Loading...
05/01/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 1, 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 May 1, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT: None PLEDGE: Jim Sims, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. Discussion of appeal of Blaisdell and Genel. Discussion of revision of Title 18. Discussion of satellite dish ordinance. Discussion of G.T.I. building status. 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 - APRIL 17, 1990 Chairman Hawkinson suggested continuing this item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION PCM-90-41 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-41 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that the minutes of April 17, 1990 be approved. Commissioner Hilkey second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. 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 Sims asked if parking was restricted outside the garage areas, as Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are clustered together. c The Community Development Director stated that there is no intent of staff to restrict parking on the road, as it is a private road, but if necessary this could be worked into the CC&R's of the project. He stated that the applicant has reduced guest parking to create more open space. Commissioner Hilkey asked about the center line gutter and how the City Engineer's memo regarding constructing curb and gutter 22 feet from center line relates to this. The Community Development Director stated that this would be separate from the center line drainage facility. Chairman Hawkinson asked the applicant up. ROGER PETER PORTER 3837 EAST 7TH STREET LONG BEACH Mr. Porter stated that they eliminated 2 guest parking spots to create more open space and revised the recreation area and the elevations. Commissioner Sims stated that he has a concern with the cars parking in the driveways, as some are 15 feet from the curb to the front of the building. He stated that some families may have a few cars, and since the road is only 30 feet, P g P parking is robablYg g oin to be restricted. Mr. Porter stated that they would encourage garage parking, but the driveways will be available for off-street parking. Commissioner Sims stated that he is concerned that the back end of the car would be sticking out into the driving lane. Mr. Porter stated that he would have to look at the plans and come back to this issue. Commissioner Hargrave asked for an explanation of the basketball situation as it relates to the fire lane. Mr. Porter stated that the 1/2 basketball court will be on the fire lane, and this would be paved properly for this activity. He stated that there would be no permanent obstructions, and only surface striping would be on the fire lane. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the tot lot is 30 feet in diameter. Mr. Porter stated this is correct. Commissioner Hargrave asked the number of feet from the property line of Unit 5. Mr. Porter stated that there is a 12 foot side yard between the fence and the structure, and as a barrier between the open area, there is a landscape area that would help visually and audibly. Commissioner Hargrave asked if it was 20 feet from the property line to the beginning of the sidewalk, which is broken up with shrubbery. Mr. Porter stated that this was approximately correct. Commissioner Hargrave had a concern as to where the pool equipment enclosure is located, and wondered if it could be put on the other side of the spa and away from the tot lot. Mr. Porter that they could reorient this, but stated that it will be within a gated area, so it is not accessible unless you can get into the spa area, and to get into the area, health codes require the lock to be a certain height so that children cannot reach the lock to get in. Commissioner Sims asked how the fire department's requirement of two points of access would be satisfied. Mr. Porter stated that they have conferred with the Fire Prevention Bureau and what they have is acceptable. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she appreciated the simplification of the elevations, but she did not recall asking for changes in the two side elevations or in the rear elevation. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the transition from the driveway to the north end of the fire lane is an ideal parking place, and they are putting "No Parking" signs there. He asked why the transitional material is located where it is instead of matching the existing curbs. Mr. Porter stated that he doesn't see a problem, and they would like to review this with fire prevention. He stated that they will have "No Parking" signs, and if they would paint the southern curb red, this would help. Commissioner Hilkey asked what the transition looks like. 4 Mr. Porter stated that it would be asphalt with a better base and sealer on top to accommodate recreation. BOZENA JAWORSKI ROGER PETER PORTER Ms. Jaworski stated that the line is painted on the pavement side and fire prevention asked for two more signs. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the drawings show a double line crossing the fire lane. Ms. Jaworski stated that this is paint. Commissioner Hilkey asked what would prevent the three parking stalls on the northeast comer from becoming a "used car lot". Ms. Jaworski stated that could have a condition in the CC&R's that would control parking in this area. She stated that guest parking would be for parking the cars. Commissioner Hilkey asked how they would limit it to guest parking. r ` Mr. Porter stated that they could put more signage, paint the curb red, and i put it in the CC&R's, and other than that, it would have to be controlled by the homeowners. He stated that if fire prevention would allow them to bring out the fire lane and radius it into the curb, they would be glad to do that. The Community Development Director stated that it will probably be used for guest parking and occasional cars or campers, but it will just be a matter for the homeowner's association. Commissioner Hilkey asked what the fence is that is in between the tot lot and Lot 5. Mr. Porter stated that it is a 6 foot wood fence that goes all the way to the street. He stated that they would probably drop that height down in the setback area. Commissioner Buchanan asked about the mailbox situation. Mr. Porter stated that they haven't contacted the postal department to find out what type of mail delivery accommodations they want, but whatever they want, they will put in. The Community Development Director stated that they don't have a preference in this development since it is a gate -guarded community. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they have been attaching a condition for rain gutter or rainwater control over the front entryway areas to single family residential developments. He asked if staff had any input. The Community Development Director stated that they can work with the developer to alleviate concern. Commissioner Buchanan asked if they would be putting in any gas -operated barbecues in the recreation area. Mr. Porter stated that if they do, they would not be gas; it would be a free- standing gravel pit. Commissioner Sims asked about the driveways. Mr. Porter stated that they have provided the three guest parking places to mitigate the chance of someone parking in the street. Commissioner Sims asked about the probability of having two vehicles per residence. Mr. Porter stated that they could restrict parking to the garages in the CC&R's. He stated that they tried to give everybody private livable space, and if you start shoving the houses back, the trade-off would be taking away private, livable area for the sake of cars. Commissioner Sims expressed concern over the safety problem. Mr. Porter stated that they have tried to provide the best arrangement, but the only measure he can take is to put it as a condition of the CC&R's that people park in their garages. Commissioner Sims stated that 15 feet is too short. The Community Development Director stated they could make a condition in the CC&R's that there is no parking on the streets or in the driveways. He stated that if the curbs are painted red, this would be a deterrent, but he doesn't know if they would want every curb painted red. He stated that Planning Commission can require that they have roll -up garage doors. He stated that they can put into the CC&R's that the guest parking can only be used for guest parking, and there should be no storage of vehicles or any EM other materials in those spaces. Commissioner Sims asked if the 20 foot setback was a minimum. The Community Development Director stated that they are doing a specific plan, so they can set their own standards. Commissioner Sims asked if the 32 inch concrete box culvert has a closed top. Mr. Porter stated that there is a perimeter culvert all the way around the project to catch adjacent drainage and take it to the street, and there is an under -sidewalk culvert that brings it out into the street. Commissioner Sims stated that his concern is the cleaning issue when it gets plugged. He asked if they would have any problems opening it up. Mr. Porter stated that as he understands it, the culvert is an open, concrete, V-gutter that goes around the perimeter of all the walls. Commissioner Sims asked about the driveways. Mr. Porter stated they are incorporating overhead, folding garage doors with automatic openers. He stated that people do need private, outdoor living area, and he would rather not move the houses back. He stated that it would just have to be handled in the CC&R's and the overhead garage door. Commissioner Sims asked if the actual entrance road could be widened some more. Mr. Porter stated that they could put a minimum strip of landscaping there and make it wider. He stated that the fire department wants a 26 foot wide street and they have 30 feet. He stated that they could flare the curb in and reduce the landscaping so a car could pull in. Commissioner Hargrave stated that they need to resolve the driveway issue. He stated that parking is a constant problem, even with CC&R's. He stated that 15 feet seems like an awfully short area. Mr. Porter stated that they could move some of the homes back, but they would like to provide a decent rear yard. The Community Development Director stated that the alternative is that the fire department has requested 26 feet and it has been designed at 30 feet. He stated that this could be narrowed and they could pick up two feet for 7 driveway purposes on each side. He stated that this would necessitate the conditions for no parking in the road. Commission Buchanan asked how wide the street has to be to permit parking on one side only. The Community Development Director stated that the minimum street requirement for a public street is 60 foot right-of-way with a 36 foot paved curb -to -curb area. Commissioner Buchanan asked if would be any parking with a 26 foot street. Commissioner Hargrave stated that there should not be any parking because of the congestion element. Mr. Porter stated that the street could be reduced to 26 feet, but he has a concern that this would be narrow. He stated that perhaps they could compromise, and make it a 28 foot street. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if he could live with a condition that no driveway be less than 19 feet. The Community Development Director stated that they could give some perimeters: a 19 foot driveway and a 15 foot rear yard area. He stated that if a high majority of them met these requirements, and all of them meeting either one or the other, they can work with the applicant. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she is reluctant to give up the back yard. She stated that she wondered if it would work if there was a sign on the gate that said, "No parking in the driveways," and if there were speed bumps. She was concerned about narrowing the street more than one foot. The Community Development Director stated that they could make a comparative report that would show how Cape Terrace Townhouses are designed as far as the streets and driveways and their lengths and widths, and some of their concerns or problems. The Community Development Director stated that the goal here is to have a 19 foot driveway a 15 foot back yard, and if this is not possible, to sacrifice the back yard. Commissioner Sims stated that 30 feet seems minimal as far as curb -to -curb goes, but in some areas you may not need 30 feet. He stated that he would want more than 30 feet at the entrance, perhaps 36 feet, and to be a commercial -type driveway. 8 N Mr. Porter stated that he had no problem with this, as long as the City Engineer allows a wider curb. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they had settled on any lighting in the recreation area yet. Mr. Porter stated that one of the provisions is that there be decorative street lighting throughout, and that they will put the proper illumination in the recreation area other than the street lighting. Commissioner Hargrave stated that they have a fencing requirement, and was wondering if they would lean toward the cap and rail fencing. Mr. Porter stated that they would put a cap on the top to give it a finished look. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there would be coloring on the fence. Mr. Porter stated that they have a meaningful color scheme, and they wouldn't want to try to get fences to match the houses. He stated that it would be a common theme, stained with the cap possibly being a contrasting color. He stated that they would use a colored stain. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about the fence running parallel with Grand Terrace Road and the changes that had been discussed at the last meeting. The Community Development Director stated that they had not received any direction from the Planning Commission. Mr. Porter stated that putting up a solid wall does not give a sense of depth and openness. He stated that police departments like some of the fence to open so they can see through. He stated that the part with the name of it is solid brick, with the name mounted on it. The Community Development Director suggested a compromise, referring to the colored rendering. He suggested that the back section be closed off. Commissioner Hargrave stated that if they had a 36 foot rolling gate, they would need 36 feet either to the left or right to hold the gate. Mr. Porter stated that they will have to study this and make some adjustments. The Community Development Director stated that once the designer looks at 9 how they will address widening the road and where the gate would fit, staff can work out some type of a design that would meet what they are looking for. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there should be a public hearing. The Community Development Director stated that the public hearing was held at the last meeting, and the item was continued at the point of Planning Commission discussion with the applicant's input, so there is no need for public hearing. Chairman Hawkinson declared a ten minute recess. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to incorporate all of the recommendations into the conditions. The Community Development Director stated that they are looking at having the driveways increased to a minimum of 19 feet in depth, they are looking to have the back yards 15 feet in depth when possible, to be no less than 10 feet in depth, the entrance is to be widened to 36 feet, with the road width at 30 feet, and if not, at a 28 foot minimum. He stated that he would recommend that the CC&R's include provisions for no parking within the street, and that they also restrict the use of the guest parking spaces for guest parking only. He stated that he thought they should go through their normal procedure of voting on each one of the amendments and working that into the resolution. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she would like to recommend that the front elevations only be changed. Ms. Jaworski stated that they have to work with some of the front elevations, which wrap around to the side elevations, and also they have eliminated some irregular -shaped windows from the side elevations, so it would end up in between. The Community Development Director stated that they had talked about the roll -up door, which was indicated as being a standard in the project, but they may want to list this as a condition also. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they need to get language for Condition #5 correct, regarding the block wall. He stated that he wouldn't mind seeing some kind of condition for rain water control over the front entrance. 10 Commissioner Sims stated that they had also discussed the orientation of the buildings in the cluster of 1, 2, 3 and 4, and flipping 1 and 4 to ease the conflict with the garages. MOTION PCM-90-42 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-42 Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue SP-90-01, TTM-90-01 and E-90-01 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Commission Munson second. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the applicant was clear of what was just done. Mr. Porter stated that he understands all of the conditions, and added the wide driveway, the lighting for the recreation area, the cap on the fence and the stain on the fence. Mr. Porter stated that they would make every effort to work with Planning staff in making adjustments for the 19 foot driveway and the 15 foot rear yard, and stated there may be a few isolated cases where they cannot accomplish that. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they had two choices: make some absolutes or continue it and allow them to come back with the best effort, and they decided to go with the continuance. Mr. Porter asked if the front elevations were okay with the side and rear elevations to be like they were originally. Commissioner Buchanan stated that this is appropriate where possible. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. The Community Development Director stated that the public hearing portion of this meeting is closed and will not be readvertised. 11 ITEM #3 CUP-87-07R1 ROBERT KEENEY 21900 BARTON ROAD 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 MOTION PCM-90-43 CUP-87-07R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-43 The Community Development Director presented the staff report. He stated that since the applicant was not present this evening they could continue the item until they know for sure that he intended not to be here. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue CUP-87-07R1 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Buchanan asked why this was continued from the last meeting. The Community Development Director stated that it was continued because of the possibility of this applicant working with the previous applicant regarding the common wall. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he sees no reason to continue it, and he is prepared to go forward with it tonight. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he feels the same way, as what was presented at the previous meeting was a substitution for a block wall to a chain link fence. Motion fails. 3-4-0-0. Commissioners Hargrave, Hilkey and Munson voting yes. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawkinson opened it up for public hearing. There being no public participation, he closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Planning 12 Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the block wall was the same wall that the P.U.D. would have in the rear yard of their properties, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. He asked if there was a mechanism to have these two developers do the wall so that it would be more aesthetic than what it was previously portrayed to be before the P.U.D. was going to be coming in. The Community Development Director stated that it already is a condition that it match the existing walls. He stated that they will be looking for the R.V. side of the wall to match the existing wall on the property, and that the residential development's side of the wall match how they are doing their wall treatment. He stated that the residential side of the wall is to be stuccoed, so it would be a matter of the block wall going up with slumpstone to match the R.V. portion, and the residential people having the ability to stucco that side of it and cap it to match the remainder of their interior walls. He stated that whoever wants occupancy first will be responsible for putting the wall up. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was a time limit on that. The Community Development Director stated that right now it is occupancy, unless they came back and asked for a deferment of that condition. Commissioner Hargrave asked why Mr. Keeney wanted to be relieved of this condition. The Community Development Director stated that Mr. Keeney had indicated that they felt they were creating a walled in canyon effect. He stated that staff feels the proximity of the residential property next to it outweighs this, and there will be a requirement for a block wall on the rear property line for those residential developments. Commissioner Munson asked how much more expensive it would be to put up the block wall rather than the chain link fence. The Community Development Director stated that it would be considerably more expensive. He stated that staff recommends for the wall to deter visual access. Chairman Hawkinson stated that they had a concern about noise from the R.V. park, and therefore a block wall would be best. He stated that there is a considerable amount of noise generated from the meeting facility, and a chain link fence would only allow more problems. 13 MOTION PCM-90-44 CUP-87-07R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-44 Commissioner Buchanan stated that he would rather see the commercial development bear the cost of the block wall than passing it on to the homeowners in a residential development. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to deny CUP-87-07R1. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Commissioner Munson voting no. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:03 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 9:03 P.M. ITEM #4 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 MOTION PCM-90-45 SA-87-14R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-45 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to deny SA-87-14R1. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Commissioner Munson voting no. 14 ITEM #5 SA-90-08 PHIL AND SARA STIDHAM 21797 VIVIENDA AVENUE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Hargrave asked if staff felt that the letter from Riverside Highland Water stated that they had no objections to this development. The Community Development Director stated that they indicated that there are some things that have to be taken care of, and they will have to work with the water department and do whatever the water department requires of them in order to provide the water service, and this would allow the water department to provide the Planning Department with a will -serve letter.. Commissioner Buchanan asked if only one street tree was required, and how close to the street a street tree has to be. The Community Development Director stated that they want to see one additional street tree, as their street frontage is 90 feet, and the requirements are one street tree for every 40 feet. He stated that a street tree is normally 15 to 20 feet from the property line. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the front 20 feet of the property is steeply banked, and the landscaping plan has grass rather than a formal bank. He asked if staff had any input on the slope. The Community Development Director stated that they can determine what they want to have there after seeing the detailed landscaping plan. Commissioner Hilkey asked when the tentative is finalized, and if permits can be pulled without a final. The Community Development Director stated that you cannot pull permits without a final map. He stated that the final map was approved by the City Council on December 14. Chairman Hawkinson asked the applicant to come up. 15 PHIL STIDHAM 21797 VIVIENDA G.T. Commissioner Sims asked if the roofing material is similar to the other homes in the area. Mr. Stidham stated that the house next door has a wood shake roof, and the other three on the street are the same type of roofing material that he is planning on using. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the garage will be one or two -car. Mr. Stidham stated that it would be two -car. He stated that the property is fenced off now, but they didn't put it on the plans, however they brought in pictures to show that it is fenced in on three sides. Commissioner Buchanan asked about the treatment of the slope. Mr. Stidham stated that the slope comes down 30 feet from the lot and there will be a driveway, and to the east will be landscaping with fruitless strawberry, and the west side of the driveway will be lawn down to the street. PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-90-46 SA-90-08 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-46 There being no public comments, Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-90-08 based on the Planning Staff's recommendations. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. 16 ITEM #6 SA-90-09 MICHAEL O'CONNOR/ROBERT W.L. CATHER 22725 RAVEN WAY G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A BALCONY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Buchanan asked if staff received any input in response to the letters to the adjacent property owners. The Assistant Planner stated that staff received one comment from a resident directly to the rear of the property reflecting some disapproval of the project due to low resale value and a possible viewing onto their rear yard. Chairman Hawkinson asked how many adjacent property owners received letters. The Assistant Planner stated that staff mailed out 5 letters. Chairman Hawkinson called the applicant up. ROBERT CATHER 22725 RAVEN WAY G.T. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the purpose of the balcony was for viewing purposes. Mr. Cather stated that it was for viewing of the surrounding countryside. Commissioner Hargrave asked why it needs to be this large. Mr. Cather stated that the house is extensively wide at the back, and the patio is approximately 42 feet wide by 14 feet deep, and to have some recreational area to sit upstairs and enjoy the view of the mountains and accommodate some patio furniture, it would be nice to have an area that would be comfortable. He stated that they already have the poured patio and footings in place, which was all done in September of 1989, which was all approved. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is concerned that the houses are built to close together and aren't really built with the idea of having balconies. He 17 stated that he has a problem with the square footage and the privacy element. Mr. Cather stated that all of the homes that were built by T.J. Austyn in the Grand Terrace Horizons area are of two story construction, and all master bedrooms are in the rear of the houses, and at this time you can't have any privacy without keeping your drapes and blinds drawn because you can look right into the neighbors bedroom. He stated that he brought a picture of the residence to the east of his, which already has a sizeable balcony approved and installed. He stated that in Phase 3, the construction managers already have an approved and installed balcony, so there are two existing balconies in the area right now that are fairly sized or bigger than his. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he assumed that these two balconies did not come before Site and Architectural Review because they are not over 8 feet. The Community Development Director stated that: 1) A few of them may have come through prior to the zone change that requires that, or 2) There were a couple that came in directly after that zone change and staff did not pick up on the fact that they were over the 8 feet, and they went through the normal permit process, but should have come to Site and Architectural Review. Mr. Cather stated that they have quite a bit of adequate land between homes, and in the immediate area of his house, there are probably eight single family residences that are planning on submitting application for balconies. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he will probably object to all of them if they are of a size that is being discussed tonight, but he thinks they can be done with a smaller square footage area. Mr. Cather stated that he had a letter from the neighbor to the east of him stating that they would go along with this size of balcony, as well as a letter from the neighbor to the west of him. Commissioner Sims stated that one drawing shows a lattice roof going all the way up to the eave of the roof, and he asked if the lattice roof would be 16 feet up on the air. Mr. Cather stated that it is going up to the bottom of the second story, and only the railing will be projected above the patio roof. Commissioner Sims asked if they would be going from the 9' X 12' balcony area into the 23' X 14' patio roof, to which Mr. Cather responded in the 18 negative. Commissioner Sims asked if there was a slope at the rear of the property. Mr. Cather stated that there is a very slight slope, and the property behind him is higher than he is. Commissioner Sims stated that he has no problem with this, as long as no attempt is made to vary the size during construction, and perhaps they should make a condition stating this. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the only access was from the room on the second floor, which Mr. Cather verified. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how many neighbors who said that it was okay to do this plan to come in with plans for a similar project. Mr. Cather stated that approximately five were planning to come in. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she had a problem with this. Mr. Cather stated that this was not going to be a 24 hour nest for him as he does work 8 to 12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the biggest problem they have is that they denied a similar structure at the last meeting. He stated that three houses up there is a balcony that looks to be around 12 feet, but if that balcony is next to you, you lose your view of Blue Mountain. He stated that they should either postpone this until City Council acts on the last denial, or else be consistent and deny it. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the applicant would consider something on a smaller scale than what he has proposed. Mr. Cather stated that when he submitted the drawings, the City Inspector recommended reducing the size, which they did in depth by about 2 1/2 feet. Chairman Hawkinson stated that it seems that the main problem seems to be the size, but if the home changes ownership, there is also concern that the next owner may not have the same intent as this property owner. 19 MIKE HUSS 22735 RAVEN WAY G.T. Mr. Huss stated that he is in favor of the balcony, and that all of the neighbors are at different elevations anyway, and being two story houses, they can see into every house if you want to and don't need a balcony to do it. He stated that they are on a hill, and he doesn't think another balcony would be hindering the neighbors. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he was planning on building a balcony. Mr. Huss stated that he is planning to, but it will be smaller. He stated that Mr. Cather pulled the permit before they changed the zoning, so they had footings put in and approved, and now something has changed and the footings are useless. The Community Development Director stated that the permits were only for the slabs, and whenever an applicant comes in, it is department policy to explain this to them. He stated that often an applicant will come in to put down the patio slab but doesn't have the money to do a cover at the same time and want to do it later. He stated that they can either get the permit for the cover at that time, but then they are subject to the time restrictions of completing it; the only way to get around that is to have the Building Department go out on a special inspection of the patio slab and indicate what type of footings they will put in and what type of weight that would bear, but this is not a permit for the patio cover but rather for the footing that would support that size of a patio cover, and they do their best to indicate to the applicants that this is only what it is for and it does not guarantee approval for the patio cover. Mr. Huss stated that they were aware that this was the case, that they did pull the permit for the slab and footings, and the footings were inspected. He stated that he was under the impression that the time period was six months, and you could also get an extension on that permit, which would go toward putting in a deck or cover. The Community Development Director stated that there is still some misunderstanding, as the permit was not for a patio cover, but only for a slab and the footings, which is still a good permit, which is good for 180 days. He stated that the permit did not permit a patio cover, but rather the footings that would support a patio cover of a certain weight. Mr. Huss stated that he understood that, but they did put those things in 0 20 feeling that they would be able to pull a permit and do the balcony or sun deck at a future point in time; not under the impression that lots of rules were going to change on them. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the neighbor to his east has a stairwell up to the observation deck. He asked if he would prefer that there was not a staircase there. Mr. Huss stated that he doesn't believe in a stairwell for security purposes, but to each his own. Mr. Cather stated that on his drawings he submitted for approval, it states "proposed patio and cover with footings" and it gives the footings for the future, proposed sun deck, and on the yellow tag, it says patio slab and lattice cover. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he didn't hear any reference to a balcony or sun deck. Mr. Cather stated that the one drawing that has the approved stamp by the Department of Building and Safety says "proposed patio cover with footings". Chairman Hawkinson stated that a patio cover brings one thing to mind, and a balcony brings something different to mind. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to the Planning Commission for action. Commissioner Buchanan stated that each of these need to be reviewed case by case, but they should not get into a random practice of approving some and denying others. He asked if staff had any overall planning concept problems with rear yard observation decks. The Community Development Director stated that it is up to the individual homeowners and their surrounding neighbors. He stated that from a planning point of view, there isn't anything that is inherently wrong with this type of concept, and each one needs to be taken individually with the adjoining neighbors' comments. He stated that this one is borderline as far as the size goes and would prefer to see it reduced, and he agreed with Commissioner Hargrave that if the purpose is to view, you don't need a large area to do that; if you are creating a party area, it should be ground level. Commissioner Buchanan stated that neighbors should get a veto power in 21 MOTION PCM-90-47 SA-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-47 certain cases. He stated that he is concerned that a whole stream of decisions will keep coming up and asked if the Planning Commission and City Council could somehow develop some guidelines for consistency. The Community Development Director stated that any accessory structure over eight feet high requires Site and Architectural Review. He stated that when they review Title 18, he plans to propose this be increased to 10 feet. He stated that he would check with the City Attorney to see how much they can do. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he will give this application some consideration if he will reduce the square footage. Commissioner Van Gelder suggested they come up with a formula for the size of a balcony. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is going to make a motion to deny this, and next meeting have staff come up with recommendations and guidelines. Chairman Hawkinson asked if he wanted to deny it or continue it. Commissioner Hilkey stated that they could come back with a smaller one. Commissioner Hilkey made a motion to continue SA-90-09 until the next meeting, and staff could recommend some guidelines. Commissioner Hargrave second. Commissioner Munson stated that until it is unanimous that the deck is not objectionable, privacy is being invaded. Motion carries. 5-2-0-0. Commissioners Munson and Van Gelder voting no. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:25 P.M. 22 NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD MAY 15, 1990. Respectfully submitted, David R. Sawyer Community Development Director 05-25-90 Approved by, I Jprry/wlddson ("Chafimlan, Planning Commission 23