Loading...
11/13/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 13 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 November 13, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner PLEDGE: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 MOTION PCM-90-155 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 16, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-155 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the October 16, 1990 minutes. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. ITEM #2 SP-90-03; TTM-90-03; E-90-08 COAST CONSTRUCTION/HONEY HILLS DEVELOPMENT 23400 WESTWOOD STREET G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A PRIVATE, GATED, CUSTOM LOT SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 37 BUILDING SITES, PRIVATE STREETS AND COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE IN THE RH DISTRICT; AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 5 PARCELS TOTALLING 79.5+ ACRES INTO 38 LOTS IN THE RH DISTRICT; AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONIIIENTAL REVIEW OF SP-90-03 The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Hilkey asked about adding something to the CC&R's to control building on the lots across the ridge from Westwood. The Community Development Director stated that they do not have anything drawn up as a condition, but they can work one up this evening through discussion. He stated that Commissioner Van Gelder expressed concern regarding dealing with these issues on a CC&R basis or through Site and Architectural Review, as well as possibly conditioning the map so that when someone buys, they will know whether they can go one or two stories. Commissioner Hilkey felt it more appropriate to allow an open review of the plan rather than limit the homeowner to one or two stories. The Community Development Director stated that the project is already conditioned that each home comes before the Site and Architectural Review 2 Board for review. He stated that a homeowner has the opportunity to apply for an amendment to the specific plan if they are set on building a 2 story house and only a one story house is allowed. Commissioner Hilkey asked about the location of the gates. The Community Development Director stated that staff, the fire department and the City Engineer will be able to come up with a gate system and separation from the two Westwoods which would be adequate. Commissioner Hilkey asked if he was worried about access to "Not a Part". The Community Development Director felt this would be handled through fencing or design. Chairman Hawkinson stated that there may be some people who came down for the item which was deleted from the agenda regarding the Preston Street property. He stated that the item has been postponed to December 4, 1990. The Community Development Director stated that these were the tentative maps for Mr. Churchwell and his property and Mr. Petta and his property. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. CLIFFORD HOOD VICE PRESIDENT OF COAST CONSTRUCTION 480 WEST CAPRICORN BREA Mr. Hood stated that he has no objection the CC&R's include words regarding reasonable consideration being given to adjacent owners with regard to view restrictions, to the extent that it may even involve restriction to one story. He stated that he would be reluctant to force an individual back to get a specific plan amendment. He said they may even restrict some lots to one story on the interior lots. Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was a way to put a control on the height of the trees. Mr. Hood stated that the landscape plans will have to be submitted for approval, including height and bulk of the tree. Chairman Hawkinson asked about street lighting. 3 Mr. Hood stated that he would like to go through the Conditions of Approval. He said that he would wait until the end to go over #1, as it referred to engineering. He said that regarding #4, they have no problem, but they will ask that they be given the document that states they are within the restricted zone. He said #6 was very restrictive, and uses other than building may be acceptable. He said that with regard to #9, they are very much opposed to dedicating this as open space, and if these become public hiking and equestrian trails, they will be taking access to the areas immediately adjacent to the homes, and had they recognized that it was the desire of staff to dedicate this, they would have suggested larger lots and that Lot 38 be restricted to the upper parts of the development. He said that if it is to be dedicated, they would like a different boundary configuration to afford more privacy to the community they are trying to create. He said that regarding #10, the water should be maintained by Riverside Highland Water. Commissioner Sims asked how he proposed to keep the public out. Mr. Hood stated that they would have to work out an equestrian right-of-way compatible with Colton's trail system. He stated that access to the area is down the ridge lines, so they would have to put fencing along the ridge lines. Commissioner Sims asked about the fire access. Mr. Hood stated that this has been worked out entirely with the fire marshall and is conditioned in his letter. He addressed the engineer's comments, stating that Lots 3 through 7 have no defined paths and there is no definitive building area. He said that regarding #2a, Mr. Miller was totally satisfied with the turnarounds as shown on the map. He said that on the street section, the City Engineer preferred conventional curb rather than rolled curb and gutter. He said that they have more than adequate hydraulic capacity with rolled curb and gutter to take care of storm flow, and as far as parking is concerned, the parkways will be heavily landscaped before anyone moves in, so they prefer rolled curb and gutter. He felt it was more rural in flavor and blends with what they are trying to achieve. He said that regarding #3, there are no sidewalks inside or outside of the project. He said that regarding #4, there are no street lights in the Honey Hills area, and they would be delighted to use low head 3'-4' high shrub lighting rather than the high pole lighting. He said that regarding #6, they can work out any problems with the drainage. He said that #8 concerned grading, and when you grade a tract with 160,000 yards, there is an imbalance that occurs due to topographic variation shrinkage, and they can't be predicted, so you have to be ready to take an imbalance out of a tract of up to 5-10% as the grading operation is finished. He stated that they propose that if they have an imbalance, they will suggest that these will be the lots on the Colton side, as there is no rock and that 4 r ground can be easily adjusted. He added that they have resolved all of the problems with Mr. Debenedet. Commissioner Hilkey asked about the equestrian trail traversing the side from north to south and intended to access the westerly terminus of Westwood Street. Mr. Hood stated that they do not agree with this. The Community Development Director stated that they have a copy of the proposed trail system for Reche Canyon. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if some of the pads would have some variables. Mr. Hood stated that those pads furthest removed from the City of Grand Terrace would. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they would be putting in the trees and landscaping. Mr. Hood stated that all slopes and parkways would be planted by them prior to sale. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the City of Colton had any easements. Mr. Hood stated they have none whatsoever. The Community Development Director stated that the City of Colton is preparing a specific plan for Reche Canyon and have proposed a trail system that intertwines through the entire area and will hopefully hook up with the trail system being proposed through the County and City of San Bernardino and City of Colton for the Agua Mansa recreational areas. He said that in the specific plan, they had the boundary wrong, and had half of Mr. Hood's project in the specific plan, but it has been corrected. He said that they still had some of the equestrian trails in there because of the topography. He said that staff informed them that they do have proposed trails running through this project. He said that they worked out a compromise with the applicant. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the proposed CC&R's are subject to staffs and the City Attorney's review, and asked if they are bound by what is in the packet if the specific plan is approved because it is an exhibit to the specific plan. 5 The Community Development Director stated that as long as they have the condition that they are to be approved by himself and the City Attorney, this should be adequate language to leave it open to discussion and work out any details. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that in the CC&R's, he did not see an expressed provision that grants the City authority to enforce the CC&R's in the absence of enforcement by a grieved homeowner or the association. Mr. Hood had no problem with the inclusion of this kind of provision. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that regarding Lot 38, a potential compromise is some limitation or reconfiguration, and possibly and 39th lot. The Community Development Director stated that he has no problem with identifying a portion of the area that they want to keep control of and the portion available to the City for public park use. He pointed out that staff feels that it is important that the City has control of some of that area and they can prevent development in the future and protect the area. Ile said that they want to create a buffer area that blends into the open space area. Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to commission for action. Commissioner Van Gelder asked about the lighting. The Community Development Director stated that a lower height, decorative light standard would be appropriate. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the area shown for the proposed map was all that was owned by the developer or if it was a portion of the developer's property. The Community Development Director didn't believe he owned any of the property around the proposed project. Commissioner Sims asked how the Community Development Director felt about Colton's proposal. The Community Development Director stated that it would fall under some review and recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Committee, and the City has no set plans on how they are going to utilize the Blue Mountain property to be acquired other than for public open space. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that there is probably a topographical 6 location that makes sense, and if they do create a Lot 39, there should be a natural area to serve as a barrier. He stated that since he was not present for the public hearing, he will not vote or make any motions. He felt that Lot 39 makes sense for dedication as well as the modified street lighting. He felt they should ask that the CC&R's be amended to include a specific provision granting rights of enforcement to the City of Grand Terrace. He felt it made sense to permit the flexibility of not having building pads designated on the certain lots indicated, and through a separate condition of approval or an amendment to a portion of the CC&R's it makes sense to specifically require consideration of the views of other lots within the project as well as the adjacent lots. Commissioner Van Gelder agreed and added that she would like to see normal curbing. MOTION PCM-90-156 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-156 Commissioner Sims made a motion to amend Condition 9 to read that the separate, open space area, Lot 39, shall be offered for dedication to the City's permanent open space, and future development of Lot 39 shall be restricted to minimal impact uses such as hiking, equestrian trails and related facilities, also creating an additional Lot 38 to be a private, open space area, sizes of which will be worked out with the Planning Director. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. Vice -Chairman Buchanan suggested that Section 13.3 of the CC&R's, page 47, be amended to specify that the City of Grand Terrace may enforce the CC&R's. MOTION PCM-90-157 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 Commissioner Sims made a motion to amend Condition 11 to direct the Planning Director and City Attorney to review the CC&R's to provide a 7 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-157 provision that the City would be able to enforce them. The Community Development Director suggested it read that Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions be established, reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and City Attorney prior to recordation of the map. The CC&R's shall include a copy of the approved specific plan and all conditions of approval shall be recorded at the County Recorder's office and shall include verbiage to ensure enforcement powers of the CC&R's by the City of Grand Terrace. Commissioner Sims concurred, commenting that it was important from the standpoint of maintenance of existing sewer and drainage facilities. Commissioner Hilkey second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the motion to create Lot 39 included the deeding of Lot 38 to the City. Commissioner Sims stated that it included the wording that Lot 39 be offered for dedication to the City. MOTION PCM-90-158 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SP-90-03, T7M-90-03 and E- 90-08 as amended. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that they needed to deal with street lighting and curb and gutter. Commissioner Sims withdrew the motion. Commissioner Van Gelder concurred. 8 MOTION PCM-90-159 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-159 Chairman Hawkinson made a motion to drop the Engineer's requirement for street lighting and substituting the 3' to 4' tall landscaping -type lighting, with the design of such being approved by the Planning Department. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the Engineer's recommendation for curb and guttering should stand. The Community Development Director recommended that Condition #6 be amended to add, "those lots without an identified buildable pad shall have the location of the respective buildable pad identified by the Site and Architectural Review Board at the time of the required review". He recommended that Condition #7 be amended to add, "said Site and Architectural Review shall prevent the unreasonable blockage of existing and potential views from adjacent and other lots in the area". MOTION PCM-90-160 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-160 Commissioner Sims made a motion to amend Conditions 6 and 7 as stated. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. The Community Development Director recommended that they add a Condition # 12, which reads, "Driveway accessibility and emergency vehicle access at the terminus of Westwood Street shall not allow public or private 9 access from Westwood Street through to Reche Canyon, and such improvements shall be approved by the Planning Department". He recommended Condition 13, "An additional exhibit shall be added to the specific plan that clearly identifies the buildable pads of each lot; said exhibit shall include the following wording: The final location of each buildable pad shall be identified on the approved final grading plan". MOTION PCM-90-161 SP-90-03, TTM-90-03, E-90-08 Commissioner Munson made a motion to add Conditions 12 and 13 as stated by the Planning Director. Commissioner Sims second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he was uncomfortable that this goes through the commission and to City Council without the commission really having a grip on what will take place on some of the individual lots. The Community Development Director stated that it does have to come back to Site and Architectural Review. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he had a problem with Condition # 13, as he wondered if they were making the applicant do a lot of drafting that won't do any good anyway, as the owner's will have their own idea as to where to put their house. The Community Development Director stated that he wants the buildable pad area to be very clear to the person buying the lot. MOTION VOTE PCM-90-161 Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. MOTION PCM-90-162 SP-90-039 TTM-90-03, E-90-08 Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve SP-90-03, TTM-90-03 and E- 90-08 as amended. Commissioner Van Gelder second. 10 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-162 Motion carries. 4-1-1-1. Commissioner Munson voting no. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan abstained. 8:30 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. - RECESS ITEM #3 V-90-02; CUP-85-09R1 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 The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson asked if the public hearing had been closed. The Community Development Director stated that they have readvertised, so the may re -open the public hearing. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that he assumed that, in light of the October 15 report, that Condition # 1 would change the memorandum from July 6 to October 15. The Community Development Director stated that this was correct, and the only difference between the Planning and Engineering Departments is how much of the existing improvements will be left intact. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if Condition #3 was satisfied by what was shown on the plan. The Community Development Director stated that it was, and the number is a result of staffs study of the parking situation. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if Condition #4 regarding the lot line adjustment was why they were here. 11 The Community Development Director stated that they were here because the property to the rear went into foreclosure and there was some type of title question as to whether the property owners of parcel 1 can no longer obtain a lot line adjustment, so they are now requesting that the condition be removed and that they are granted the variance for the parking requirements and that they also adjust the CUP condition for 88 parking spaces. The Community Development Director stated that Condition #4 was based on the fact that the City Engineer's comments in the previous letter had indicated that a lot line adjustment should be completed. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if this was kind of redundant with Condition #1. The Community Development Director stated that with the latest October 15 memo, yes, it could be eliminated. Commissioner Sims stated that the plans indicate a concrete swail and asphalt paving in the easement area which used to be the old parking lot, and he asked who is responsible for maintaining these improvements. The Community Development Director stated that he assumes the retirement hotel, as it has an easement on the property to accommodate the drainage facilities. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked about Condition #6 on the perimeter wall. The Community Development Director referred to the drawing, stating that staff felt there should be some separation from the property to the south of the retirement hotel. He stated that they had recommended that a perimeter wall be constructed along the south property line to prevent access back through the area for general parking, but it is up to the commission if they want to change or modify the condition. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the plans submitted proposed a 3 foot high block wall. The Community Development Director stated that they would like to see wrought iron with pillar treatment. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. 12 KENGE LING CDS ENGINEERING 18002 SKYPARK CIRCLE IRVINE Mr. Ling stated that he read the new memorandum from the City Engineer, and it seems to cover everything discussed by the commissioners. He said that the applicant will accept all conditions of approval, and therefore, they ask the commission to approve the applications so they can continue business and submit a new detailed plan. Commissioner Sims asked if the easements adequately address the drainage issue. Mr. Ling stated yes, that since the parking area was substantially demolished, the storm drain run off will be reduced. Commissioner Sims stated that he is putting water from his property onto someone elses property that he has an easement for. Mr. Ling stated that in the Item 16 in the title report for the property behind the retirement hotel addresses this. The Community Development Director stated that there are 2 different title reports, and the one in the commissioners' packets reflects the property where the easement is located, and the second title report reflects the property where the hotel itself sits. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the language stating no representation as to the present owner meant that the title company is not making any guarantee as to who the owner of the easement at the present time is, but there is an easement on the property. He stated that in their packet is Attachment C, which is the actual easement grant deed that specifically provides for the public safety and fire vehicle access. The Community Development Director stated that it may be still in question, and the reason it is not in the packet is that it is an easement which is being reflected on the title report for Parcel 1, which is where the hotel sits. He stated that the easement reflected in the title report for Parcel 2 addresses fire access only. The City Engineer said that Section AA of the drawing indicates that the existing property line is 10 to 15 feet from the face of the wall, and the 34 foot easement indicated is shown just to the left, and this is the easement on 13 the adjacent property. He said that this easement is right at the edge of the gutter that is now existing, and to the left of that line, there is still paving which is used as a parking lot. He said that his concern was how the drainage would be handled, and the drainage tributary to this particular swail is approximately 75 or 80% of all drainage within Parcel 1. He was concerned that there is roof drainage and all of the paving in the area that may not be accommodated by this ditch alone. He stated that since the lot line adjustment did not occur, this is why they are at the point they are at today with the easement, as the original condition of approval was to move the lot line to where the wall is now. The Community Development Director stated that the drawing on the board indicates that the easement is for sewer drainage facilities, but does not indicate fire access. He said that the applicant redrew revised plans and indicated that the easement is now for fire emergency access but did not redraw on the plan the wording for the drainage and sewer access. He said that this drawing references a document recorded and referenced in the title report for Parcel 2. He said that it does state that there is an easement and it is in favor of Barton 88 Investment Associates and it then states and establishes where that easement is, so there is an easement there which was recorded June 12, 1990. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the City Engineer's July 6, 1990 memorandum, Item 3, requested a copy of the recorded document referenced on the map as, "Recorded 6/13/90", and he felt they were talking about the same document. The City Engineer stated that as long as the easement for drainage and emergency vehicles exists, he has no problem, but he is concerned that the easement is right on the edge of the cross gutter and whether or not the water can be carried in that particular section. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he didn't see the treatment at the easterly point of the easement nor the westerly point, and asked if there would be some sort of gate. The Community Development Director stated that no plans have been submitted yet. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if Barton 88 no longer owned both parcels, to which Mr. Ling agreed. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that as of the date of the title report, the first trust deed on the retirement hotel property is apparently in foreclosure and 14 asked the status. Mr. Ling stated that he has an updated title report and presented it to the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director stated that the notice refers to the title report which was in the packet that deals with Parcel 2, and it states that Item 17 references the corrected instrument number, and then states that Schedule A of the title report identifies that the title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in JAS Investments, Inc., a California corporation, that is corrected by this memo stating that the title report to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in JAS Investments, Inc., a California corporation, subject to proceedings pending in bankruptcy court of the Central District of the United States District Court of California, entitle JAS Incorporated, a California corporation, in regard to Chapter 11. Ile stated that the corrected instrument number for Item 17 is 90-381165. 9:20 P.M. - OPENED PUBLIC HEARING KY WONG 1776 ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY CONCORD Mr. Wong stated that he is the trustee holder of Parcel 2. He stated that they are in the process of filing a foreclosure, and he does not know what JAS Incorporated is trying to do. He asked if the existing wall, where the parking lot is, is across the original property line. The Community Development Director stated that the application is for a variance and a change to the existing conditions of approval for the conditional use permit, and the actual parking improvements for this facility extend into Parcel 2; the existing fence is on Parcel 2; the requirement for the perimeter wall, which is the condition of approval for the variance, will be on Parcel 1. He said that the requirement is that the existing wooden fence be removed and that a perimeter wall be placed on the property line. Mr. Wong asked if Parcel 2 would be overcongested with the parking space requirement and if it would cause fire or traffic hazard in the future development. The Community Development Director stated that there is no proposal for that property. Mr. Wong stated that they are in the process of foreclosure and they plan to 15 do some development. The Community Development Director stated that any development on Parcel 2 will have to provide its own parking facilities, and Parcel 1 has to provide its own parking facilities. He said that the original requirement was for 88 parking spaces, and staff has conducted parking studies and feels the existing use will adequately be met by the recommended 42 parking spaces. He stated that a change in use would require review per the Barton Road Specific Plan and any use would have to meet the parking requirements in order to be operable. Mr. Wong didn't feel that the variance of allowing them to reduce the parking spaces and move the wall back to the original line is appropriate as it would make the area small and affect the appearance for future development, and if the original plan needed that many parking spaces, he questioned why changes would be allowed. The Community Development Director stated that the original project was built under a prior parking code requirement, and the condition for 88 spaces was above the required parking spaces at that time and was placed as a condition of approval for the conditional use permit. He said that this is a reviewable condition and can be revised by the Planning Commission per code in the future if applied for by the applicant, which they have done. Mr. Wong asked why the City would make an easement on Parcel 2 for the benefit of Parcel 1 if they are not the legal owner of Parcel 2. The Community Development Director stated that the City is not making an easement; this is an application by Barton 88, and they were required to obtain a lot line adjustment and are now requesting that this requirement be eliminated and they have provided evidence to the Planning Commission per the updated title reports that there is an easement on the property to serve those purposes. He stated that the City is not granting the easement; it has already been granted according to the title report. SHARON VAN ERT 108 CHISHOLM TRAIL REDLANDS Ms. Van Ert stated that this was her mother's property, and she passed away in July, and she doesn't really understand how the parking lot got built on the back portion of the property to begin with since it was not paid off. She asked how the City could let JAS, Kenneth Chen or Barton 88 Investments, whoever owns the property, to extend the parking lot onto their parcel which 16 was not free and clear. The Community Development Director stated that a parcel does not have to be free and clear in order for an applicant to put a structure on it, and the parking lot, at the time when the conditions and improvements were made, was represented by Barton 88 as the legal owner of the property, and they signed the applications and took the responsibility indicating that they were the legal owners. Ms. Van Ert asked if the adjustment was granted, what would be done with the parking lot that sits on their piece of property now. The Community Development Director stated that staff had recommended that all improvements be removed from the property except for that required for the drainage facilities. He said that the City Engineer indicated that the improvements need to remain within the easement area. The City Engineer stated that he had said that the south edge of the concrete swail is the proposed easement line, and he was questioning whether or not that swail had adequate capacity to carry the water. Ms. Van Ert stated that to the best of her knowledge, the back parcel has easement rights from Barton Road, and if a perimeter wall was put up, they would be landlocked from Barton Road access. The Community Development Director stated that just because there is a requirement for a wall doesn't mean that there will be no access rights provided. He said that indepth research needs to be done into the existing easements for each parcel as far as access onto Barton Road. Mr. Wong asked who would be responsible for tearing down the wall. The Community Development Director stated that they can determine that once they find out if the easement rights still remain or if they were lost or given up when the original property was being developed. 9:35 P.M. - CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawkinson brought it back to commission for action. Vice -Chairman Buchanan was concerned that the easement wouldn't survive a foreclosure. He stated that they should be aware that the conditions need to be clear that the existence of that easement is a condition of approval for the project. 17 Commissioner Van Gelder stated that there are a lot of questions that need good answers. MOTION PCM-90-163 V-90-02, CUP-85-09R1 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to continue V-90-02 and CUP-85- 09R1 to the next Planning Commission Meeting and asked staff to clarify some of these matters for them before that time. The Community Development Director stated that since they just received a copy of the addendum which states the correction that the item for the title report is in bankruptcy proceedings tonight, he recommended that the item be continued until the title reports and the long term validity of the easements which have been granted be reviewed by the City Attorney. Commissioner Sims second for discussion. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the title report which was not part of their packets indicates that there is a Notice of Default under what appears to be a 2nd deed of trust on Parcel 2, which is the parcel that is granting this easement, and the Notice of Default was recorded August 28, 1990, and in the normal course of things, it takes approximately 4 months before a trustee sale is held. Commissioner Munson asked what would happen if they denied the requests. The Community Development Director said the applicant would be bound by the original conditional use permit which would require the lot line adjustment and additional parking spaces and would then be unable to meet the conditions, and they would be in a situation where they should set a date for relocation proceedings of the retirement hotel. Chairman Hawkinson asked the City Engineer if he was still trying to get the lot line adjustment. The City Engineer stated that his July 6, 1990 memorandum stated that they should try to get the lot line adjustment, and he was trying to get the easement in there to get the fire equipment and drainage out of there, and if the Planning Commission and City Attorney feel that the easements could stand up, he would be happy with an easement if that satisfies the conditions of the fire marshall. 18 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-163 Commissioner Hilkey asked who granted the easement June 12, 1990. The Community Development Director stated that the title report indicates that it was granted in favor of Barton 88 Investment Associates, but doesn't indicate who granted that. The Community Development Director stated that the sewer, drainage and water facilities were designed in the center of the parking area, and there is not enough room between the property line and the building to have both the sewer and water line running through and also to carry the drainage adequately. He recommended submitting all items discussed to the City Attorney. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. The Community Development Director stated that they would be sending all of the information off to the City Attorney on Friday, so if the applicant would like to submit any additional information to be included, they should submit it by noon on Friday. 9:55 P.M. ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9:55 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ITEM #4 SA-85-09R1, SA-87-08111 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 Chairman Hawkinson recommended continuing this item. 19 MOTION PCM-90-164 SA-85-09R1, SA-87-08R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-90-164 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue SA-85-09R1 and SA-87- 08R1. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. The Community Development Director asked if the Planning Commission would like to consider any changes in the meetings for December due to the holidays. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she would like to forego the December 18, 1990 meeting. The Community Development Director stated they did not need a motion if this was the consensus. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD DECEMBER 4, 1990. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, David R. Sawyer ZI-1l Community Development Director 11-30-90 Jerry Hawkinson Chaftman, Planning Commission 20