Loading...
07/24/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 24, 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 24, 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 Joe Kicak, City Engineer David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Planning Secretary ABSENT: None. PLEDGE: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:00 P.M. Planning Commission, staff and applicant convened at the site of 22872 Main Street (SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03) to observe and discuss the terrain of the project. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM # 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-102 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - JUNE 19, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-102 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the June 19, 1990 minutes. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Sims abstained. ITEM #2 SP-90-02; TTM-90-02; E-90-03 MIKE RAVEN/MERRIE ANDERSON 22872 MAIN STREET G.T. 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 RI-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 Sims asked if the proposed plantings were the typical hydro - seeded type of landscaping. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant hired a landscape architect to work with that. He stated that staff recommended that a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan be submitted. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the Commission could recommend to the City Council the proposed dedication to the City, but asked what the options were if the City didn't want it. The Community Development Director stated that if it were dedicated to the City, it would be in the form of an irrevocable offer of dedication, which means that the City can say yes now or anytime in the future. He stated that 2 if the City Council does not want to take control of it immediately, it would stay under the control of the individual property owner unless a homeowner's association was established. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they should be concerned with access or parking. The Community Development Director stated that whether or not they accept it, it doesn't mean access will be provided immediately. He stated that there is not an overall plan for Blue Mountain to become open space. Commissioner Van Gelder asked who would be responsible for the maintenance of the lot if the City didn't accept it. The Community Development Director stated that the maintenance would be minimal since it is natural, open area, but the property owner would be responsible. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they can expect more houses to be built up the mountain if the City doesn't ever accept it. The Community Development Director stated that General Plan calls for this as open space and prohibits any development in this area, so it would take an amendment to the General Plan to change this. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the lot sizes were of the condos behind Stater Bros. The Community Development Director estimated about 4,000 to 5,000 square feet, including the unit and the yard. Commissioner Munson asked what the level of the street would be in relationship to the irrigation ditch to the west. The Community Development Director stated that it would be slightly above it but referred this to the applicant as they made a change to that. Commissioner Sims asked if there was sufficient room to go up Main Street as it exists now on the south side of the project where it is indicated for future widening of the knuckle, which is in the county area. The Community Development Director referred this to the City Engineer. The City Engineer stated that although the tentative map indicates this as a C future improvement, that is not the conditions of approval. He stated that the plans and development of the street will occur subject to the approval of the County of Riverside, so this is something that might happen, and this is one of the conditions and is not something in the future. He stated that the dedication would have to be obtained and the street would actually be constructed. He stated that this is a requirement of the approval of the map to complete that improvement. Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification. The City Engineer stated that as a condition of approval of this tentative tract map, they are asking that the dedication as shown on a proposed, future roadway be obtained at this time and a street be constructed to the standard of the City of Grand Terrace and approved by the County of Riverside. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. MICHAEL RAVEN 166 SOUTH ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD PASADENA Commissioner Sims asked if Mr. Raven understood what was happening with the knuckle. Mr. Raven stated that they checked with the County of Riverside and the dedication to put the street in is existing. Commissioner Munson asked about the height of the street in relationship to the irrigation ditch to the west. Mr. Raven stated that he is not sure what the height of the irrigation ditch is, but the difference between what shows on the plan as Lot 35 of the Austyn tract and the center line of the street is a 7 foot difference, so the street is 7 feet higher than the house below the level, and the center line is 11 feet different on the Raven Way intersection with the proposed street. Commissioner Munson asked how he planned on handling the continuation of Raven Way. Mr. Raven stated that the elevation change from the grade on Raven Way would not exceed 12%, which is what the City Engineer recommended. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the 6-7 foot wall on the Austyn tract would remain. Gl u Mr. Raven stated that there would be no changes, and the wall is on the Austyn property line. The Community Development Director stated that earlier he was discussing the transition on Raven Way with the City Engineer who had some concerns with the drainage. The City Engineer stated that there are 2 facilities to be considered: 1) There is a storm drain that picks up the existing drainage from Blue Mountain and carries it southerly to Main Street, and this is the open channel; he didn't feel this would create any problems as far as the subdivision is concerned; 2) There is a gravity system which is an irrigation line and there is a manhole right in the middle; it can be placed in a siphon through that area, and it is the only solution he can see at this point in time. He stated that to construct Raven Way easterly from Tract 13205 where it terminates at the wall, the wall would have to be removed and that grade continued on up not to exceed 12%. He stated that the facility that would cross this if it is above grade of the proposed roadway, then that would have to go into the siphon. Commissioner Hargrave asked who controls this. The City Engineer stated that this is controlled by the developer, and it is a matter of coordinating between the property owner, the developer and the owner of the irrigation system. Commissioner Hargrave asked what a 12% grade would look like. The City Engineer described it visually. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the grade would be at the center of the cul-de-sac and Raven. The City Engineer stated they are suggesting it doesn't exceed 12%, but they are running about 10% as shown right now. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the Riverside Highland letter addresses the water main sizing, water system looping and fire flow. Mr. Raven stated that he spoke with both Riverside Highland Water and the fire department to determine the fire flow, and they indicated that the top out at Austyn is 1500 gpm, which would be the maximum required in this tract, and it would be between 1250 and 1500. He stated that with the revised plan, they have dropped the pad elevation on 15 and 16, and they can't really give a fire flow recommendation until they have an architectural plan for the 5 homes to be put on the site. Commissioner Buchanan mentioned plantings as part of the retaining walls. Mr. Raven stated that he has a brochure on crib walls. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they were willing to work with staff on saving where possible mature trees and rocks. He asked if there would be a problem with including in the requirement a detailed landscape and irrigation plan for man-made slopes and work with staff on saving trees and rocks where feasible. Mr. Raven stated that there was no problem with this. Commissioner Sims asked what the retaining wall heights they are projecting. Mr. Raven stated that overall, the retaining walls have gone down substantially, however Lot 15 and 16 still have the height, although they will be two -tiered. Commissioner Sims asked about the planting problem and the hydroseed situation. Mr. Raven stated that they will comply with staffs recommendation. Commissioner Hargrave asked for the City Engineer to comment on crib walls. The City Engineer stated that they are very attractive, but has not had any experience personally with installation or inspection of them. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:35 P.M. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave asked Commissioner Sims if he had any experience with this type of wall. Commissioner Sims stated that he has, and this is a modular system that is utilized when there are stable soils. He stated that it is pretty viable, and Cal Trans uses it extensively. 6 Commissioner Hargrave asked about stability as relates to earthquake movement. Commissioner Sims stated that it is hard to say, but they are stable and there is a lot more effort associated with putting them in. He stated there is a lot dependent on the soil's condition and whether they can be cut to the grades necessary to implement the box. Commissioner Hargrave asked about irrigation. Commissioner Sims stated that it could be done through drip irrigation or they could put in a conventional PVC pipe and attach it to the wall to spray. He felt drip irrigation works better. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Community Development Director had any comments on Lot 17 which regard to the potential driveway access. The Community Development Director referred this to the City Engineer, and stated that it needs to work and meet his grade requirements. Commissioner Hargrave asked if he would get some pretty specific grading requirements as to what it will look like prior to the cutting. The City Engineer stated that this is not a preliminary grading plan so it is hard to say where it will be. He stated that it can be made to work. Chairman Hawkinson asked if Lot 17 was the City Engineer's real concern. The City Engineer stated that it was, and what brought it to his attention was the model itself, and he is not sure where that model is to scale, but he feels it does require special attention. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the fencing. The Community Development Director stated that the fencing is wide open since it is a specific plan, and they can require any kind of fencing or no fencing at all. Commissioner Hargrave said Lot 14 and 17 are his concerns. Commissioner Buchanan referred to condition # 10 regarding establishment of a homeowner's association. He asked if they have adequately included in the conditions of approval the requirements that they irrevocably offer for dedication Lot 22, but in the meantime, a homeowner's association shall be 7 established, etc., until such time the City accepts the offer of dedication. The Community Development Director stated that the intent can be further specified, but the intent of condition #9 was for the offer to be the standard type of offer that the City accepts, which is irrevocable and open forever. He stated that the intent of condition #10 is that if it is not included in the lighting and landscaping district before the tentative map would final, then the property would have to create a homeowner's association before the final map could record. Commissioner Buchanan stated that in condition # 11, there is a requirement that the CC&R's include a copy of the approved specific plan. He asked if this was his intent or that the CC&R's incorporate this document by reference. The Community Development Director stated that his intent was that the document be corrected with any improvements as it is approved by the City Council, and that that document itself be part of the CC&R's. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there was a condition # 12 for a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan for man-made slopes and if it would be part of the conditions of approval. The Community Development Director stated that they would recommend that. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the planting on the man-made slopes could be fire retardant as opposed to natural planting, which tends to be flammable. The Community Development Director stated that in accordance with the fire department's recommendations for this type of lot, they will be subject to certain clearances around the properties, and any distance that would be incorporated with that clearance could be a fire retardant type of material. He stated that as far as the man-made cut slopes, if they go with the crib wall concept, that can tie in to the man made slopes, and those certainly could be fire retardant landscape materials. He stated that above the man-made slopes and walls, they would like to see the continuation of the natural slopes. Commissioner Buchanan asked for his comments on crib walls. The Community Development Director encouraged this as a requirement for the type of wall used. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there was a problem with the requirement that the applicant work with staff on preserving where feasible mature trees and boulders. The Community Development Director stated that he has no problem with this, but cautioned the Commission not to have high expectations. Commissioner Buchanan stated that item # 12 on the engineer's memorandum states, "Restrict access to Lot 22", and asked if it would be appropriate to amend this to require that vehicular access be restricted to Lot 22, and there be no curb cut in front of that access lot and that restricting vehicular access be made in a manner approved by the Planning Department. The Community Development Director stated that this is acceptable. Commissioner Hargrave stated that if they could have item # 12 state, "Restrict access to Lot 22 by any natural means", for example, rocks or boulders. The Community Development Director stated that he felt the intent was to leave it open, but they can consider this as an alternative. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was fire access now. The Community Development Director stated that there is just through the property, but the owner could answer this better. MERRIE ANDERSON 22872 MAIN G.T. Ms. Anderson stated that they had a major fire two years ago and there were 20 tankers and over 200 firefighters, and they had absolutely no trouble getting up there. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they got there from the access road on the south end of the property, and how high it goes. Ms. Anderson said they did, and it is at least a 1275 elevation. The Community Development Director stated that on the drawing there is a dotted line which begins at the Main Street entrance on the property, and this is the fire break road. He stated that it goes up along the wall for Lot 21 and behind the sloped area and back through it and then goes up to where the two walls are proposed for Lot 16. 7 Commissioner Hargrave asked if the road would remain with the development. The Community Development Director stated that the road would be gone, but up to that point, there would be access up through the two streets and then through the back yards of those properties. He stated that the fire department did not include further fire access in their comments. MOTION PCM-90-103 SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-103 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to add as condition # 12 that a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan for all man-made slopes be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Hargrave asked when this would be coming in. The Community Development Director stated that they would want to see this before grading. Chairman Hawkinson asked if this would be the appropriate place to put it if they wanted to see the crib wall. The Community Development Director stated that it would be appropriate here or as a separate condition. Commissioner Sims felt it would be conducive for them to visualize this. The Community Development Director stated that he would prefer to not have to go back to the Planning Commission with that. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he would be more inclined to ask that retaining wall plans come back to them. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave voted no. Commissioner Hilkey absent. 10 MOTION PCM-90-104 SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-104 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to add as condition # 13 that the applicant is directed to work with the Planning Department to preserve where feasible mature trees and rock or boulder formations. Commissioner Hargrave second for discussion. Commissioner Hargrave asked how they determine feasibility. Commissioner Buchanan stated that a grading plan will show certain areas for cutting, filling and recompacting, and within those areas, he doesn't feel it will be possible to preserve mature trees or leave the rocks alone. He stated that some areas will fall outside of what needs to be cut, and they should endeavor to preserve in this area. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the developer was ultimately going to make the decision. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the developer will have a fairly limited degree of flexibility on how this ends up with the grading plan. Commissioner Hargrave asked about taking the native trees out and make them available for the site once the grading is done. The Community Development Director stated that it can be done if they are healthy, but he feels they shouldn't bother with the Pepper trees. He said they would have to make sure the Eucalyptus and Pine trees were healthy. Commissioner Van Gelder stated they could put all the rocks in Lot 22 and fill it in, which would keep people from driving up. The Community Development Director stated that if the rocks are moved, they will not be as stable as they were previously. Motion fails for lack of majority. 3-3-1-0. Commissioners Buchanan, Munson and Van Gelder voting yes. Commissioner Hilkey absent. 11 MOTION PCM-90-105 SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-105 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to add as condition # 13 that no curb cut shall be provided on Court A for the access to Lot 22 and that vehicular access to Lot 22 shall be restricted by natural means such as rock subject to approval by the Planning Department. Commissioner Hargrave second. Commissioner Sims was concerned that this may be a hindrance for fire access. Motion carries. 4-2-0-1. Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Hargrave voting no. Commissioner Hilkey abstained. MOTION PCM-90-106 SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-106 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to add as condition # 14 that the fire access roads and fire breaks shall be discussed with the fire warden for specific recommendations from the fire department submitted prior to final tentative tract map. The Community Development Director stated that they could request this to be done prior to the City Council's consideration of the tentative and specific plan. Commissioner Hargrave so moved. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Hilkey abstained. MOTION PCM-90-107 SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03 12 Commissioner Sims made a motion that the crib wall design be investigated and analyzed for usage in this project and be brought back to the Commission to review the results and how the landscaping and irrigation systems would operate with it. The Community Development Director recommended they say that the grading plan, which incorporates the crib wall design and a landscaping plan with the landscaping of such wall and slopes, be presented back to the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Sims agreed. Commissioner Hargrave second. The Community Development Director stated that this would be submitted to the City Engineer for comments and bring them to the Commission. Commissioner Sims stated that it doesn't restrict them to utilizing the crib wall as it may not be feasible, but they will see the wall treatment either way. The Community Development Director clarified that it doesn't have to be crib wall, but they are directing them to use it if possible. Commissioners Sims and Hargrave concurred. MOTION VOTE PCM-90-107 Motion carries. 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Hilkey abstained. MOTION PCM-90-108 SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion that the Planning Commission adopt the amended resolution for recommending approval of SP-90-02, TTM-90-02 for Tract 14944 and adoption of Negative Declaration E-90-03. Commissioner Sims second. Chairman Hawkinson asked if this would presuppose that the dedication to the City be accepted by the City. The Community Development Director stated that with that motion, they are approving the project as presented which would be a recommendation that it go to the City and be accepted by the City. 13 Chairman Hawkinson stated that he was pleased with the wording of an irrevocable dedication. Commissioner Sims stated that City Council makes the ultimate decision as to whether or not to accept it. The Community Development Director stated that they are saying that this idea of an open -space lot be accepted through that manner, and if they don't like that manner, they can state that they would rather it be a homeowner's association and remain in private ownership. He stated that he would rather have City control of the property. Commissioner Hargrave clarified that condition # 10 states that if the area is not included in the landscaping and lighting district, the homeowner's association shall be established and at a minimum be responsible, so if the City Council doesn't accept the landscaping and lighting district, it automatically reverts into the homeowner's association. The Community Development Director verified this, stating that the City can not place private property into the City's lighting and landscaping district, so that property has to be dedicated to the City, which means they have to accept it also. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he has a real problem with homeowner's associations in this type of an area. He stated that he would like condition #10 to read that the area identified in condition #9 be included in the lighting and landscaping district, and not make it a tentative situation, and if the City rejects that, this could conceivably bring the whole thing back for discussion again. The Community Development Director reminded them that they are making a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would recommend to the City that they accept this only on the basis of a lighting and landscaping district. Commissioner Buchanan withdrew his motion. Commissioner Sims concurred. Commissioner Hargrave stated that very few people pay attention to the rules and regulations of a homeowner's association. MOTION PCM-90-109 SP-90-02, TTM-90-02, E-90-03 14 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-109 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion that condition # 10 be amended to recommend to City Council that the area in question be included in the lighting and landscaping district and maintenance of the open -space in accordance with the property maintenance standards of the City of Grand Terrace. Chairman Hawkinson second for discussion. Commissioner Munson asked if they could delete condition # 10 Commissioner Buchanan stated that the applicant will make the offer of dedication and if the City doesn't accept the offer, then they have Lot 22 just sitting there, and it would still be owned by the current property owner. He stated that they have to say that if it is not accepted by City Council, then the project doesn't go forward, and the way it is written now is that it has to be offered for dedication and if, at the time the final map is ready to record, the City has not yet accepted it for dedication, then the applicant has to establish a homeowner's association to own that property while it is in limbo waiting for the City Council to decide whether or not they want to accept it. He stated that the way it is set up is acceptable. Commissioner Sims felt the way it is set up gives the City Council more flexibility as they can accept it at a later date. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they change condition #10 to the way he wants it to read, will it still get a full hearing before Council. The Community Development Director stated that this is correct Motion fails. 1-5-0-1. Commissioner Hargrave voted yes. Commissioner Hilkey abstained. MOTION PCM-90-110 SP-90-029 TTM-90-02, E-90-03 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached as Attachment A, recommending to the City Council approval of SP-90-02, TTM-90-02 for Tract 14944, and adoption of the Negative Declaration E-90-03 as amended. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Munson stated that expressed concern over the lot sizes. 15 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-110 Motion carries. 4-2-0-1. Commissioners Hargrave and Munson voted no. Commissioner Hilkey abstained. 8:50 P.M. TO 9:00 P.M. - RECESS ITEM #3 TPM-87-03 WILLIS AND OPAL COOK 11917 ROSEDALE AVENUE G.T. AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.5 ACRE, R1-20 PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS AND ONE LOT FOR DEDICATION PURPOSES The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Hargrave asked for the subject property to be pointed out on the aerial map. The Community Development Director pointed it out, stating that the property owner is not subdividing the entire property, but rather one larger portion of it. He stated that Parcels 1 and 2 will be 1/2 acre lots and can not be split again, but Parcel 3 has the potential to be subdivided again in the future into 3 or 4 lots. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he did not understand the dedication of Lot A. The Community Development Director stated that the property owner to the south has indicated for some time that he would like to have some of that property to have access to the rear of his property. The City Engineer stated the closest they can come to describing this transaction is Lots 1, 2, 3 and A, and Lot A would be recorded as one of the lots within that subdivision or parcel map and a grant deed would be written to the property owner next door saying from one owner granting Lot A to the other owner. He stated that they didn't use a numbered lot because it doesn't meet any of the requirements of the zoning. Commissioner Buchanan asked if they should require as a condition of 16 MOTION PCM-90-111 TPM-87-03 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-111 approval that they actually follow through with the transfer of that lot The Community Development Director stated that they can condition the project so that this is part of the conditions. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he doesn't know about the timing, as they can't really require them to convey it prior to recordation of the final map because there isn't anything to record prior to recordation. The City Engineer stated that after they approve the final map, they are again at his mercy. The Community Development Director stated that they would probably have to run it by the City Attorney, but if there was some type of condition that required an escrow deposit to the City which would be substantial enough and also placed into an escrow account for a certain amount of time for this transaction to occur, and if it does not occur, then the amount or ownership of Lot A would be dedicated to the City. Commissioner Sims stated that lettered lots are usually considered public use rather than private use. The City Attorney agreed, but stated that they probably should talk to the City Attorney before they final the map. He stated that if the City Attorney doesn't agree, then perhaps they should go ahead with a lot line adjustment and then do the subdivision. Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to continue TPM-87-03 to the next Planning Commission Meeting so that staff can get input from the City Attorney regarding Lot A. Commissioner Hargrave second. Commissioner Hilkey asked if a lot line adjustment would make Lot A a part of the lot just south of it. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. 17 ITEM #4 V-90-02; CUP-85-09R1; SA-85-09R1; SA-87-08R1 CDS ENGINEERING/BARTON 88 INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES 22325 BARTON ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR AN EXISTING RETIREMENT HOTEL IN A C-2 ZONE; AN APPLICATION TO REVISE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-09 FOR AN EXISTING RETIREMENT HOTEL IN A C-2 ZONE; AN APPLICATION TO REVISE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWS 85- 09 AND 87-08 FOR AN EXISTING RETIREMENT HOTEL IN A C-2 ZONE Chairman Hawkinson stated that they are mixing Site and Architectural items with the Planning Commission Meeting. The Community Development Director stated that this was an oversight and they will require separate Site and Architectural Review action. The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Buchanan asked what was immediately to the south of the yellow area. The Community Development Director stated this used to be the Garden Home Apartments but is now dirt. Commissioner Buchanan asked if this property was separately owned from the yellow and green area. The Community Development Director told him to ask the applicant. Commissioner Buchanan stated that one of Building and Safety's recommendations is for denial. He asked if he intend that they delete that. The Community Development Director stated that the Engineer didn't have a problem with granting the variance for the reduction of the parking; what he was recommending they deny was the waiver of the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Van Gelder asked the distance from the lot line to the building. The Community Development Director stated it is approximately 10 feet, which is sidewalk and some landscaping. Commissioner Hargrave asked if staff's survey included anything about the 18 residents that are there now and how many own vehicles. The Community Development Director stated that they did not Chairman Hawkinson asked, referring to the yellow and green areas, where the title rests right now. The Community Development Director stated that the yellow and green areas were a portion of the property that went into bankruptcy. Chairman Hawkinson asked what was bring about the need for a lot line adjustment. The Community Development Director stated that the City Engineer can address this, but his understanding was that one of the original requirements was to establish where the property lines are. The City Engineer stated that when this project was being proposed, both parcels were owned by the same property owner. He stated that the General Plan and zoning at that time designated that lot line for the south line of the yellow strip as a commercial zone, and the reason for the lot line was to provide the lot line where the zoning took place and in addition, there were utilities in that area that served the facility. He stated that immediate need forced them to allow the occupancy prior to the completion of this. He stated that the north line of the green area is in bankruptcy, so he is not sure whether or not they have the possibility of getting a lot line adjustment accomplished or not. He stated that there are utilities in there that should be considered. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the green strip was an easement The City Engineer stated that this is what he understands, but he hasn't seen the document. He stated that there is a reference on the plan that he received to a document recorded 6/13/90, and he assumes this is the document that provides the easement for the water and sewer. Commissioner Sims asked if emergency access was a concern. The Community Development Director stated this is private property, and he doesn't know if the City can become involved. He stated that the project was included and there was some consideration taken at the beginning regarding inclusion of the apartment project and access being provided through the apartment project. He stated that there is no secondary access at this point, as the access on Reed Street does not exist, although it was planned to at one 19 point. He stated that it was approved for occupancy without the second access. Chairman Hawkinson asked who owned the yellow and green strips. Commissioner Hargrave asked if staff had seen a copy of the bankruptcy petition. The Community Development Director stated that they received a letter from the applicant addressed through the court that there was a judgement from the court in favor of an easement for certain types of utility purposes, but that letter itself was not the easement. He stated that they do have evidence that there was a judgement, and there is a copy of the bankruptcy proceedings in the City Clerk's office. Chairman Hawkinson asked if a lot line adjustment was done when this project first went through. The Community Development Director stated that as of mid 1987, the project had been approved, but a lot of things were still up in the air. The City Engineer addressed fire access, referring to their comments of July 13, Item #F8. The Community Development Director stated that he located a copy of the easement. He stated that Parcel #2 reads, "A perpetual easement for sewer, water and drainage purposes over a portion of Lot 15 is shown on the map...". Commissioner Sims asked they could put a wall on the south end of the property to provide a gated situation, could it possibly be utilized in an emergency situation. The Community Development Director stated that they do not have control over that additional property, and the easement if for drainage, water and sewer purposes. He stated that they can condition the project that there not be a wall in that portion to allow potential, future access through a cooperative agreement with the adjacent property. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. KENGE LING 1802 SKYPARK CIRCLE IRVINE, CA 20 Mr. Ling stated that generally speaking, the applicant will accept the conditions of approval #1-11, however, with regard to condition #4, requiring the lot line adjustment, the applicant has no legal right of the property south of the hotel, so the lot line adjustment is impossible. He stated that because of the building moratorium, his hands were tied. He asked that the Commission reconsider the variance and condition #4. He stated that they can hire and attorney and go through the bankruptcy court judge, and it takes three months to grant easement, and it is not easy. He stated that he would like to modify condition #5, to remove parking improvements, as dumping is a problem. He stated he would like to omit condition #4 and modify condition #5. He stated that with regard to the perimeter wall, they can go back to the bankruptcy court judge and ask for emergency access. He asked, with regard to condition #8, that the security deposit reduced to one-half of the amount, or $10,000. Commissioner Hilkey clarified that he wanted condition #8 changed to $10,000. He asked if he wanted to drop #6. Mr. Ling stated that he would like it to drop to 3 feet, so people can jump over it. Commissioner Hilkey clarified that he wanted to drop condition #4 and leave half the parking surface with regard to condition #5. He asked who owned the property in which the parking now exists in 1988. Mr. Ling stated that Barton 88 Partnership owned it at this time. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was a lien against the property on the south in 1988. Mr. Ling stated not to his knowledge Commissioner Hilkey asked, when he made the promise to do the lot line adjustment, if he owned it free and clear. Mr. Ling stated that they decided at that time that when they develop the property to the south with 40 condominiums, at the same time, they would do the lot line adjustment, but due to the building moratorium imposed by the City, the project never carried out. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the property was free and clear in 1988. Mr. Ling stated that he didn't look at the title report, but he didn't think it was clear. 21 The Community Development Director stated that they have the title report, which indicates that in 1987, there was a deed of trust to secure indebtedness for $2,600,000, there was a separate deed of trust for $247,000, and there was a deed of trust to secure indebtedness of $17,000. He stated that there was a deed of trust for $25,000 and another deed of trust for $200,000, both in February of 1988. He stated that there was a deed of trust for indebtedness of $531,000 in January of 1989. He stated that this is the title report for property with the hotel on it, and it is his understanding this would not address the green and yellow areas on the map. Commissioner Sims stated that the property south of the hotel went into bankruptcy. He stated that the problem is that the lot line adjustment wasn't applied in a timely manner. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he understands that they were the fee owners of both properties at the time the conditions were imposed and subsequent to that, they represented that the lot line adjustment was a mere formality that shouldn't hold up construction of the retirement hotel; the City agreed and allowed them to build and occupy the retirement hotel and then at some point in time before the lot line adjustment was accomplished, the southern parcel probably went into foreclosure, and to avoid this, was put into bankruptcy. Commissioner Sims clarified that Mr. Ling is willing to pursue the emergency access in lieu of the lot line adjustment. Mr. Ling stated that they do intend to pursue this. The Community Development Director stated that if the Commission feels this is acceptable, he would recommend this item be continued. MARY FITZGERALD 22317 BARTON ROAD G.T. Ms. Fitzgerald stated that they hold the first on the south property, and there are quite a few other trustee holders below them, but they are the ones that put it into foreclosure, but they put it into bankruptcy so they wouldn't lose it. She said that she wouldn't like to see them get that strip of property. She stated that they originally owned all of it, then they sold it, and the owner now is the third owner since then. She stated that it is not free and clear by any means. Commissioner Munson asked when foreclosure was instituted. 22 Ms. Fitzgerald stated it was probably six months or better. Commissioner Buchanan stated that they may be a little premature, as the City doesn't have any desire to close the hotel and there are a lot of "what if' questions, for example, what kind of access, if any, can be acquired across the yellow and green areas for emergency access and he questioned whether or not they would satisfy requirements for a fire turn around. He suggested continuing this item to an uncertain date and suggest to the applicant they go into bankruptcy court to see what they can get, and the first thing they should ask for is the lot line adjustment required, and if they can't get that, an easement for ingress and egress, and if they can't get that, an easement for emergency vehicle traffic. MOTION PCM-90-112 V-90-02, CUP-85-09R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-112 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to continue V-90-02 and CUP-85- 09R1 indefinitely. Commissioner Munson second. Chairman Hawkinson asked where the fencing is and if there was a fire access problem. The Community Development Director stated that there is fire access as the vehicles have access and can address the building. He stated that there isn't a secondary access. He stated that losing this for any purpose other than water, drainage or sewer would eliminate that access point. Chairman Hawkinson stated that they need the City Attorney here for direction. Commissioner Hargrave called for the question. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. 23 ITEM #5 CUP-8817R1 AMERICAN MODULAR STRUCTURES, INC./THIEN KOAN NG 21516 MAIN STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION TO REVISE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-17 FOR AN EXISTING MOBILE MODULAR BUILDING MANUFACTURER The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims asked if there have been any complaints. The Community Development Director stated not regarding the hours operated right now. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the applicant was in agreement with staff s recommendation. The Community Development Director stated that they would like to extend operation until 8 p.m. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. DON COROLIS 293 MARY KNOLL DRIVE COLTON Mr. Corolis stated that there property begins 191 feet to the north of Main Street behind the two properties who have been granted extended summer hours. He said there would be no truck traffic increase. Chairman Hawkinson was concerned with noise as there are residences in the general vicinity, and asked what the noise factor is generated by the facility, and how close the nearest residence is. Mr. Corolis stated that the nearest resident would be on the south side of Main Street beyond the south side of Central City Recycling, with the train tracks to the west of them. He stated that the distance between them would kill the sound. Chairman Hawkinson asked if notices were sent. The Community Development Director stated that they did, and it would have covered the residences. 24 Commissioner Hargrave asked if the manufacturing involved nailing with nail guns. Mr. Corolis stated yes, as well as spray painting, etc. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 10:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 10:35 P.M. MOTION PCM-90-113 CUP-88-17R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-113 Commissioner Hargrave had a problem with 6 a.m., since the noise ordinance goes to 7 a.m. He stated that he has no problem with 8 p.m. Commissioner Buchanan expressed concern with 8 p.m. as there is year-round school going into effect. Commissioner Munson stated that the noise ordinance would govern this. Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve CUP-88-17R1 as recommended by staff. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carries. 6-1-0-0. Commissioner Hargrave voted no. ITEM #6 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 R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the applicant had anything to add. 25 RICK ALPERN 22996 PALM AVENUE G.T. Mr. Alpern stated that he had a 7 1/2 in width foot satellite dish put up to replace the 10 foot dish to cut down the size and visibility and to comply. He read the letter from the City Manager to him, and pointed out that there is another place to put the satellite dish, which is on the front lawn. He stated that he has done everything he could possibly do and he went through the Conditional Use Permit process. He said that he has on tape that the Community Development Director stated at the first meeting that anything over 20 feet needs a Conditional Use Permit, which is why they couldn't recommend it the first time. He stated that at the last meeting, the person that went up after him had a satellite dish at 20'5", which is still over 20 feet. He stated that there needs to be consistency. Commissioner Buchanan asked what the overall height is. Mr. Alpern stated that the overall height is approximately 23 feet, but may be up to 25 feet, as he didn't re -measure it. He stated that he feels the width is more important, and he paid $300 to make the width smaller. Commissioner Munson asked if he talked to the installer about relocating it in the back yard at ground level. Mr. Alpern stated that he does not have the room, as he has a pool, and moving it would require moving the fence. He stated that he has a problem with this as one of the reasons they go through a Conditional Use Permit process to allow the people in the neighborhood an opportunity to address their displeasure of what is being done, and if none of them are bothered, why does bother anyone else. Commissioner Sims asked if it could be lowered to the 20 foot mark. Mr. Alpem stated that he will not have clearance over the house for reception. Commissioner Sims asked if it could be put at 8 feet in the front yard, without other buildings affecting it. Mr. Alpern stated that he could, as there is nothing directly in front of his house. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the problem is that the position of his house 26 MOTION PCM-90-114 CUP-90-05 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-114 and lot is probably the worst for a satellite dish. Mr. Alpern stated that he is not interested in coning back every year to apply for a Conditional Use Permit and pay the fees. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about the fence that would have to be moved. Mr. Alpern stated that there is a wrought iron and stone fence that would have to be moved. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve CUP-90-05. Commissioner Hilkey second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that the height of the dish is still offensive, so maybe the side of the house would be the only way. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the problem is that there is a 5 foot slope on the east side of the house which would be challenging engineering -wise. He asked if they would have 20 feet with the slope and 15 foot setback. The Community Development Director stated that there would be a 10 foot setback. Commissioner Sims stated that he is going to be consistent and will vote no, as he doesn't feel it belongs where he has it. Motion fails. 2-5-0-0. Commissioners Hargrave and Munson voted yes. Mr. Alpem stated that he had a tape with lying on it. Chairman Hawkinson informed Mr. Alpem that he was out of turn and already had an opportunity to talk. Mr. Alpem stated that he would like another opportunity. 27 Chairman Hawkinson stated that they will declare a recess if he continues to speak out of turn. Mr. Alpern stated that his option is to walk out. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he was out of line. Mr. Alpern stated, "You guys are a bunch of jew-haters, you keep someone's at 20.5 feet and you let it go, okay? Think about it. Look at Webster's dictionary. You let the black man keep it up but you don't let the jew keep it up." Chairman Hawkinson declared a five minute recess. 11:05 P.M. TO 11:15 P.M. - RECESS Chairman Hawkinson stated that the applicant was out of line and the accusations were unbelievable, but he truly felt they voted on the project on it the merit of the project itself. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 11:15 P.M. ITEM #7 SA-90-05 RICK AND JANIE ALPERN 22996 PALM AVENUE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SATELLITE DISH IN A R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims asked if the intent was that the dish be in the back yard. He stated that the condition does not specify front or back yard. The Community Development Director suggested the Planning Commission amend the condition that it should be ground -mounted in the rear property and not visible from the front yard property. He stated that the intent is that nothing is sticking up above the roof line. 28 MOTION PCM-90-115 SA-90-05 Commissioner Van Gelder asked what would be done if the applicant didn't comply. The Community Development Director stated they would go through the nuisance abatement process. Commissioner Hilkey asked if it would be appropriate to direct staff to contact an expert to clarify where these things have to be mounted. The Community Development Director suggested the commission direct staff or recommend to City Council to direct staff to prepare a satellite dish ordinance and that in the preparation, investigate what it takes to make a satellite dish work, but this would be a separate issue from tonight's item and would have to be agendized. Commissioner Munson stated that at the last meeting, staff indicated they were in the process of preparing a mailer for people to come and obtain from the Planning Department. He stated that he suggested something go out in the sewer bill or Chamber of Commerce newsletter on the current status of satellite dishes. The Community Development Director stated that the Planning Commission can not authorize staffs expenditure of funds, so he would need to have this from the City Council. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-90-05 with further clarification as to condition #2 that the applicant shall mount the satellite dish at ground level in the rear yard, and in no case shall any portion of the dish extend above the eave line of the house. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Munson asked about the letter from the City Manager. The Community Development Director stated that the City Manager responded to him with a letter stating that there is nothing the city has that would prevent him from placing an accessory structure that met the height requirements below 8 feet in his front yard, but it can not be within the front or side yard setback or right-of-way. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the motion would prevent the applicant from placing the dish between his home and the home directly east of him. 29 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-115 The Community Development Director stated that the motion approved it within the rear yard, which would be interpreted as behind side yard fence lines. Commissioner Hargrave reinforced the idea from this body that they are not against satellite dishes as long as they are within limitations. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. The Community Development Director stated that there is a 10 day appeal period for this item. ITEM #8 SA-90-16 STEVEN W. AND KAREN A. FOX SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PICO AND BLUE MOUNTAIN COURT G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IN A R1-20 DISTRICT The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. STEVEN FOX 382 EAST BONNIEVIEW RIALTO Commissioner Hilkey asked if you can see through the gate in the front. Mr. Fox indicated the gate on the colored rendering, stating it is wrought iron and you can see through it. Commissioner Sims asked if he is going with concrete tile. Mr. Fox responded in the affirmative. He stated that there are three bathrooms: two upstairs and one with a shower downstairs, and the floor of the balcony is actually only 8 feet high and comes off of the master bedroom. 30 MOTION PCM-90-116 SA-90-16 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-116 Commissioner Hargrave asked for a description of the porch on the rear elevation. Mr. Fox stated that this is like a tri-level house, as that portion of the house is up on piers about 3 feet above the ground, so the porch is at the level of that floor. He stated that the porch is under the main roof of the house. Commissioner Hilkey asked if staff had a problem with the fence in front. The Assistant Planner stated that staff proposed a cedar fence with the cap and rail, and staff had no problem with the design and concept. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the side of the house that faces Blue Mountain Court looks plain, especially for the area. Mr. Fox presented some suggestions. Commissioner Hilkey suggested shutters. Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SA-90-16 as conditioned by staff. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. ITEM #4 SA-85-09R1; SA-87-08R1 CDS ENGINEERING/BARTON 88 INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES 22325 BARTON ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION TO REVISE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWS 85-09 AND 87- 08 FOR AN EXISTING RETIREMENT HOTEL IN A C-2 ZONE MOTION PCM-90-117 SA-85-09R1, SA-87-08R1 31 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-117 Commissioner Buchanan made a motion to continue SA-85-09R1 and SA-87- 08R1 indefinitely. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 11:52 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:52 P.M. MOTION PCM-90-118 SATELLITE DISH ORDINANCE MOTION VOTE PCM-90-118 Commissioner Hilkey made a motion to recommend to City Council that they produce an ordinance on satellite dishes which would include a study on the necessary arrangements and locations of satellite dishes. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Sims added that during the interim time that there be a recommendation that the public be informed as to requirements for what it takes to put a satellite dish up. Commissioner Hilkey concurred. Motion carries. 7-0-0-0. 32 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD AUGUST 7, 1990. Respectfully submitted, David R. Sawyer Community Development Director 08-15-90 Approved by, Dan Buchanan Vice -Chairman, Planning Commission 33