He stated that because they have no other room to mount the satellite
in the backyard, there was no other place to mount it unless they stuck it in
the frontyard; it has to have clearance on top of the house. He stated that it
was either that or the left side of the house, so they asked their neighbors,
and none of them seemed to have a problem. He stated that if you look
directly in front of their house, you can't even see the satellite - you actually
have to be at an angle to the house, and if you are down the street you can
see it. He stated that they have no neighbors on the side of the house where
the satellite is - all they have is a road and a water holding tank. He stated
that he was misinformed by the satellite people, as they said he did not need
a permit. He said that they got together with an engineer that he knows and
had him construct a way that they could put it out and mount it in a safe
manner; they mounted it on a steel pole, braced it to the house, and set it in
concrete, so there should be no safety discrepancy - the only thing would be
the way that it looks. He stated that he could go into the various reasons of
why they enjoy satellite: sports enthusiast, educational purposes, community
programming, workshops, etc. He stated that he has no other place to mount
it on the house, unless he were to move it to the front yard. He stated they
did look at the opposite side of the house, but the neighbor would have been
looking at it, and they would have had to cut down a bunch of trees, because
in order to have satellite, you need to have clearance in front of it. He stated
that he can't lower it because his house would block it. He stated that if it
was voted down, he would love to be able to submit other plans, but unless
they put it in the front yard, he wouldn't know where else to put it. He stated
that he did check with the neighbors, he thinks they have a beautiful house
on the block and they keep it nice.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if the neighbor to the north had any objections.
Mr. Alpern stated that they did not ask them because they really can't see it,
as they are on the down side to the right. He stated that the views are out
the other way and up to the mountains, so it just doesn't block anybody's view.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if he installed it himself.
Mr. Alpern stated that the satellite dish company installed it. He stated that,
in talking with them, he asked an engineer if this would work.
43
Commission Munson asked who can see the dish.
Mr. Alpern stated that the people below Observation or Paradise across the
street from them, but it is not really in their line of vision.
Commissioner Hilkey asked what was inside the backyard, just inside the
wrought iron and block wall.
Mr. Alpern stated that there is a small grass area, but in order to put the
satellite there, it would have to go all the way to the back and there is no
room because it has to be able to view over the house.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was a space in the northwest comer.
Mr. Alpern stated they had brought out an electronic device that monitored
the signal and they said that it wouldn't have the proper clearance.
Commissioner Munson asked about landscaping on the fence along Paradise.
Mr. Alpern stated that they have a wrought iron fence and they own the hill,
and it is actually a slope that goes down. He stated that if you actually drove
by you would see it is not an eyesore because it is hidden, as it is actually
behind the house.
The Community Development Director clarified that it is hidden for the most
part traveling west downhill on Palm. He stated it is very visible traveling
uphill on Palm, and it is visible driving south on Observation and north on
Observation.
Mr. Alpem stated that it is certainly a lot less visible than a lot of the
antennas that come way up and are on top of the middle of the houses.
The Community Development Director stated that there are very few
antennas in that area.
Mr. Alpern stated that there are seven.
Commissioner Munson asked if they were trying to establish a policy for
future satellite dishes as well as try to make sure that the ones that are
currently in the City are safe.
The Community Development Director stated that they are looking at Site
and Architectural Review and making sure that the satellite follows their
existing code. He stated that staff has reviewed it and consider satellite
44
structures as an accessory structure and then they look at the code as far as
how it addresses accessory structures. He stated that it is the same issue as
what they had with the patio, as both items are accessory structures. He
stated that if it is under eight feet, it can go anywhere in their yard as long as
it is meeting the setback requirements; if it is above eight feet, it needs to
have Site and Architectural Review; it cannot be above 20 feet, according to
the code.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he has tried awfully hard to go along with
what he just described, but he is having a very difficult time separating a
satellite dish from a television antenna, as far as how he is interpreting this
as a structure.
The Community Development Director stated that they have to go to the
code and its definition section.
Chairman Hawkinson asked if this particular site be a little unique if this is
the only place it can go and be functional, as somewhat of a variance.
The City Attorney stated that it is not really a variance. He said that there
isn't really an obligation of the Commission to find that in every piece of
property they will be able to put a satellite dish that will have a south view
over a house. He stated that this isn't suggesting that his approach is not
satisfactory in this case, but it wouldn't be in all cases.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that it sounds like everybody that puts a satellite
dish up is going to come before this body.
The Community Development Director stated that if they are over eight feet
high, yes they will.
Chairman Hawkinson that this one may be better done aesthetically than
some that are done within the legal limit. He asked how it would be if it was
planted in the middle of the front yard and was within the height requirement,
or even the side yard.
The Community Development Director stated that either way, it would be
going as an accessory structure.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he is having a very difficult time calling this
a structure versus a gizmo that gives him a better signal from his television
set.
The City Attorney stated that the distinction of the definition is that it is a
45
structure in that it is separate and apart from the primary structure of the
house, and obviously you cannot say the same thing about an antenna which
is stuck on the house.]
The Community Development Director stated that their definition of an
accessory building for everyone to hear is: "A building, part of a building or
structure which is subordinate to and the use of which is incidental to that of
the main building, structure or use on the same lot; it does not mean separate
living quarters or guest house." He stated that a fence is even considered a
structure. He said that they have an out on this though; an accessory
structure cannot be more than 20 feet high, and staff won't recommend this,
but if they are looking for an out to get around the 20 foot high limitation,
Section 18.57.80 talks about height limit exceptions, and states that, "chimneys,
copulas, flag poles, monuments, radio and other towers, water tanks, church
steeples, and similar structures and mechanical appurtenances may be
permitted in excess of height limits provided a use permit is first obtained in
each case". He stated that if they considered this as a "radio or other tower",
which would not be stretching it too much, this could be allowed to go above
the 20 foot height limitation if it has a Conditional Use Permit. He stated
that staff feels that anything of this magnitude, visible above the roof line, is
a detriment to the design and architecture of the neighborhood and the
structure, and this is why staff feels it should be brought down to the ground
and should be ground -mounted.
Chairman Hawkinson stated, supposing he was in this position, he was going
to put this thing in and found out that the only place it would possibly work
would be the place where he has got it, would he have grounds for a suit
saying they are prohibiting him from enjoying satellite television.
The City Attorney stated no, because there is no right to receive satellite, just
like there is no absolute right to have short wave antennas. He stated that
there is some satellite television litigation, but there is a whole lot of short
wave antenna litigation. He said that 15 years ago, more or less, the state of
the law was that a City could not restrict short wave antenna height because
if you made them short, it was impossible to receive a signal, but this is no
longer a law and hasn't been for about 10 years. He stated that the same
thing presumably applies to satellite, although there is no case that he is
aware addresses it quite that directly, as most satellites aren't elevated on
poles.
Commissioner Hargrave stated he and his neighbor probably have the best
view of his dish because they look toward Blue Mountain and the back of his
house, which is where his dish is. He stated that he thinks he did a wonderful
job of aesthetically tuning it into the house, and if anybody would be miffed,
46
it would probably be him and his neighbor about any horizon pollution that
could be there. He stated that he has it there, he has done a very, very good
job, and has toned it into the house to where you probably wouldn't be
noticing it. He stated that he is going to vote for approval of this, but he does
want to bring in the Community Development Director's exception, as he
things they put this under the permitted use under the exception rules as a
condition.
The Community Development Director stated that they can't do that, as it
requires a public hearing, and they would have to reschedule it.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that they should reschedule it if that is what
it would take. He stated that he thinks it should stay, as bringing it down to
the ground would not make any sense, and there is no place to put this thing
in his backyard that makes any sense at all, and he sure does not want it in
the front yard. He stated that it is unfortunate that he trusted the contractor.
He stated that neither he nor his neighbor find it objectionable and they have
a perfect view of it. He feels he is trying to comply and is willing to give him
the benefit of the doubt, let him leave it there under the conditional usage
factor and in the future, if it doesn't work out, then they have some recourse
to come back and talk to him. He asked if they have to deny this project.
The City Attorney stated that, as a practical matter, they have to deny it
because it doesn't comply with the code, but suggest to the applicant that he
reapply for a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that one of the advantages
of that is that the neighbors get the opportunity to make comment.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that it also protects him from someone saying
that no one told them about this.
The City Attorney stated that, unfortunately with a 20 foot high limitation,
they don't have much choice.
Commissioner Hargrave asked what fees the applicant would incur to do this.
The Community Development Director stated that he has submitted $100 for
Site and Architectural Review and even if he does do the Conditional Use
Permit, Site and Architectural Review is still required, so it would be an
additional $100 for the Conditional Use Permit, and he would suggest that
they continue the Site and Architectural Review until such time that the
C.U.P. hearing has been held, and then they can make a determination as to
whether it is per code or not.
Mr. Alpern stated that this seems good to him, but he is a little confused, as
47
MOTION
PCM-90-39
SA-90-05
nobody seems to really object and they haven't taken a vote. He asked why,
since it picks up radio signals as well as television signals and is considered
a radio tower, why couldn't they just approve it that way.
The City Attorney stated that this exception does require a Conditional Use
Permit.
Mr. Alpern asked if they could have any other variances.
The City Attorney stated that all of these things require a public hearing no
matter how they do it.
Mr. Alpern asked if they could just have an approval because nobody objects.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is trying to give him the easiest way for
$100 if he would accept it.
Mr. Alpern stated that he is not worried about the $100.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that they are trying to give him some
protection in case somebody does come to him and say he is in violation of
the code, which technically he is even though he didn't know it.
Mr. Alpern asked what he does when he files the petition.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he should coordinate with the Community
Development Department.
Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue SA-90-05.
Commissioner Munson second.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she is trying to come up with a middle-
of-the-road solution. She stated that she understands there are about eight
people in town that have satellite dishes and will be coming in for approval.
The Community Development Director stated that they have cited five.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she knows they can't assume that
anybody else coming in and putting up a satellite dish is automatically going
to know that they need a permit, but if they do know, the only appropriate
48
term she can think of is to somehow grandfather in the ones that are already
here, because there was no regulation in place or they didn't know about it.
The City Attorney stated that the regulation has always been in place, and he
can't imagine any satellite dish that pre -dates some accessory use requirement
in their zone, as even the County has similar requirements.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they make them go tear it down.
The City Attorney stated that they sure do.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that they had some three bedroom
apartments that were supposed to be two bedrooms, and nobody made them
tear those down.
The Community Development Director stated that this was a separate issue.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she knows it is different, but she
doesn't think the City is very strong on tearing it down if it is not appropriate.
The Community Development Director stated that permits were issued for the
three bedroom apartments, and whether everyone agreed whether or not they
should have got permits or not, they received permits and they are legal
structures, however, if they want to go back and look at the Hartzell case for
code enforcement, they went in and hauled away junk and tore down part of
his structure. He stated that they have done that, and the cities have the
power and have done it in the past. He stated that being a young City, they
haven't had to go to that extreme, but they do have the power to do it.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked, for instance, about a satellite dish that has
been put up, and there is no other way that they can receive satellite
messages.
The City Attorney stated that she is making satellite dishes something
different than other types of accessory structures, and it is no different than
the guy who had the patio cover and wanted to have an observation deck; you
still have to measure it by the standard of its impact on the neighbors and all
the architectural review standards. He stated that there isn't any inalienable
right to have a satellite dish for every piece of property in the City of Grand
Terrace.
The Community Development Director stated that it would be a lot easier if
it was not already up and paid for.
MOTION
VOTE
PC-90-39
Commissioner Munson asked if both of these satellite dishes are the same,
and if they could handle them both under the first motion, or will they both
have to come back.
The Community Development Director stated that the next item on the
agenda is also a satellite dish, but that one is not over 20 feet, so they don't
have the height restriction issue.
Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Buchanan and Sims absent.
ITEM #9
SA-90-07
RAUL MARTINEZ
22683 MIRIAM WAY
G.T.
AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SATELLITE IN
A R1-7.2 DISTRICT
The Assistant Planner presented the staff report.
RAUL MARTINEZ
22683 MIRIAM WAY
G.T.
Mr. Martinez apologized as he did not know that there were permits to be
granted through the City, and he contracted through Home Satellite, Inc. out
of Riverside, with the owner Charles Chisholm, who is not here tonight, so he
will try to answer any technical questions there are of the satellite dish itself.
He stated that when Mr. Chisholm came out and sold him the satellite back
in December of 1989, he brought out his monitoring equipment and told him
that the site as they see now on the schematic is possibly the best location for
reception of a satellite signal, the reason being that he has two more trees to
the south, and slightly west of the satellite dish, there is a tree in the property
line to the west and slightly south that hangs over and almost touches the
satellite dish as it sits now, and the shrubbery along the southern property line
to the west and east is at least in excess of 15 feet in height, and according to
Mr. Chisholm, he would need a clear signal in order to receive the best
possible reception, and this is why they had it mounted on the pole and tried
to hide it behind the house as best as possible. He stated that the maximum
50
height at the highest point of the rotation of the satellite dish was 19 1/2 feet,
which includes the pole and the circumference of the dish, which is about
10 1/2 feet in circumference.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that it looks like there is a high voltage line
that comes off of the main utility pole into his backyard.
Mr. Martinez asked if he was talking about from the southeast portion of his
backyard toward the patio, which Commissioner Hargrave verified. Mr.
Martinez stated that there is.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if has any problems with the electrical line.
Mr. Martinez stated that he does not.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that it sure looks like it is on the roof line of
his house.
Mr. Martinez stated that it is right at the eave line. He stated that he took
pictures of the satellite dish at the highest point in its rotation. He stated that
it is bracketed with a steel cable and bolted down to the eave.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that staffs recommendation is to bring the
dish down to ground level, and asked for some feedback.
Mr. Martinez stated that this location provides the best possible reception,
and he had come out with monitoring equipment. He stated that they did
discuss bringing it down to the southern portion of his fence line, but there is
a problem with reception due to Blue Mountain, and apparently there are a
couple of antennas or transponders located on that which would interfere with
the signal. He stated that he does have a dog in the backyard, and he has had
problems in the past with kids walking along the sidewalk on Barton Road
throwing rocks at his dog, and he assumes that if they see something as
tempting as a satellite dish anywhere close to that southern fence line, they
would see if they could make baskets in the dish itself with rocks. He stated
that the measurements are well within the setbacks according to the City: 20
feet from the sideyard and driveway and 80 feet from the southern portion of
the fence line.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if the pole met the engineer's requirement to
provide proper footing and support for the satellite dish.
Mr. Martinez stated that he is not sure, but the pole is three feet in the
ground with three feet of cement, covered with a little bit of dirt and some
51
grass growing there now. He stated that he does not have a detailed plan of
it, as Mr. Chisholm was supposed to have brought that with him here tonight.
He stated that he can say that they have had high winds since December and
he has had no problems with it falling, so as far as he knows, it is safe.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if it faces north.
Mr. Martinez stated that the front door faces north onto Miriam Way.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if the antenna was on the south side, which Mr.
Martinez verified. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the previous applicant
stated that they needed to have a southern exposure.
Mr. Martinez stated that the dish, as it rotates, will face from the southeast
and rotate across toward the northwest, but it won't go totally toward that
way.
Commissioner Hilkey asked if it was facing west in the picture.
Mr. Martinez stated that it was facing toward the northwest a little bit.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that is reason was that he needed a south
exposure, and Mr. Martinez has a perfect south exposure, yet the antenna is
facing northwest.
Mr. Martinez stated that this is just the way the rotation is, and again, he is
just going by what he was told by the contractor, as he said this would be the
best place for the reception because of the shrubbery, trees and mountain
south of him.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that he could mount this in the backyard next to
the house and it would be far away from the rock -throwers, but yet he would
still get a good southern exposure.
Mr. Martinez stated that it gets a good southern exposure where it is now, and
that it has to go over the shrubbery in the mountains itself. He stated that he
doesn't know the technicalities of the reception part itself.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that he always sees them facing south, and his is
facing northwest.
Mr. Martinez stated that this is just the way the rotation was at the time, but
it does go from the southeast toward the northwest at an angle as it rotates.
He stated that there are 24 different satellites that it rotates to.
52
Commissioner Munson asked how many satellites he is bringing in.
Mr. Martinez stated that he can bring in 24, but is only getting 23 right now.
Commissioner Munson asked if they are not all in the same location, and if
this was the reason for the adjustable dish, to which Mr. Martinez responded
in the affirmative.
Commissioner Munson asked how big of a radius this swings.
Mr. Martinez stated that this is a hard question.
Commissioner Munson asked, looking at 20 on the map, if it would go above
that line.
Mr. Martinez stated that it would slightly, and it would face toward northwest
as well.
Commissioner Munson asked, coming down and around, how far past the 80
mark will it go.
Mr. Martinez stated that it would go a little bit farther than it would past the
20, a little bit closer to the southeast comer of his lot.
Commissioner Munson asked if it goes a little over 90 degrees.
Mr. Martinez stated that this was correct.
Commissioner Munson asked if he had talked to Home Satellite since he
received notification about lowering this.
Mr. Martinez stated that he had, and Charles Chisholm, the owner, was
supposed to be here tonight and couldn't make it, and he was going to bring
the detailed footing plans as well as give any technical explanation needed.
Commissioner Munson asked if he did not think it was feasible then to lower
the dish.
Mr. Martinez stated that this was correct.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if the only objectionable thing as far as staffs
recommendation is the bringing it down to ground level.
The Community Development Director stated that they would like to see it
53
MOTION
PCM-90-40
SA-90-07
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-90-40
ground -mounted.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if they bring it down, Mr. Chisholm said that
it won't work.
Mr. Martinez said that it won't work.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that they either leave it there and let it be
workable or else it is not workable.
Mr. Martinez stated that he has talked to the neighbors on the east, west and
north, and no one has any objections as to the way it looks. He stated that
it is not a type of situation that would interfere with their televisions or
electrical appliances that they have when it is in operation.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to go to a continuance on
this and have Mr. Martinez come in for a C.U.P. application and hearing on
this so that the neighbors would have a chance to comment.
The Community Development Director stated that this application does not
need a Conditional Use Permit, and the adjacent neighbors received
notification.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that it appears as if all they need to do is
approve it as it stands.
The Community Development Director stated that they can do that, but staff
simply recommended that it come down and be ground -mounted.
Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to approve SA-90-07, leaving the
antenna at its present height, and not to exceed that height for as long as it
stands. Commissioner Van Gelder second.
Motion carries. 4-1-2-0. Commission Hilkey voting no. Commissioner
Buchanan and Sims absent.
54
Chairman Hawkinson stated that it almost appears as if the City should give
some consideration to a separate ordinance addressing satellite dishes and
television antennas.
The Community Development Director stated that he is wondering why the
Planning Commission was pushing to have these things brought to them, as
he was under the impression that the Planning Commission wanted to address
these and felt they were a concern, and now they have approved two that
were built as is.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he has been opposed to bringing these things
as he feels it is an infringement on personal rights.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he agreed about bringing the issue forth,
as he thinks there are ordinances on the books now.
The City Attorney stated that the more legitimate answer is that they are
accessory structures and the code requires they come for approval, and there
are circumstances under which he would expect that even Chairman
Hawkinson might vote against a satellite dish, that there would be some
circumstances that it would be intrusive enough on the neighbors that it could
be placed elsewhere. He stated that the code doesn't really direct them to say
yes or no, it is saying that there is some potential for it being okay, and they
have input as to where it is going to go, so that if this one had been 80 feet
directly south hanging over Barton Road, maybe it wouldn't have been a good
place for it.
Commissioner Hilkey stated he feels they are being buffaloed, as one guy says
that he has to have a south exposure, and the other guy says that he needs the
northwest exposure. He stated that two years ago it was a sign of wealth and
good neighborhoods, but now it is becoming a sign of an antenna, and he has
no hesitation to vote them down. He stated that he thinks they are an
eyesore and they need to keep them out of the sky.
The Community Development Director stated that he led off wrong and if it
was taken wrong, he apologizes, but they are being buffaloed on those things.
He said there is a satellite dish on his street, and the house is between itself
and Blue Mountain, and it is behind the house, the fence, and is ground -
mounted. He stated that it is working, and it is closer to Blue Mountain than
this one was. He stated that the Holiday Inn in Riverside has a satellite dish,
ground -mounted in the parking lot behind a fenced area.
Commissioner Munson asked about the one at Gina's.
55
The Community Development Director stated they probably don't have a
permit either, but they haven't noticed it.
The City Attorney stated that they should have somebody independent
provide some expertise in satellites so they don't get hustled.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that ignorance is no excuse, but she thinks
there might be many people who would not compute a satellite dish in
relationship to a building and needing a permit. She asked if it would do any
good to put a notice in the newsletter.
The Community Development Director stated that he noted that they should
have the Chamber newsletter include a general article regarding items that
need a permit.
The City Attorney stated that it is also appropriate to consider adopting an
ordinance which addresses satellite dishes. He stated that some of the
expertise can be built into the ordinance.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that if they are under eight feet and in the right
place in the yard they would be fine.
Commissioner Munson stated that if they look at what they made yesterday,
they are making it better today, and maybe two years down the road all you
will need is a little two foot dish that is three feet high.
The City Attorney stated that, more than likely, they'll have satellites that jam
all of the signals, and this is seriously what is happening now.
Chairman Hawkinson stated that he looked into the satellite thing, and you
still have to pay a monthly charge.
Commissioner Hilkey stated that in Anaheim Hills they have covers.
The Community Development Director stated that these people will come and
cry, but they are so liberal with certain things, and if they were in other
communities, there is no question they would have them ground -mounted,
painted earth tone colors, screened from view by landscaping materials, and
possibly with covers on them.
The City Attorney stated that if they adopt an ordinance which addresses
satellites, then the company in Riverside is going to come to Grand Terrace
and see the ordinance, and when he sells to the guy, he'll say they can make
it work like this.
56
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they are required to put on the agenda
every item that comes before the Planning Department in that given time
period.
The Community Development Director stated no. He said on certain items,
they have to act within certain time frames, but he has the ability to look at
an agenda and say that the agenda can't handle any more, and close it off, of
if an application isn't complete, then he doesn't have to put it on the agenda.
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M.
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD MAY 1, 1990
Respectfully submitted,
avid R. awyer
Community Development Director
Approved by,
f
1
e ' aw nson
C an, Planning Commission
57