Loading...
07/10/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 10, 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 July 10, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Joe Kicak, City Engineer David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Secretary ABSENT: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner 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. Presentation of Advocate School perimeter fence alternative of vinyl -coated, black, chain -link with painted black, galvanized posts. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. The Community Development Director suggested continuing the discussion on the workshop item to come to some conclusion. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that they should not settle for anything but the best. Commissioner Buchanan asked how staff felt about wrought iron without the block pilasters, as this is the expensive part, and they have expressed a willingness to do this kind of treatment at the front end. The Community Development Director stated that this would satisfy staff. Commissioner Sims expressed concern over the palm tree maintenance. He stated that Commissioner Buchanan's idea of a compromise situation is viable, as the wrought iron could be made to look very nice. Commissioner Munson asked where they are going to draw the line on the next project. He stated that it should be the same fence from beginning to end, and he likes the pilaster fence. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how this would be done next to the palm trees. The Community Development Director stated that it would just be wrought iron through the palm tree area, with the pilasters continuing after the trees. He asked for direction. Commissioner Sims stated that they should go with the compromise, and use the wrought iron and work around the palm trees. Commissioner Munson stated that he would like to see what is started at the street continue for the entire length of the fence, and he thinks the palm trees can be worked around in some manner and still maintain the wrought iron and pilaster look. Commissioner Hargrave agreed with Commissioner Munson up to the first palm tree, and from the first tree all the way back, he would be happy with all railing or railing and pilaster. He stated that the fencing needs to be kept up against the curbing on the north side of the palm trees. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the treatment that exists on the other property line should exist between the sidewalk and the first palm tree, bring the fence line on the Advocate School side of the palm trees, and wrought 2 iron from the palm trees down the wood fence. He stated that if they do ask for pilasters from the last palm tree to the wood fence, he would suggest they be more spaced out to minimize cost, as it is not a highly visible area. Chairman Hawkinson agreed that they should match the perimeter of the apartments, at least up to the palm trees. He stated that he did not have a problem with having straight wrought iron fence from that point on. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she would like to see the wrought iron and pilasters at least from the sidewalk section to the first palm tree. She stated that she doesn't mind using the trees as pilasters. She stated that between the last palm tree and the back fence, she would like to continue the pilaster and wrought iron. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-86 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-86 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to continue the June 19, 1990 minutes to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. ITEM #2 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Hawkinson declared the floor open for nominations for Chairman. Commissioner Hargrave nominated Chairman Hawkinson. Chairman Hawkinson closed the nominations. VOTE 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Chairman Hawkinson abstained. 3 Chairman Hawkinson declared the floor open for nominations for Vice - Chairman. Commissioner Van Gelder nominated Vice -Chairman Buchanan. Chairman Hawkinson closed the nominations. VOTE 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. ITEM #3 Z-90-01 REPEAL OF TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.80, OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE (THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE) AND ADOPTION OF A REVISED TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.80 (SIGN ORDINANCE ONLY) The Community Development Director presented the staff report. He read the comments from the Chamber of Commerce, who had no objections to its adoption. He stated that there was also discussion at the last meeting regarding the recent adoption of a sign ordinance program in San Bernardino. He said that staff researched this, and it has not been as successful or politically accepted as it was first being accepted. He stated that the program required an inventory of the signs, an annual fee for signs and annual sticker placement on individual signs. He stated that it originated from the 1987 SB512 Sign Ordinance law. He said that the current sign proposal fits the requirements in the ordinance, as they are not amortizing the life of any signs. He stated that there is no amortization period or program which is worked into the City's sign ordinance, but they do need to set up a program for inventorying all illegal signs within six months of adoption of the ordinance and the beginning of an abatement program within 60 days after that six month period. He stated that staff would simply make a recommendation that they add a condition to the resolution for the entire Title 18 that City Council directs staff to inventory all illegal signs within a six month period after the approval of this ordinance and that the program for abatement of said illegal signs implemented within 60 days thereafter. Chairman Hawkinson asked if there would be periodic follow-up. The Community Development Director stated that staff is not recommending that this be developed into a program at this time, but if Council would like to develop that, it can be done. He stated that the SB512 law does not require any monitoring or follow-up programs. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they have considered using volunteers for 4 sign inventory. The Community Development Director stated that this would be left up to Council and staff to work out, but ideally, he would like to have a staff member to do that, as volunteers or difficult to obtain for this type of work and training for reliability would be difficult. In addition, this requires removing personal property in the City. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how many signs there might be. The Community Development Director stated there may be anywhere from 500 to 1,000 illegal signs of all types. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the process is after inventory of illegal signs. The Community Development Director stated that it will depend on the program that Council directs staff to take, but one possible scenario would be going through the Nuisance Abatement Hearing process, which requires noticing the property owner that they have some issue which is not in compliance with the municipal code and gives them 14 days to correct the problem. On the 14th day, if not corrected, staff holds a scheduled Nuisance Abatement Hearing with the property owner, who can give evidence that it is in conformance and is not a nuisance, then the Code Enforcement Officer determines whether it is or is not a nuisance. He then makes a Declaration of Nuisance, which is posted, and the property owner is directed how to abate the situation and avoid further action by the City within a certain time period, and if they do not, the City can then abate the issue. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to speed up the process, incorporating a fine into the ordinance, which should cover the fine and the administrative burden of levying the fine, which should be posted prior to the hearing. Commissioner Munson asked where the amount of the fine is found. The Community Development Director stated that it is in the municipal code for the fees established by the City, and a sign ordinance violation is $235.00. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that a project from the last meeting involved windows with small panes, and she asked how this would effect window signs. The Community Development Director stated that with the window that is 5 broken up into panes, they are allowed to have 25% of the entire window in window sign area, depending upon how it is designed. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:40 P.M. No comments. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:40 P.M. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. MOTION PCM-90-87 Z-90-01 (SIGN ORDINANCE ONLY) MOTION VOTE PCM-90-87 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Z-90-01, Repeal of Title 18, Chapter 18.80 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and adopt a revised Title 18, Chapter 18.80, Sign Ordinance, of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code, this resolution to include staff s recommendations including the language read by staff earlier in this meeting. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Hargrave asked for feelings on the fines. The Community Development Director stated that the recommendation for the condition that he gave gives the Council direction from the Commission to develop that program. He stated that Commissioner Hargrave is stating that in that abatement program, there should be the fine issuing as he described it. He stated that one of the things Commissioner Hargrave had indicated regarding posting the fine which means the fine has to be paid before an appeal is allowed may cause legal problems, as a person has a legal right to appeal a decision whether or not a fine is paid or not. Commissioner Buchanan amended the motion to include that the Planning Commission recommends and suggests to the City Council that the illegal sign abatement program include a provision for assessment of fines and administrative charges as appropriate. Commissioner Van Gelder concurred. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. ITEM #4 SP-90-02; TTM-90-02; E-90-03 MIKE RAVEN/MERRIE ANDERSON 22872 MAIN STREET AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A 22 LOT SUBDIVISION IN A Rl- 20/RH DISTRICT; AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE TWO PARCELS TOTALLING 53 ACRES INTO 22 LOTS (ONE OPEN -SPACE LOT), LOCATED IN A R1-20/RH DISTRICT; AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A 22 LOT SUBDIVISION IN A R1-20/RH DISTRICT The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Van Gelder asked where the proposed access is to Lot 22. The Community Development Director, referring to the colored rendering, stated that at Court A, there is a 40' wide access area which goes out into the open area, which will be left in its natural state. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there would be walls on that side of the property of 16 and 15. The Community Development Director stated that staff is not requiring the perimeter wall requirements, as they would be looked at when the individual homes come in for Site and Architectural Review. Commissioner Van Gelder was concerned that the developed area be kept in as much of a natural state as possible. She asked if anything was done regarding the letter from the Department of Transportation, which mentioned formation of an area -wide program to reduce home -based work trips in the City of Grand Terrace. The Community Development Director stated that the General Plan would address this as far as transportation and regional needs, and staff doesn't feel this should be an individual condition on this particular project. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the development line on the pictures signifies. The Community Development Director stated that this signifies the best guess on the development line that would occur on the mountain itself, which is basically 50-100' below the power line. The City Engineer stated that he had no comments, as most were addressed in a written memorandum, which mentioned restricting access to Lot 22. He 7 stated that the intent is to restrict vehicular access rather than total access. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the engineering cuts. The City Engineer differentiated between a cut and a cut slope. He stated that the actual cut is anywhere up to 20 feet maximum, and the cut slopes in some cases may exceed 60 feet, which is the actual vertical distance scarred by the cut. Commissioner Hargrave asked about retaining walls. The City Engineer stated that there would be retaining walls along both cul- de-sacs, and the preliminary grading plan indicates that some of the walls may be up to 20 feet. He stated that they are concerned with the maximum grade on the cul-de-sacs coming off of Main Street, to be sure that the emergency vehicles will be able to traverse the slopes without any problem. He stated they are also limiting the maximum driveway grade, which is up to 13 feet. Commissioner Hargrave expressed concern over the grading. He asked if a 20 foot retaining wall would be reasonable from an engineering, building and aesthetic standpoint. The City Engineer stated that economics will enter into it, but as far as aesthetics, City Council has expressed concern over the retaining walls throughout the project. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there would be any blasting. The City Engineer stated he does not know, but based on the report there will be some ripping required, and he would not be surprised if blasting would be required. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the earthquake provisions of the boulders. The City Engineer stated that he believes the geological report addresses the fact that they are there and that they are a potential problem. He stated that there is no solution recommended within the environmental assessment. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the possibility of catch basins or if it would just be normal drainage. The City Engineer stated that he has not seen the hydraulics on this project, but his initial reaction is that the total volume could be carried to Main Street. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Main Street would be developed out to its ultimate width prior to the project being completed. The City Engineer stated that he would not anticipate this, as the south side of the street is Riverside, and this is where most of the runoff is. He stated that he would have to see the detailed hydrology study to see the capacity of Main Street on the northern side of center line. He stated that at the present time, from Tract 13205 and from the natural area tributary easterly of Main Street, the runoff is being handled fairly easily in the existing improvements of Main Street without damaging the facilities downstream on a ten-year storm. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the 6-T wall on the westerly side of this proposed development would remain. The City Engineer stated that there is a channel there, and the wall will remain on the westerly side of this channel, which will remain in function, and any water tributary to this development will either be carried in the streets or discharged into this channel. Commissioner Hargrave asked if we have the technology in landscaping to keep the earth in place where the deep cuts will occur. The City Engineer stated that it can be burlapped until the growth takes place and irrigate it. He stated that if the soils are erosive, this will be the only way to prevent erosion. Commissioner Hargrave asked what would happen if cutting was taken place and a problem came up. The City Engineer stated that the problem arises when blasting is required, as this requires permits and licensing. Commissioner Sims asked if the water pressure is residual. The City Engineer was not sure which system they were going to use. Commissioner Sims mentioned the retaining wall along Court A and stated that it seems ill-conceived that they are elevating the street up. The City Engineer stated that this is preliminary, and he doesn't know the intent of the wall along Court A, but if it is required for traffic, he would not 7 require a wall. Commissioner Sims asked if these people were notified about this project coming up with regard to the slope. The Community Development Director stated that all the property owners within 300 feet were notified of the meeting. He stated that he would like to add condition 12, that a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan reflecting the man-made slopes and right-of-way areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the walls would be built at this time. The Community Development Director stated that all walls for grading purposes and the retaining walls would be built at the present time. 8:30 P.M TO 8:40 P.M.: RECESS Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. MICHAEL RAVEN 166 SOUTH ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD PASADENA Mr. Raven stated that they have taken other plans into consideration and are trying to maintain as much of the natural terrain as possible and as large of lots as possible. He stated that with regard to the retaining walls, the calculations they have done indicate that on the easterly side, they would be 12 and 13 feet, with the tallest on Lot 16, which would be approximately 19 feet, and they have considered doing a two -tiered wall. Commissioner Sims had a problem with the slopes and the rock area. Mr. Raven stated that special consideration will be given to the landscaping and the use of low -maintenance, drought -resistant planting materials. Commissioner Sims stated that a 20 foot high wall would be oppressive. Mr. Raven stated that they are considering two 8 foot walls, and there is access to that from the open space terrain for the resident to maintain. Commissioner Sims stated that this is ill-conceived, as this is dedicated to the City, and the residents should have access from their property. He stated that the water pressure concerns him, as fires occur here, and there are no tanks 10 close to this area. Mr. Raven stated that Riverside Highland Water supplied figures indicating that the pressure would be adequate. Commissioner Sims asked about the fire flow. Mr. Raven stated that this would have to be addressed. Commissioner Sims stated that with regard to the grading, looking at the soils report, there seems to be concern regarding a settlement situation that the existing soils would not be fully supportive of foundation slabs. He stated that they go into a further dissertation later in the study about economics, and he is uneasy that they are concerned that building foundations would settle. ALEX CABRAL 5847 CORDALAS COURT Mr. Cabral stated that this is not a unique or substandard soils report. Commissioner Sims stated that this is not conventional, as they are talking about excavating areas of unsuitable material. He asked if he perceived any settlement problem. Mr. Cabral stated no, not if the soils engineer didn't see any. Commissioner Sims questioned the 20 foot wall. Mr. Cabral stated that he would rather go with the double wall, and they could build stairs for access. Commissioner Sims asked why the road grade on A Street was raised 13 feet Mr. Cabral stated there is a peak where it goes both ways, and they are trying to match the existing grading and minimize the cut slopes. Commissioner Munson asked how they plan to handle the run off. Mr. Cabral it will be handled according the U.B.C. conditions and City of Grand Terrace conditions, which involves picking the drainage up at the top of the slope and bringing it down to an intermediate point and picking it up again and bringing it down to the street, and at this point there is a velocity reducer to stop the water from gushing out into the street. 11 Commissioner Munson asked if the water will run down Raven Way, and if so, how would it get from their project to the street level of Raven Way. Mr. Cabral stated that it eventually would. He said that concrete or gunnite swales would be built at the top of the slopes, and then have a down -drain into the street. Commissioner Munson stated that somebody already has sandbags on Raven Way where the drainage ditch comes out. He asked who put the sandbags there. The Community Development Director stated that once the property is developed, the water would be in a cleaner state and channeled through the channels. He stated that the sandbags could be there simply because the water is coming off in a sheet flow and needs to be directed. Commissioner Munson was concerned about the lot sizes, as the area is supposed to be 20,000 square foot minimum, and 3/4 of their lots wouldn't qualify. Mr. Cabral stated that they can obtain more square footage in the lots, but they are attempting to give them a sizable building pad. Commissioner Munson stated that they want an aesthetically pretty City and asked if they would consider reducing the number of lots in order to enlarge them. Mr. Cabral stated that this would not help the sales, but rather the size of the buildable pad, and this is would they want to do. Commissioner Munson stated that he would like to see more open space. The Community Development Director stated that staff has been trying to get larger lots up into the hillside area, but they reached a point where there were some trade-offs which were important enough to sacrifice those large lot sizes, with the trade-offs being the open space remaining and the reservation of Blue Mountain as permanent open space in accordance with the General Plan. He stated that the purpose of doing the specific plan was to allow the property owner to come in with a proposal that would allow him to transfer some of those development rights on the upper portion of the plot which staff wants to see preserved as permanent open space as a trade-off. He stated that the size of the lots is acceptable because of their adjacency to the T.J. Austyn tract, which are 7,200 square foot lots. 12 Commissioner Munson expressed on aversion to having mountainsides cut in order to put cement slabs down. The Community Development Director agreed that they should minimize the scarring on the mountain, and this is a large portion of the reasoning behind recommending that they go with this development on the lower, flatter portion of it, and keep them off the upper portion, as this will have less of an impact visually on the remainder of the community than what all of Griffin did. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the bottom of the 20 foot wall or first level of wall if done in two walls would be even with the base of the house. She asked how the large boulders would be handled. Mr. Cabral stated that they handle this according to the recommendations of the soil report, and any that are rippable will be ripped and taken to the grade they need to, and if they are obstructive, they will be removed. He stated that the geology report indicates that this can be done, and there is no seismic history to this site. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they would attempt to keep any of the natural environment in the area to be developed. Mr. Cabral stated that normally on a hillside subdivision, it is not practical to keep what is existing as it is normally seasonal shrubbery that dies off. He stated that after they do the grading, they will come in with recommendations that are suitable as ground cover. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was a boulder next to a street, for instance, would there be an attempt to keep it there. Mr. Cabral stated that if there are no health and safety problems, he wouldn't see a reason to remove it. Commissioner Sims asked if they were approving the specific plan, would they be approving the conceptual plans also, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Buchanan stated that there are several mature trees in the area and asked if they fit into the plan. Mr. Cabral stated that they would have no objection to saving them. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he has seen retaining wall treatment that incorporates landscaping into the walls, or crib walls. 13 Mr. Raven stated that they have given this consideration, but they haven't come up with a detailed plan as to the approach, especially because they will probably be redesigning the 20 foot wall. Commissioner Buchanan stated that if the extensive sloping and retaining wall treatment was more exposed, he would have serious doubts about the viability of the project. He asked if they had given consideration to provisions in the CC&R's that require 18 - 24 months in which to commence construction of the improvements. Mr. Raven stated that they have not, but they have considered landscape and the maintenance of the landscape. Commissioner Buchanan was concerned about extensive cutting, steep slopes and high retaining walls, and leaned toward enlarging the lot size and reducing the slope and retaining wall problem and getting away from looking like a tract. He asked if any consideration was given to the possibility of moving the pad area away from the street frontage and making some longer driveways. Mr. Raven stated that as you enter the project on the westerly side, the lot sizes vary. Commissioner Buchanan asked if how they would treat the restriction of vehicular access to Lot 22. Mr. Raven stated it would be difficult for someone to drive up there under its present condition, and it would primarily be used for hikers. Mr. Cabral addressed the slopes, and stated that the U.B.C. calls for landscaping and irrigation of any slopes over 5 feet, so this is already controlled. Commissioner Buchanan expressed concern over the possibility of someone purchasing a lot and not building on it for several years, and the community has to look up at a 20 foot retaining wall at the back of the lot with no house in front of it. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they were proposing that Raven Way come out in the southerly direction down to Main Street rather than go through. Mr. Raven stated that they are proposing that Raven Way go through east to west. 14 Commissioner Hargrave asked if they were incorporating the preliminary soils investigation into their application, and if there was anything in the investigation that they objected to and would not do. Mr. Raven stated that this was done for them, and they accepted everything that was recommended. Commissioner Hargrave stated that is a good site, but the challenge is visualization. He stated that he is not comfortable with Lot 16 going into the public access area and instead of hikers going up Court A to go into the public access area, he would like to see as an alternative a way to bring the hikers into the development and traverse along the southerly route. He stated that he is not clear on how the engineering will work on Raven's Way from the 6' or 7' wall and how they will traverse it. Mr. Cabral stated that the bridge over the ditch already exists and is being used as such. He stated that this would be addressed in the grading plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 9:38 P.M. MARY ANNE ELIOT 22795 RAVEN WAY G.T. Ms. Eliot spoke in favor of the project, stating that this looks like a good start. She stated that on behalf of T.J. Austyn, having worked with the City and the City Engineer, she feels many of the engineering concerns can be easily handled. She stated that she was at a project in Indian Hills, which used a very interesting treatment of retaining walls, which appeared to be rectangular blocks with plantings nested in them. She stated that she would bring in a picture and get the name of the project. She stated that the only concern she has is the transition of Raven Way into the tract. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:40 P.M. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to the Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would be willing to go to an on -site meeting. The Community Development Director stated that this was possible. 15 MOTION PCM-90-88 SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-88 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to continue SP-90-02, TTM-90-02 and E-90-03 and public input to the August 7, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting and have a pre -planning meeting with the developer and staff with regard to his concerns. The Community Development Director stated that they could have a special workshop meeting along with a model, fire department comments regarding fire flow requirements, and water department comments. He stated that on August 7, they can have the workshop begin at 6:00 p.m. at the location and come back for examination of the model. Commissioner Munson stated that he would not be at the 8-7-90 meeting. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he would not be there either. Commissioner Buchanan second. The Community Development Director stated that there was discussion on rescheduling the July 17 meeting to July 24 as an alternative. He stated that the issues that need to be addressed before that time are at least one scale model which indicates the completed grading plan. He stated that they can have the meeting at the site on July 24 before the meeting. Commissioners Hargrave and Buchanan concurred. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Buchanan stated that it might be helpful for the on -site meeting if they were able to physically see where the critical portions lie on the land such as the retaining walls. He asked if the engineer could come up with photos of retaining wall treatments. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed concern about the traffic into Court A with regard to mountain climbing and where they will be parking. 16 ITEM #5 CUP-90-05 RICK AND JANIE ALPERN 22996 PALM AVENUE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SATELLITE DISH IN A R1-71 DISTRICT The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Commissioner Munson asked how the average property owner would know that he is required to have a permit for a satellite dish. The Assistant Planner stated that it is stated in the ordinance, but the City doesn't necessarily handout brochures to individual property owners when they purchase a home. Commissioner Munson recommended that a bulletin go out in the sewer bill stating that a permit is required for a satellite dish and that the Chamber of Commerce include it in their newsletter. Commissioner Hargrave asked if staff had any feeling about an alternate site. The Assistant Planner stated that she wasn't present at the meeting when this was discussed, but she understood there was some discussion with the applicant as to other possible locations. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. RICK ALPERN 22996 PALM AVENUE G.T. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the dish was ever located in a different area. Mr. Alpern stated that it was not, and in the last meeting, they went over the different locations of where it could be, but the satellite company brings out a monitor to measure the where strength of the signal is, and since a satellite has to face south and his house faces north, it had to go over the house, and the only other alternative was putting it in the front yard, and he felt the neighbors wouldn't like that. He stated that he had no idea a permit was required, so they went ahead and had it mounted on the least objectionable place which was on the side of the house. He stated that they had asked the neighbors if they had any objection and they said no. 17 Chairman Hawkinson asked if he had asked the neighbors on all adjacent sides. Mr. Alpern stated that he had asked the neighbors on the left side of his house and the neighbors directly across the yard, but there are no other neighbors directly next to them as they are on a hillside. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was any space on the west side of the house before reaching his fence line and going down his slope. Mr. Alpern stated that they had thought about that, but this imposes on the neighbor to the left, and they would have to remove a tree that had been there many years, and it might have to be higher for clearance of the other side of the house. Commissioner Munson asked if he was aware he needed a building permit. Mr. Alpern stated that he was not, and that he had asked the satellite company if he needed a permit and they said no. He stated that as he further read the contract, he found it is their responsibility to get a permit if necessary, but he had no idea. He stated that his insurance company even described it as an antenna, so everyone has their own definition. Commissioner Munson asked if the dish was laying on the side today. Mr. Alpern stated that since they had problems with the dish itself, the company decided to bring it down to work on it since it was windy, and he rested it on the side of the wrought iron fence, and the weight of it put it right down. Commissioner Munson asked if there was any other place to put the dish. Mr. Alpern stated yes, on the east side of the house, but this would require taking out a substantial tree that has been there a long time and a couple of other trees that have been there a while, and it would be tremendously more noticeable, and it still might have to be over 20 feet in order to maintain reception. Chairman Hawkinson asked what the current height is. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the report says the height is 20 feet plus the size of the dish. Mr. Alpern stated that the dish is 10 feet, but 1/2 mounts below and 1/2 mounts above the pole, which puts the height at 25 feet. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would vote against staffs recommendation. He stated that his front yard looks up into the applicant's backyard, so he has a very good view of it, and he has done a very good job of trying to disguise it as best as he can, and he has done it in a very pleasing and aesthetic manner. He stated that he would suggest that the Conditional Use Permit only be allowed for the time that this particular property owner is in the house, and upon vacation of the property either as a rental or in selling the house, the Conditional Use Permit would automatically expire. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she feels deeply for the applicant, but on the other hand, where do you draw the line. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 10:07 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:07 P.M. MOTION PCM-90-89 CUP-90-05 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to have condition #1 read that the Conditional Use Permit is not transferable either to renters or to new property owners. Commissioner Munson second. The Community Development Director stated that this is an enforcement nightmare as the Planning Department is not notified when a property is sold or when a property goes to a renter. He stated that the only way they are notified is through the assessor's update rolls, and they would have to wait for every one of those and check to see if that address was on it. He stated that the only alternative would be an annual review or 5 year review of the Conditional Use Permit, but staff recommended that if they are going to go along with the Conditional Use Permit, they should just approve it, as it is not something they are going to be breaking rules with as it is there. He said that if they change the location, that would change the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and staff would notice it. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to take his recommendation and put the burden on Mr. Alpern to come in and apply for renewal of the Conditional Use Permit on an annual basis, and if he doesn't, it expires. Chairman Hawkinson asked if they got the height of the satellite, would this get it back into conformity. 19 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-89 MOTION PCM-90-90 CUP-90-05 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-90 The Community Development Director stated if it dropped below 20 feet, this would eliminate the need for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hargrave amended his motion to incorporate the annual renewal of the Conditional Use Permit, that it automatically expires unless it is renewed and approved on an annual basis. Commissioner Munson concurred. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Sims voted no. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve CUP-90-05 as conditioned. Commissioner Munson second. Motion fails for lack of majority. 3-3-1-0. Commissioners Van Gelder, Hargrave and Munson voted yes. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he voted against the item because, while he has sympathy toward the applicant's position, he is concerned that they start setting a dangerous precedent by approvals based on unfortunate situations. He stated that a satellite dish is not necessary. Commissioner Sims agreed. Mr. Alpern stated that he enjoys satellite for educational programming and for a daughter that is growing up. He said that he understands it is not his inalienable right to receive satellite, but as opposed to mounting it anywhere else, the way his lot faces and the way it is structured is unique, and the reason they continued this at the last meeting was to get the Conditional Use Permit, and nobody had any objections at that point. He stated that as opposed to putting it in the front yard, he put it in a place that is inconspicuous, but what they have is a difference of about 4 1/2 feet. He 20 stated that he has painted the pole and portions of the dish, he checked with the neighbors and none of them seemed to object, and he doesn't know if this is precedent -setting, as how many houses face north that are that tall, have no other access and have pools in it. He stated that most of the lots in the neighborhood have twice the size backyard as he does. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the Grand Terrace cable system is not a viable alternative, as you can get two PBS stations. Mr. Alpern stated that he did not enjoy the service from the local cable company as he had problems with reception and they didn't help him out. He stated there is are more educational stations, including one called MEU that gives nothing but educational seminars and learning experiences for his child. He stated that cable had 38 or 40 channels and satellite provides 160 to 170 channels. Commissioner Munson asked how long he had the dish. Mr. Alpern said about 7 months. He stated that they were prepared from the first meeting, but there were continuances of the meetings. Chairman Hawkinson asked how much time per day he spent watching television. Mr. Alpern stated that he works from 7 a.m. to 8 or 9 p.m. almost every day, so he probably watches television about an hour and a half a day, but his wife is very much into education and would like their child to get all the programming, and they watch it probably 3 hours a day. Chairman Hawkinson asked what would happen if he lowered the dish. Mr. Alpern said he wouldn't get anything as the dish would be facing right into the house since it has to face south and move east to west. He stated that he could put it in front of his front fence if it wasn't objectionable. Commissioner Buchanan asked staffs view on the precedential effect of an approval and how it figured into staff s recommendation for denial. The Community Development Director stated that it had very little to do with it, as they look at every case on an individual basis. Commissioner Munson stated that they initially had five dishes they were concerned with. He stated that the general public had not been informed that they need a permit, and bearing that in mind, the five dishes probably should 21 MOTION PCM-90-91 CUP-90-05 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-91 MOTION PCM-90-92 CUP-90-05 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-92 be allowed. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to add as condition #2 that the Conditional Use Permit be non -transferable to any renter or new owner. Commissioner Hargrave second. Chairman Hawkinson asked if this would be reviewed each year. The Community Development Director stated that this is still a procedural nightmare as a new property owner buys the dish as part of real property and then staff has to tell the new owner they don't have a right to have it. Motion fails. 1-5-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave voted yes. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve CUP-90-05. Commissioner Hargrave second. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he is not making a motion for a condition, but this should expire every year. Commissioner Munson asked if he would be subject to an annual fee. The Community Development Director stated that he would. Commissioner Munson stated that he didn't know how they would enforce this. He stated they should vote and get the applicant off the top of the fence. COMMISSIONER MUNSON CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. 22 MOTION PCM-90-93 CUP-90-05 MOTION PCM-90-94 CUP-90-05 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-94 Motion fails. 1-5-1-0. Commissioner Munson voted yes. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Sims made a motion to deny CUP-90-05. Commissioner Van Gelder second. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant asked for a continuance until Commissioner Hilkey was present, as one of the votes previously was a tie vote of 3-3, which may have given him approval of the project. Commissioner Sims withdrew the motion. Commissioner Van Gelder concurred. Commissioner Munson made a motion to continue CUP-90-05 to the Planning Commission Meeting to be held July 24, 1990. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Buchanan expressed discomfort with the notion of commissioner shopping. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Mr. Alpern stated that they are talking about a motion that really needed to be voted on again, which was Commissioner Hargrave's first motion which was a tie. He stated that nobody brought this motion back up. He stated that he would like to see a vote and would be happy with the response on that and would accept it for both provisions. He stated that he is willing to do the Conditional Use Permit, and he is truly under the belief that when he was up there last time, the Commission told him to get a Conditional Use Permit and everything would probably be okay without any problems, and he has done all of this. He stated that he is asking for the other commissioner to be here 23 because that is what he was told to do, and now the story changes, and all he did was follow the directions. He stated that he thinks he belongs in the City and he would just like a little consistency, so he would like to see a vote on that. Chairman Hawkinson stated at this point, they have already continued this item. Mr. Alpern stated that he would appreciate an answer, and that at the April 17,1990 meeting, he suggested putting a notice out so that people know about satellite dishes. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 10:50 P.M. ITEM #6 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. MOTION PCM-90-95 SA-90-05 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-95 Chairman Hawkinson recommended that they continue this item to July 24, 1990. Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to continue SA-90-05 to July 24, 1990. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. 24 ITEM #7 SA-90-10 KEVIN DAVIS 12005 PRESTON STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SATELLITE DISH IN A R1-7.2 The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. KEVIN DAVIS 12005 PRESTON STREET G.T. Commissioner Buchanan asked if returning the dish to the original site was acceptable. Mr. Davis stated that it wasn't at the time because his back yard is a slope also, and the best reception for him is where it is located now. He stated that he is on a corner and only has one neighbor, who didn't object to the dish. He stated that you can't see it from the street and it is not an eyesore. He said that he has had it since July of 1988 and was just contacted in April of this year, and he didn't know that you had to have a permit to put up a dish in Grand Terrace. Commissioner Hargrave asked what Mr. Davis' objection was to moving the dish onto the slope. Mr. Davis stated that he has no objection, but when the antenna specialist came out to put the dish up, it was easier to mount it on the pole. Commissioner Munson asked if it would be more visible on the slope or its present location. Mr. Davis said definitely on the slope, as you can drive westbound on Barton and see the slope. Commissioner Munson stated that he could hardly see it, it's been there 2 years, and he would like it to stay where it is. Commissioner Van Gelder made a comparison to signage laws. 25 Mr. Davis asked why they don't care for them. He stated that they are expensive and are more or less a status symbol, and makes it look like a high- class neighborhood. Commissioner Sims stated that they are talking about 5 inches over the code, and they should weigh this against the aspects of visibility from the public. He asked for clarification as to why the Community Development Director was seeking for this one to be ground -mounted. The Community Development Director stated that the ordinance states that the satellite dish is considered as an accessory structure, and if it is less than 8 feet in height, it doesn't need Site and Architectural Review; if it is above 8 feet in height, it needs to have Site and Architectural Review and cannot exceed 20 feet in height. He stated that since it is a satellite dish, there is another section in the code which allows the applicant to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to extend above 20 feet. He stated that staff is viewing this particular application as being 20 feet in height and aren't considering it necessary to have a Conditional Use Permit, but it does need Site and Architectural Review, as it has a visual impact on surrounding properties. He stated that staff feels that satellite dishes are large and possibly unattractive to adjacent property owners and therefore recommend that they be ground -mounted. He stated that the Holiday Inn in Riverside has one ground -mounted behind fences with a 5 or 6 story building between it and the southern exposure and western exposures. Chairman Hawkinson asked if it would be a problem for Mr. Davis to move his dish. Mr. Davis stated that he will do what it takes. Chairman Hawkinson asked if it would be more visible if it were ground - mounted on the slope. Mr. Davis stated that it would definitely be more visible. Chairman Hawkinson stated that this would put him in compliance with the ordinance. The Community Development Director stated that staff's intent is not just to have it ground -mounted, but rather to have it in the least conspicuous spot. Mr. Alpern stated that he is in favor of this project, but he has a hard time understanding that if they are considering it to be 20 feet and it is in the perimeters of what is and what is not allowed, why there would be a question. MOTION PCM-90-96 SA-90-10 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-96 MOTION PCM-90-97 SA-90-10 He stated that if 20 feet is allowed and it is in an inconspicuous spot, there are many satellite dishes out there that are ugly, and why should someone move something just for the sake of moving it. He stated that he has a major problem with the inconsistency of this council and what they are putting people through. He stated that this man should be able to keep the satellite dish the way it is. He stated that certain individuals have had to go through a Conditional Use Permit process, yet then he is told that the people in the area don't think it is nice. He asked why they have to send out labels, then, to all the people in the area so they can reply or come to these meetings while the Commission makes the determination after the applicant spends an extra $150 to do this sort of thing. Commissioner Munson made a motion to continue SA-90-10 so that staff could check the slope and the visibility factor. Commissioner Hargrave second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he had to pass the property three times before he could actually spot the dish, so it is very well disguised, and if it was up on the hill it would be very visible, so he would prefer voting on the issue tonight. Commissioner Buchanan stated that staff can look at the slope, but they can't look at any particular location, since staff doesn't have a monitor to find out where reception could be picked up. He stated that he isn't sure it would do much good. Motion fails. 1-5-1-0. Commissioner Munson voted yes. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Sims made a motion to eliminate condition #2 of actually moving the satellite dish. Commissioner Buchanan second. 27 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-97 MOTION PCM-90-98 SA-90-10 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-98 MOTION PCM-90-99 SA-90-10 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-99 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to eliminate condition #3. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SA-90-10 as amended. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. ITEM #8 SA-90-15 PACIFIC BUILDERS/TOM TAYLOR 22810 RAVEN WAY G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A WOOD LATTICE PATIO COVER IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. TOM TAYLOR 22810 RAVEN WAY G.T. Commissioner Sims asked why the midsection is higher than the rest of it. Mr. Taylor stated that the patio cover will be about 40 feet in length, and based on looking at the rear of the property, they felt that a perhaps by elevating the center section, it would break up the long, visual impact if it was straight across. Commissioner Sims asked if there was an existing slab already in place. Mr. Taylor stated that they have a patio slab in place and they already have a permit for the footings to support the structure and this has all been inspected. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they had any future plans for a balcony. Mr. Taylor stated they do not. MOTION PCM-90-100 SA-90-15 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-90-15 with conditions. Commissioner Van Gelder second. MOTION VOTE PCM-90-100 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. ITEM #9 SA-90-16 STEVEN W. AND KAREN A. FOX SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PICO AND BLUE MOUNTAIN COURT AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN A R1-20 DISTRICT Chairman Hawkinson stated that it was recommended that this be continued to the July 24, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. 29 MOTION PCM-90-101 SA-90-16 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-101 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to continue SA-90-16 to the July 24, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 11:27 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD JULY 24, 1990. Respectfully submitted, David R. Sawyer Community Development Director Approved by, Dan Buchanan Vice -Chairman, Planning Commission W