Loading...
05/15/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 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 15, 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: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. Presentation by Ken Clark of the Advocate School perimeter fence. 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 MOTION PCM-90-48 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 17, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-48 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to approve the minutes of the April 17, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Buchanan absent. Commissioner Sims abstaining. 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 if the driveways had been reviewed. The Community Development Director stated that they were all acceptable to staff. Commissioner Hargrave asked if 18 feet was the smallest driveway. The Community Development Director stated that the smallest driveway was 18 feet and the smallest rear yard was 12 feet. Commissioner Sims stated that there is a discrepancy between the plot plan 2 and the tentative map, as they had talked about a 36 foot wide roadway at the entrance and the tentative map shows 30 feet. ROGER PETER PORTER 3837 EAST 7TH STREET LONG BEACH Mr. Porter stated that in the rush to change the plans, the engineer failed to show the width of the road as you enter as 36 feet. He stated that all the driveways are 19 feet in depth as indicated on the architectural plans. He stated that the only other discrepancy is that the guest parking will be fanned out for a better landscape spread. Commissioner Sims asked if the 30 foot driveway was shown to widen to 36 feet as you enter due to the gate problem. Mr. Porter stated that the 10 feet on the north side would accommodate a 10 foot wide gate section sliding back to the north side, and the 20 foot wide section would be sliding back to the south side. He stated that they split the gate up that way because to pull back on a 30 foot gate is a problem. Commissioner Sims asked about the 32 inch concrete box culvert. Mr. Porter stated that this will be open and will be a culvert that can be maintained. Commissioner Sims asked about the wooden fencing. Mr. Porter stated that the fencing would be stained with a neutral color with a cap on the top having a contrasting color. Commissioner Hargrave asked about how the driveway and the asphalt was going to work. Mr. Porter stated that the width of the street is 30 feet, curb to curb, with a 24 inch center gutter. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the area between the curb and the property line would be. Mr. Porter stated that it would be landscaped, with a small concrete portion on the front for a walkway. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he intended to put up soundproofing wall- board in the houses. 3 Mr. Porter stated that the wall will not be designed as a sound wall, but it will be insulated, and on all of their houses, they use 5/8", Type X drywall, which is extra dense. He stated that standard is 1/2", which is U.B.C. He stated that Type X has a special fire rating, as it is a more compressed board. Commissioner Van Gelder asked when the environmentalists come into play as far as determining for the developer what kind of insulation he must have. The Community Development Director stated that staff reviews it when it comes in. He stated that it is not within the General Plan's sound contours, and there are no specifics as far as U.B.C. goes. He stated that they feel the insulation is sufficient. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave asked if someone looks at the landscaping to make sure that we are being attentive to drought types of landscaping. The Community Development Director stated that the City of Grand Terrace does not have any water conservation guidelines or planting guidelines in that manner. Commissioner Hargrave stated that one of the landscaping engineers could look at the list and tell which ones are going to require a lot of water. The Community Development Director stated that they can have staff include guidelines or send them out to a consultant and have them review them. BOZENA JAWORSKI ROGER PETER PORTER PROJECT COORDINATOR 3837 EAST 7TH STREET LONG BEACH Ms. Jaworski stated that they would work with staff on this. Commissioner Sims asked if the minor changes would be handled by staff. The Community Development Director stated that the tentative map will be reviewed by the City Engineer before going to it City Council to make sure that they match what is being proposed on the plot plan. Commissioner Sims stated that the fencing is indicated as 5/8" drywall, and he asked if they should include the fact that it will be Type X. 4 The Community Development Director stated that if he is making an approval based upon this type of a change, then it should be reflected in the document. Commissioner Sims stated that the interior fencing is not talked about at all in this document and asked if this would be an appropriate addition to the conditions, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. MOTION PCM-90-49 SP-90-01, TTM-90-019 E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-49 Commissioner Sims made the motion to amend Condition #5 to include the interior fencing with the cap and railing and color coordination. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. MOTION PCM-90-50 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-50 Commissioner Sims made the motion to add a condition that the drywall will be 5/8" with the X designation. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Commissioner Munson voting no. Commissioner Munson asked if anything was done about additional monies from this development to go toward signalization or stop signs for the City fund. The Community Development Director stated that there was no real basis to justify the condition, but they could recommend to Council that they consider forming a separate assessment district that would include this area, but there is no legal mechanism to tag this on as a condition. 5 Commissioner Munson stated that he would like to see the City start something right away to generate such a fund. The City Attorney stated that they can only consider only what is on the agenda, which is the project. He stated that they really don't have the ability to get into a discussion of future traffic mitigation measures, as they are limited by statute to consideration of the project since that is what is on the agenda. MOTION PCM-90-51 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-51 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to add a condition that the CC&R's reflect that on -street parking will not be allowed as one of the conditions of the homeowner's association. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. MOTION PCM-90-52 SP-90-01, TTM-90-01, E-90-01 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-52 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SP-90-01, TTM-90-01 and E-90-01 as well as the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. ITEM #3 OVERHEAD DECK POLICY The Community Development Director stated that they are looking at the second overhead deck which has been submitted in the last month or so. He stated that the first deck was denied by the Planning Commission on the basis of intrusion of privacy onto adjoining properties. He stated that the first 6 0 decision by their body was appealed to the City Council, and the City Council then denied the appeal and upheld their denial of the project, and that the overhead deck was denied as it was proposed, however it has been indicated they may be reconsidering the item in the future regarding a smaller overhead deck which might be acceptable, so the purpose of continuing the item on tonight's agenda until tonight was so that the Planning Commission could get a feeling from the Council on what their attitude was toward the overhead decks. He stated that unfortunately, the way it came down, their action really doesn't give them much guidance. He stated that they have a couple of alternatives this evening: staff was planning on discussing with the Commission about some recommended policy concepts, and whether or not they want to make a decision on the applicant this evening or put that off into the future, and whether or not the applicant feels that this would be acceptable to him, but to begin with, they would like to go over an overhead deck policy. He stated that from staff s point of view, there are basically three issues that Planning Commission has indicated as being important issues that need to be dealt with when an overhead deck is considered, including the size of the overhead deck portion. He stated that staffs impression is that they are not concerned about the patio cover portion, but rather the overhead, balcony area, the area of a patio cover which would be designed so as to hold and be approved for a second -story purpose. He stated that the area of this, how big it is, has been a concern. He stated that the second concern is the access to the area: is it interior only, is there exterior access, is the exterior access necessary, what is the purpose of the deck area, and how is it going to be used, and this would dictate the exterior access and whether or not it is appropriate. He stated that the third concern is the location of the overhead deck, in proximity to side property lines, and whether or not the deck is right on the allowed setback line of 5 feet from a property line, which in some cases would mean that the adjacent property owner would get the feeling that somebody is standing and looking down at you as opposed to being set back away from the property line, closer to the house, where it is more like "the neighbor is out on his deck over there and not above me". He stated that these are the three, perhaps four, issues that are of question: the area size, access to the deck, proximity of the deck to the property lines and intended use of the deck. He stated that he would like to open it up to discussion and determine what the individual Commissioners feel about the different issues. He stated that he would start it off with a recommendation from staff s point of view as far as the area size. He stated that staff feels an area size of 150 square feet is probably the limit that staff would feel comfortable recommending. He stated that, to help the Commissioners visualize this, he has defined 150 square feet and 100 square feet with yellow and orange markings on the back wall. He stated that the ceiling height is 8 feet, and from pillar to pillar is 20 feet, so this is approximately 160 square feet with an eight foot deck. He stated that the orange markings indicate a 150 square 7 foot deck, and the yellow markings indicate a 100 square foot deck. He stated that staff feels that the 100 square feet would be a little too small to feel comfortable with a chair, a small table, and one or two lounge chairs, and still have room to stand and move around. He stated that the 150 square feet is large enough to have elbow room, with a couple of lounge chairs and a table to sit at and have lunch or a drink. He stated that it is not large enough to where it is a party area. He stated that as far as the stairs and exterior access goes, staff feels that this is really integrated with the purpose of the deck, and that he doesn't see that it is appropriate that a neighbor should be burdened with an outdoor party area for neighbors and other people to congregate, but he does think it is appropriate, and not pushing the bounds of privacy too far to allow a deck that is large enough when the intent of it is for that resident to go out and relax, so staff would recommend that there be no exterior stairs, and that the only access to the deck be from inside the house with a second -story access point. He stated that in most cases, with the second -story houses that have been built in Grand Terrace, particularly the new homes, the floor plans would dictate that access would be through a master bedroom, and in that case, it would eliminate much of the concern that it becomes a party area, because most people don't want everyone traipsing through their bedroom to get to a party. He stated that regarding the proximity to the setback lines, staff would recommend that no exterior overhead deck area be closer than 15 feet to any property line; patio covers would still be able to go within 5 feet, but the overhead balcony area should be pulled back 15 feet from the property lines. He then opened it up to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sims stated that he really didn't have a problem with the size of the deck but was more concerned with the architectural aspect. He stated that 150 square feet is a little bit too big. Commissioner Munson stated that he feels decks are injurious to him. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he has a problem with the size of decks. He stated that he would try to convince the applicant to go more towards the 100 square foot area, as this is ample room for observation purposes. He agreed that there should only be one access out of the upstairs area. He stated that 15 feet is a minimum setback requirement he would like to see, and he wouldn't hesitate going to 20 feet from the property line. He stated that any structure above the line of sight on a residence is an obtrusion and an obstruction into the air space. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the basic guidelines staff came up with were good, but he would like to see them indicate that an observation deck was not a necessity, but rather an optional structure. He stated that the 150 square foot maximum is probably a fair guideline, and he stated that he could not see any situation where he would be inclined to approve a deck with exterior access. He stated that the 15 foot minimum setback is a good guideline, recognizing that in some cases 25 feet may not be enough of a setback. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he has no difficulty with the 150 square foot guideline, but the key to it is that it must fit architecturally. He stated that if each request came in with all of the immediate property owners' permission, this may help ease their minds. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the agenda addresses this item as "Overhead Deck Policy". She asked if they are going to come up with a list of items that will be items and will be fixed. The Community Development Director stated no, that they are not creating an ordinance or any set of rules that is set in concrete. He stated that this will be incorporated into a handout which will include the building permit process and suggested guidelines that the Planning Commission has indicated that they would like to see decks adhered to. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the area size guideline should be given a range, for example between 100 and 130 square feet. She agreed that there should be no stairs on the outside. She expressed concern about the railing. She stated that she has a problem with decks in general, as they invade the privacy of the neighbors, and as far as having letters of consent for the neighbors, this is fine for now, but when the houses change hands, there may be unhappy neighbors. Commissioner Hilkey asked what the City Council said. The Community Development Director stated that they denied the deck, and the City Council got off onto an issue of safety regarding children on the deck, the distance between the vertical posts and the height of the rail, and if a person was to fall over, where they would fall, and basically denied the project based on the primary reason of safety, as they thought it was inappropriate, and that was one of the major concerns that they had. He stated that they also some concern regarding the intrusion of privacy, location and size of the deck, but it appears there may be some opinion on the Council that they would be amenable to approval of a smaller deck, so it may be brought back to the Council at a later date, but as it stands right now, that deck was denied. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there were any requirements the Engineering Department would catch that would require certain size or height railings. 9 The Community Development Director stated that the Uniform Building Code has certain requirements, and addresses this sufficiently. The City Attorney stated that the way to make it more astringent is by amending the City's adoption of the U.B.C., as it is adopted by ordinance. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he would be more in favor of a 100 foot decking and 20 feet rather than 15 feet. He stated that he could see where outside access would be useful. BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA G.T. Ms. Pfennighausen stated that when she came tonight, she wasn't going to speak to any of the issues, but when the Planning Director makes reference that nothing of substance came out of the discussion on decks from the Council, as he was going down his list of things that he is recommending, they are all things that came out of the discussion of the Council, and a primary one being exterior access. She stated that she remembers vividly because that was one of her basic concerns, that a child could climb from the patio area to the deck area. She stated that the applicant had indicated that they would keep their children under control at all times, which is a challenge to any parent, and as Commissioner Van Gelder alluded, children have a way of getting places that you've determined they never will. She stated that at least if access is limited from inside, there is a little better control, but that does not mean accidents cannot happen. She stated that she thinks that the point that was made that some 300 foot decks might blend in well, say particularly up on the side of the hill, she feels 150 feet is a little bit too big, but if she is understanding, and she asked for clarification, that doesn't mean that they can necessarily build 150 foot deck, that just means that this is the point of reference from which they are going to be working. She stated that she thought that the discussion at the Council meeting was a little more than above average intelligence of most of the Council discussions. The Community Development Director stated that staff would like to have a motion that would list the size, exterior stairway and the setback requirements. MOTION PCM-90-53 OVERHEAD DECK GUIDELINES Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that staff adopt, formalize and 10 make available to applicants the following general guidelines reflecting the Planning Commission's general attitude towards overhead decks: 1. Overhead decks can be architecturally unattractive or invasive to neighborhood privacy and are recognized as unnecessary for adequate habitation. 2. Any overhead deck must be architecturally harmonious with the structure it is attached to as well as surrounding structures. 3. Any overhead deck will be reviewed in the context of the conditions of the applicant's property and surrounding properties. 4. As a general rule, a deck should not exceed 125 square feet. 5. Decks should be limited to access from the interior of the structure, and there should be no exterior stairs or access. 6. Decks should be set back at least 15 feet from any property line. 7. The application for Site and Architectural Review to the Planning Commission should include a letter of consent signed by all adjacent property owners. Commissioner Hargrave second. Chairman Hawkinson asked if 125 square feet could be gotten around by a variance. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he understands it to be just a guideline, as someone could come in and try to convince the Planning Commission of why it needs to be 150 square feet rather than 125, for example. He stated that this is not written in stone, it is just a guideline. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he likes 100 square feet better. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would also like 100 square feet. Commissioner Munson stated he in favor of the 20 foot set back. He stated that he would question the requirement to have all neighbors sign a petition to allow a deck, and he would be more in favor of the City contacting the neighbors. He stated that he is concerned that after the permit is approved, 11 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-53 0 they put up a ladder on the outside. The Community Development Director stated that they have the authority to enforce the Site and Architectural approval, which would involve the Nuisance Abatement Hearing process and enforce the code. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Commissioner Buchanan would agree to amend that staff send a letter out versus the applicant going out and getting the neighbors' signatures. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he feels both are important. He stated that it is important that staff notify everybody, but would like to see staff suggest to the applicant that they affirmatively acquire the consent. He stated that he doesn't see it as a requirement. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that if they settle on 100 or 125 square feet and someone comes in with 150 square feet, then they are back at square one, because they will have to go back through this whole process and make the determination at that time. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they are giving staff and applicants a foundation and insight and a place to start working. The City Attorney stated that the alternative would be to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to set forth those guidelines as other than guidelines. Commissioner Sims stated that there are no black and white issues, and each project will have to be treated individually. He stated that the guidelines will give a starting point but it doesn't set it in concrete. Chairman Hawkinson asked if anyone had a problem with lowering the square footage to 100. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he was happy with 125, but he would be happy to amend if the majority was for 100. Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Commissioner Hilkey voting no. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Chairman would allow the member in the audience to speak. 12 MOIRA HUFFS 22735 RAVEN WAY G.T. Ms. Huffs stated that she was just trying to get them to go ahead and set some guidelines so that some of the people here wouldn't have already started with the footings, and assuming that something has changed from along the way, there are other balconies in the area right now, and she can't even imagine that they would have come up against problems like they have right now. She said that if there had been guidelines in the first place just to even consider at all, maybe everything would have been smaller and the problems wouldn't even have been there. She stated that she thinks that it is a good idea that they have set something for the people to look at, and individual consideration taken after that. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED AT 9:05 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 9:15 P.M. �. ITEM #5 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 Community Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was any favorable or unfavorable feedback from surrounding property owners. The Community Development Director stated that the neighbor to the rear had called in and indicated that she was concerned about the proximity and size of the deck, as well as the invasion of privacy into her rear yard area. Commissioner Hargrave asked if it would be reasonable to downsize this to 125 square feet. The Community Development Director, referring to the plans, stated that reducing from one side would conflict with where the applicant plans on 13 putting the door, so it would have to come from one of the other directions. Chairman Hawkinson called the applicant up. ROBERT CATHER 22725 RAVEN WAY G.T. Mr. Cather submitted photos of the view from the bedroom windows and of the back of the house. He referred to the plans, indicating the location of the planter area and flower bed, as well as the new doorway. Commissioner Sims asked about the color. Mr. Cather stated that it will match the house. Commissioner Sims asked what the patio roofing was. Mr. Cather stated that it would be open lattice. Commissioner Sims asked what he would really be doing up there. Mr. Cather stated that he would like to have a table and chairs, a couple of lounges and some plants. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could make the deck 16 feet wide instead of 17 and 8 feet in depth instead of 9. Mr. Cather stated that the footings are already in place. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they could leave the width at 17 feet but bring the depth from 9 feet to 8 feet. Commissioner Buchanan stated that if size is a concern, one possibility is to have the railing inset to reduce the usable square footage. Mr. Cather stated that this would be acceptable. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the person who complained was expressing modest or extreme concern. The Assistant Planner stated that the neighbor was greatly concerned about real estate value and privacy invasion, but there was no emotional conversation per se. 14 Mr. Cather stated that he talked to the neighbor prior to the May 1 meeting, and she said she had no problem, but that it wouldn't matter anyway because she was going to rent the house out. MOIRA HUFFS 22735 RAVEN WAY G.T. MOTION PCM-90-54 SA-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-54 Ms. Huffs stated that the woman behind him doesn't live there anymore, but she is at a higher elevation and so are they, and his patio is on the side of all of the higher elevations. She stated that he isn't overlooking the lower - terraced yards. She stated that as soon as you go into the model homes, you can see into everybody's back yard. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add as a condition that the railing on the sun deck be set in at least 12 inches from the 9' X 17' dimension all the way around the deck resulting in an actual interior area of the deck not to exceed 8 feet in depth and 15 feet in length. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that it is not unusual for a person to give one response when face-to-face with a person and give an entirely different response over the telephone to staff, and if there is one objection, that is all it should take. Chairman Hawkinson added that there are probably a lot of people that are intimidated enough speaking in public that might be reluctant to come down before this group. Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Commissioner Van Gelder voting no. MOTION PCM-90-55 SA-90-09 (D 15 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-55 MOTION PCM-90-56 SA-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-56 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that the color and the architectural style of the balcony be coordinated with the building and be subject to review by the Planning Director. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-90-09 as conditioned by staff with the two additional conditions added tonight. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is going to vote for it only because the footings are already in, but in the future he probably won't support it as much, especially this size. The Community Development Director stated that the way that the process is set up right now, a patio slab and footings do not meet Site and Architectural Review. He stated that since the rash of permits that have come in for footings for overhead decks, they are permitting them only because through the code there is nothing to say no to, but they are advising them more strongly now that this is not a permit for an overhead deck, and it does not mean that the Planning Commission will vote for a deck that will match these footings and they may end up having to tear these footings out. He stated that they are actually writing these on the permits now. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he is not going to vote for it, but he was very much in favor of the conditions that they discussed because if it does go through, he wants to make sure it is appropriately conditioned. He stated that he is not going to vote for it because of the one objection. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is not going to vote for the motion. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if staff has told people who put their 16 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-56 footings in that they cannot guarantee them anything. The Community Development Director stated that verbally, yes. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they had told this gentleman. The Community Development Director stated that his recollection is that they did, but now they are writing it on the permits. Commissioner Munson stated that he is concerned about the privacy as they had one objection, so he is going to vote no. Motion fails. 3-4-0-0. Commissioners Hilkey, Buchanan and Sims voting yes. The Community Development Director stated that there is a 10 day appeal period. Mr. Cather stated that on the footings, in order to get the permit, they had to be on the drawings and have them pre -inspected, which he did back in September. He stated that they were instructed to put those in at that time. The Community Development Director stated that this is true. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would have changed his vote had he known that prior to the vote simply because citizens are told certain things and they have an obligation to carry forward on this. He asked if another motion could be brought to the floor. The Community Development Director stated that anyone who was on the negative side of a decision can ask for the item to be considered. He stated that if an applicant comes in with a patio cover, they don't need to deal with Site and Architectural Review, but if the applicant comes in with an overhead deck, then they have to deal with that. He stated that if the applicant has a patio cover and later decides to go to an overhead deck, the footings may not be adequate. He stated that if they say in the beginning that they want to put an overhead deck in, the building inspector must know the size of the deck in order to approve the footings going into the ground, and the City is only going through this trouble to make it convenient for the applicant without having to go through the 180 day process. He stated that the applicant may think he is getting approval for the overhead deck, but he is not, and staff 17 MOTION PCM-90-57 SA-90-09 EO does its best to impress upon the applicant that this is not for the deck itself, but rather for the footings only. He stated that now they are being extremely particular because of the recent issues, but in September they didn't have these issues. He stated that he doesn't know who took in the application, but that was the policy of staff at that time. Commissioner Buchanan stated that approval of the footings, although necessary in order to build the overhead deck, does not constitute any promise, commitment or obligation on the part of the City to approve, authorize or allow an overhead deck, whether it is the same as what is on the plan or completely different. He stated that he wants to be very careful that they are not setting any precedent that they are giving someone special consideration for some kind of entitlement that they don't truly have. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to see the approvals when they come in. He stated that, looking at Mr. Cather's rendering, which has the Planning Department's approval on it and dated 9-22-89, says 'Proposed patio and cover with footings for future sun deck". He stated that the specific words "sun deck" appear on this schematic, which the Planning Department has put there approval on, and he can see where the applicant may think the sun deck would be approved, as it is stamped, signed and dated. The City Attorney stated that motion reconsider requires someone on the winning side to move that the matter be reconsidered and that motion be successful. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion that the matter be reconsidered. Commissioner Sims second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that regardless of the footing situation, somebody in the community objected, and this is why he voted against it. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he has no basic objection to the application, but Commissioner Hargrave's comments about his motive for reconsideration trouble him on the grounds that he thinks they are treading into a very dangerous situation if they are going to say that a plan that refers to some future aspect constitutes some kind of entitlement. 18 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-57 MOTION PCM-90-58 SA-90-09 Motion carries. 5-0-2-0. Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Van Gelder voting no. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue SA-90-09 to the next regularly scheduled Site and Architectural meeting. Motion dies for lack of second. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he will vote against the project simply to get it back to the City Council, and if Mr. Cather doesn't come in and ask for a re -hearing, he will on his behalf, as he feels this needs to go to City Council. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he is not crazy about the size of the deck, and he wishes it were 50 square feet smaller, but he has no problem with this sun deck. MOTION VOTE PCM-90-56 Motion fails. 3-4-0-0. Commissioners Hilkey, Buchanan and Sims voting yes. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:20 ITEM #4 Z-90-01; E-90-02 REPEAL OF TITLE 18 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE (THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE) AND ADOPTION OF A REVISED TITLE 18; A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED REVISION OF TITLE 18 The Community Development Director stated that what they have before 19 them is a complete revision of Title 18, and the notebooks include a chapter by chapter division of the ordinance, and each chapter includes the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance for comparison purposes. He stated that this was a presentation only, and the public hearing would be held June 5, 1990. He stated that they have the complete document with the exception of Chapter 18.80, the Sign Ordinance, which will be provided at the middle of next week. He stated that this is to be informal and it can be adjusted before the next meeting. He stated that they will start with the index, which is just the table of contents. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how he arrived at the changes. The Community Development Director stated that when he came on board three years ago, there was direction toward revision of Title 18. He stated that he asked for that to be postponed until he had a chance to work with the document and put some input in that. He stated that they went into the General Plan's revision at that point, which was finally adopted December of 1988, and then they went into the Barton Road Specific Plan, and now they have gotten into the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that this reflects some of the issues that have been an accumulation of issues over the past three years: things that he has noticed could be improved. He stated that he tried to make the document more workable for staff, Planning Commission and the public. He stated that they had adopted the County's Development Code and the Zoning Ordinance for this area, which had problems as it was dealing with a large general area, and some things didn't really apply to the City of Grand Terrace. He stated that different zones have been created, for example, adding a Barton Road Specific Plan district, a Public Facilities district and an Agricultural Overlay district. He stated that there are very few changes to the first chapter, General Provisions. He stated that in the Definitions chapter, they eliminated some, added some, and clarified others. He stated that the Districts chapter is simply an establishment of the districts in the text. He stated that in the Residential Districts chapter, they have made a change that anything over 8 feet be changed to anything over 10 feet being required to go through Site and Architectural. He stated that the next chapter is the Barton Road Specific Plan, and with that, they are simply stating that the Barton Road Specific Plan, as it was adopted and may be amended in the future, is made a part of this Title 18 and representing on the map where these boundaries are. MOTION PCM-90-59 Z-90-01, E-90-02 Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to continue Z-90-01 and E-90-02 20 EO Rn MOTION VOTE PCM-90-59 to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Sims second. The Community Development Director stated that the next meeting has the potential of being very long, as new applications have come in and are scheduled for that meeting. He asked if they wished to schedule the public hearing for June 5. Commissioner Hargrave stated that they could continue the public hearing without noticing again. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the other items could be rescheduled. The Community Development Director stated that he could do this with the Commission's direction. Motion carries. 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Buchanan abstaining. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD JUNE 5, 1990. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, David R. Sawyer i wkinson Community Development Director Cbjlirfnan, Planning Commission 06-01-90 21