Loading...
12/04/1990GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 4, 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 December 4, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Maria C. Muett, Assistant Planner Maggie Barder, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Jim Sims, Commissioner PLEDGE: Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. Discussion of changing meeting night from Tuesdays to Thursdays. Discussion of raise in stipends. 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 - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 MOTION PCM-91-1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-1 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the November 13, 1990 minutes. Vice -Chairman Buchanan second. Motion carries. 4-0-1-1. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Hargrave abstained. ITEM #2 Z-89-03 RICHARD K. CHURCHWELL 23081 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 35' TO 20' The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the zone change would apply in any R1-10 Zone, to which the Community Development Director agreed. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if staff made this type of analysis with respect to the Petta project. The Community Development Director stated that they have looked at the Petta project, and the slopes in the Petta project are not as great as those in the Churchwell project. Commissioner Hargrave asked if it was in staff s view to take a district on the south side of a major artery (Barton Road) and include this as justification for this project when there is very little on the north side of Barton Road with that type of setback. He said they also have some adjoining vacant tracts which will eventually be developed. 2 The Community Development Director stated that the R1-10 Zone is rather small, and the Petta and Churchwell properties are about the only remaining properties that are significantly vacant and can be subdivided. He said that the property to the south of Barton Road doesn't dictate how the area north of Barton Road should develop. Commissioner Hargrave stated that with the slopes, there is maybe one parcel in Churchwell's project that does not meet the 35' setback. The Community Development Director stated that Lot 4 would be close to 30' and Lot 5 would be 25'. Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt they may be disregarding the agricultural overlay notion with the setback reductions. The Community Development Director stated that the agricultural overlay zone was an answer to the citizens that lived in the area, as it had developed with a rural atmosphere and they wanted to keep that. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. DOUG SHACKELTON J.F. DAVIDSON AND ASSOCIATES 3880 LEMON STREET RIVERSIDE Mr. Shackelton stated that they concur with staffs recommendation and analysis. He stated that they did not believe the zone change would jeopardize the integrity of the zone or development. He stated that the setbacks will be closer to 35' than 20'. Commissioner Van Gelder was concerned about the size of the houses, stating that the size of the pads could not allow them to be as large as the existing one. Mr. Shackelton stated that the houses have not been selected yet, but a two- story dwelling could approach the size of the existing dwelling. 7:24 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TERRY MARTINEZ 22950 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. 3 Ms. Martinez stated that she felt at a disadvantage as they received the information at 5:15 p.m. on Friday and didn't have much time to prepare. She stated that regarding the setbacks, she stated that the Community Development Director stated that he wished to keep the rural atmosphere, which is why they kept the 35' setbacks, and now he feels they can reduce it to 20' and maintain the rural atmosphere. She felt this was possible on the Churchwell project as the lots were quite large and they have the slopes. She stated that the minutes reflect that Commissioner Munson stated that if you set this as precedence, then it possibly could come back to haunt them, and she felt this was a real possibility in the Petta project, as his lot sizes are down to the minimum and he wants the setbacks down to the minimum. She stated that in the minutes of the last meeting, it was asked that the developer come back with an alternative plan with the rear yard setbacks as is, and this has never materialized. ELIZABETH KENNEDY 11831 PRESTON STREET G.T. Ms. Kennedy asked the Community Development Director to qualify the R1- 20 Zone which borders the Churchwell project. The Community Development Director stated that the R1-20 Zone is directly north across Arliss Drive, and a portion of the R1-20 Zone does border a portion of this map. Ms. Kennedy stated that as a property owner whose land is included in the R1-10 Zone and abuts these proposed developments, she would like to express an objection to the proposed 20' rear yard setback. She said that when they expressed no objection to the zone change from R1-20 to R1-10, it was with the understanding that the requirements for the rear yard setback would remain at 35' in the new R1-10 zone. She felt that allowing 20' rear yard setbacks will jeopardize their current ability as property owners to keep horses on their property and on the adjacent properties already developed. She said that at least one property is land -locked, and can only be used for agricultural purposes. She said that these conditions apply directly to at least two properties on Preston Street and two on Victoria, and if 20' rear yard setbacks are allowed, she asked what would prevent property owners from constructing retaining walls along his or her rear yard property line, thus reducing their slope requirement and expanding their buildable space to within 20' of his property line, precluding the 70' required for their corrals. Commissioner Hargrave asked for the location of Ms. Kennedy's property. 4 Ms. Kennedy stated that they border Churchwell's Lot 3 on the west property line. The Community Development Director indicated this on the map. He stated that the Agricultural Overlay Zone states that all animals, except household pets, shall be kept at a minimum distance of 70' from any adjacent dwelling, school or church located on adjoining parcels. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Ms. Kennedy has preference before Lot 3 owners, even though she doesn't currently have horses. The Community Development Director stated that if she does not have horses now, then the new property owner next to her could have an extension of the home that could go into that 70' area, and Ms. Kennedy would have to come in later and meet the 70' distance. Commissioner Hargrave asked the depth of Ms. Kennedy's property from Preston to the east. Ms. Kennedy stated that she would not be able to have horses with the 2 to 1 slope that will be required from Preston Street on their bank in their front yard. She said they have 250.42 feet from Preston Street back, and they have approximately a 20' bank from Preston Street that they will have to make into a 2 to 1 slope. She stated that she does not have an objection to the overall 35' setback with a 20' setback to the banks. ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Mr. Chinnock stated that he is immediately adjacent to the Churchwell property on the westerly side. He said that they have been trying to receive information for many months as to what would come forward tonight, and he has made numerous calls to the City Planning Department, and the reply was always that nothing had been submitted, and as of 5:00 p.m. Friday, nothing had been submitted and the packets were not posted until after the legal time for this public hearing. He said that there is only one reason to change the setbacks, and that is to make it possible to put more dwellings in any given piece of property, and in doing that, they exacerbate the traffic problem. He stated that, from the minutes of the last meeting, Commissioner Munson also had a problem with Lot 8, and stated that not much is being said about the 35' setback, which caused him concern, and that down the road the 20' would come to haunt them. He urged the commission to take into account the residents in the area and not rezone to the 20' setback. 5 BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA G.T. Ms. Pfennighausen asked where the AP Zone comes down into the triangle that abuts the R1-10. The Community Development Director indicated this on the map, stating that it is a portion of the Barton Road Specific Plan. He said that the triangle's northern boundary is Victoria Street. Ms. Pfennighausen concurred with those opposed to the change from 35' to 20' setback, with the exception that where slopes can be incorporated to retain the integrity of the 35', and that the Churchwell property could be accepted, but she would have great reservation and would be opposed to an overall zone change that would allow all R1-10 properties to fall under this. She stated that this zoning code is relatively new, and assumed that staff and City Council did consider these things at the time, and if an exception needs to be made, it should be made on a project -by -project basis. Mr. Shackelton stated that they truly believe the approval of this zone change will not jeopardize the integrity of the neighborhood of this development. He felt there was more emphasis being place on this issue than is justified. He pointed out, lot by lot, what the rear setback situation would be if approved. He said that Lot 1 will have a 20' setback from the toe of the slope, and he would estimate the horizontal distance of the slope to be 40', so the rear setback is 60' from a practical standpoint; Lot 2 is a 30' horizontal distance on the slope, so the setback is 50% Lot 3 varies from 35' to 25% Lot 4 has approximately 29% Lot 5 is right at 25' if the dwelling is built there; Lot 9 is an existing dwelling; Lot 6 is 25' to 30% Lot 7 is probably 40% Lot 8 is 20' plus 8' or 9'. He stated that if the flexibility is taken away, the dwellings will be shoved out to the street. BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA G.T. Ms. Pfennighausen said that she doesn't have great disagreement with what has been presented with regard to the Churchwell project, but her disagreement is in making this a general zone change on all R1-10 properties. She said that if they cannot meet the setbacks on the Churchwell project, then they will have to subdivide their project into larger lots which would be a benefit to the community. C ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Mr. Chinnock was confused as to how to proceed, as he hears discussion that this proposal will cover both tentative tract maps tonight, but they are not supposed to be discussing them together. He said that he and his neighbors are not opposed to the development of this land, but they would like to see this land harmonious with the neighborhood as it is now. He said that he does not have a lot of objection to the setbacks as they are shown on Mr. Churchwell's property but asked if the consideration is to change the zoning for the setbacks on all of R1-10 or just this tentative tract map. The Community Development Director stated that it would affect all of the R1-10 Zone. Mr. Chinnock stated that he would urge the Planning Commission to not take this action, for it will create a tremendous amount of problems and will exacerbate the traffic problem. TERRY MARTINEZ 22950 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Ms. Martinez stated that she was not opposed to the rear yard setbacks as Churchwell's tract map shows, but she was disturbed by a comment made by the representative of J.F. Davidson, who said that if they decide they do not want to pass this, then they will have to move the houses up toward the street. Chairman Hawkinson stated that they are at the same disadvantage as they don't have Site and Architectural plans at this point, so the locations and sizes of the houses are not yet proposed. The Community Development Director stated that the tentative maps are indicating the setback areas and thereby identifying the buildable pad areas. He said that the 20' and 25' setbacks can be moved to 35', which will reduce the actual size of the buildable pads and reduce the options of the property owners for Site and Architectural Review. He said that it will also restrict the Site and Architectural Review Board's ability to place the home, but it is not dictating that the homes be moved out to the street, as another alternative is the realignment of lot lines. 7:58 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 7 The Community Development Director stated that all the legal posting and notifications were met, as state law requires a 72 hour notification and posting of the agendas, which actually falls on Saturday evening, and packets were available at 5:00 p.m. Friday. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was anything in the procedures, if this zoning change was not approved, that prohibits them to go on to the Churchwell application and give it some sort of variance. The Community Development Director stated that they can continue with the agenda and hear both of the maps, but staff's recommendation would change to continue the items to be redesigned. He said that no variance has been applied for or advertised for, so this could not be considered. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was a discussion on workups with 35' setbacks. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant did not submit anything addressing that issue. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they have regulations regarding the frontage of property. The Community Development Director stated that there is a 25' front yard setback. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what kind of findings they would be looking for in order to approve a variance. The Community Development Director stated that there would have to be a finding that there is something physically unique about this property. He said that problem is that they may be able to lose one lot, but they would have to analyze that. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that he made a motion and withdrew it at the last public hearing on this that the zone be modified to require a 35' overall setback and a minimum of a 20' setback from the beginning of any slope. He asked if they took this course, would they be running a risk of developers or homeowners creating slopes where slopes aren't necessary. The Community Development Director felt the overall cost of the grading would prohibit that. The City Engineer stated that it is unlikely, but possible. N. MOTION PCM-91-2 Z-89-03 Vice -Chairman Buchanan expressed inclination to suggest modification of the zoning ordinance that would require a 35' overall setback from the property line with a minimum 20' setback from a slope. He felt this offers flexibility and addresses the speakers' concerns, and a substantial number of the lots would conform. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to recommend to City Council adoption of Z-89-03 with a footnote requiring a 35' overall rear yard setback with a minimum 20' setback measured from the slope to the structure. The Community Development Director stated that it should be worded that the minimum setback would be 35', and 10-15' may be included in a slope over 5%. Vice Chairman Buchanan stated that he would prefer 10' and included this in his motion. Commissioner Hargrave seconded for discussion. The Community Development Director described it on the drawing board. Commissioner Munson asked about retaining walls being put up. The Community Development Director stated that they can put up retaining walls. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the minimum level setback would be from the structure itself moving back to the toe of any slope. The Community Development Director stated that it would be 25' with the motion as it is stated. Commissioner Munson stated that in looking at Lot 9 versus Lot 8, it shows there will be a 20' setback from the existing house on Lot 8. The Community Development Director stated that Lot 9 has the existing house on it, and there will be a 20' setback to the rear property line, and then a 10-12' slope in distance and a 20' setback. Commissioner Munson asked if they would allow the 20' setback on Lot 9. 0 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-2 The Community Development Director stated that this would not affect Lot 8, as they do not consider slopes in that aspect for front yards. He stated that Lots 3, 5, 6 and maybe 4 of the Churchwell map would be adversely affected to where they would have to redesign or change the pad areas, and on the Petta map, perhaps one lot would be adversely affected. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Lot 9 would have to come into conformity with these requirements. The Community Development Director stated that it would, because they are creating lot lines around it. Commissioner Hargrave discussed whether 20' or 25' level setback is the right number. Commissioner Munson felt 20' is a nice sized backyard. Commissioner Van Gelder felt 20' was small, and that it doesn't create a country atmosphere. The Community Development Director stated that the rear yard setback will affect main residential structures and additions to the main residential structures. He said that an accessory structure can go within 10' of the rear yard setback, and a patio cover can go within 5' of that area. Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt 25' was more appropriate to retain the rural atmosphere. Motion carries. 5-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. 8:35 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. - RECESS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TEMPORARILY ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:40 P.M. 10 ITEM #5 SA-90-23 WILDEN PUMP AND ENGINEERING COMPANY 22069 VAN BUREN G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF AN EMPLOYEE PICNIC AND RECREATION AREA The Assistant Planner presented the staff report. The Community Development Director clarified that the property is bound on the east by single family residences, however the proposal of the park is on the western portion of the parcel, so the industrial portions of the facility is between the proposed park and the residences to the east. He said there are some single family homes which abut to the south. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the western and southern portions are surrounded by a 6' high decorative block wall, to which the Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. GARY CORNELL PRESIDENT, WILDEN PUMP AND ENGINEERING 23623 NARCISSUS MORENO VALLEY LAURIE BUTLER RANDOLPH HLUBIK AND ASSOCIATES 3612 7TH STREET RIVERSIDE Commissioner Van Gelder asked how many employees they have and if they work around the clock. Mr. Cornell stated about 135, and they do work around the clock. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the narrative said this would be used primarily by employees, and asked who else they were talking about. Mr. Cornell stated it will be used exclusively by employees and their families. Commissioner Van Gelder stated she was very impressed. 11 Mr. Cornell stated that they wanted to give something back to their employees, and this park will be a monument from Jim Wilden to his employees. Commissioner Hargrave stated that Mr. Hlubik, the engineer, won numerous awards for his designs at the American Planning Conference. He asked if their were any plans for the lighting for basketball courts. Mr. Cornell stated that they intend to light it. Ms. Butler stated that they are working on the plans now. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that this is a great idea and a quality presentation and project. 8:55 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA G.T. Ms. Pfennighausen stated that she would like to echo what the Planning Commissioners have noted, and this community could have expected no less from a company like Wilden Pump. TONY PETTA 11875 ETON DRIVE G.T. Mr. Petta stated that this project will certainly enhance the beauty of the City, and Wilden Pump has continually upgraded. 8:58 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-91-3 SA-90-23 Chairman Hawkinson brought this item back to the Commission for action. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to approve SA-90-23. Vice -Chairman Buchanan second. 12 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-3 Motion carries. 5-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:00 P.M. ITEM #3 TTM-90-04; E-90-07 TONY PETTA NORTHWEST CORNER OF VICTORIA AND BARTON G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.17 ACRE, R1- 10 PARCEL INTO 11 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM; AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF TTM-90-04 The Community Development Director presented the staff report. He stated that code requires that each lot in the R1-10 District have a minimum street frontage of 40', and 2 lots are impacted by this, being Lots 10 and 11. He said that they propose to share a 20' wide paved access area to those lots. He said that this may work on paper, but when shared accesses are used, it comes down to people problems. He said that in order to solve the blockage of the fire access problem, the fire department requested a 5' shoulder area on each side of those lots. Commissioner Hargrave stated that several lots seem short on setbacks The Community Development Director stated that it appears that some of those would be able to absorb that extra 5' without much problem. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that with respect to Lot 6, it is pretty easy to identify a frontage, and it appears that the rear yard portion would be the portion facing Barton, and they are using a side yard setback for what is actually the back of the property. The Community Development Director stated that the Lot has 3 sides, and the rear yard setback can either back up to Barton Road or be adjacent to Lot 11. He said that he prefers the 20' setback out onto Barton Road. 13 Vice -Chairman Buchanan said that with respect to Victoria Street, the plan indicates the location of the existing paving, and he asked if the engineer's recommendation was to require that between the curve on Victoria and Preston Street, that the developer improve out Victoria all the way to Preston. The City Engineer said they are asking that Victoria Street be improved to 1/2 plus 10' with curb and gutter on the southerly side of Victoria and 28' of paving, and the paving there now is totally useless and would have to be removed. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if there was an existing right-of-way for the developer to operate in. The City Engineer said there are 60' of right-of-way. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that there is a substantial elevation difference, between Victoria Street and where the property is now. He asked if he was comfortable with the developer's ability to address that grade variation. The City Engineer stated that it could probably be raised a little and still not impact the properties on the north side of that particular street. He said that the grading shown appears to meet all the requirements of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if he compared this map with Churchwell's map and make some determination as to whether or not the proposed gradings are consistent. The City Engineer stated that he did, and they are compatible as far as the grading is concerned. He said there is a drainage problem if this subdivision is developed and the one to the north is not as there is a certain amount of drainage that is tributary from the lots within this tract going northerly. He said they would need temporary turn -around facilities outside this subdivision or within the subdivision. He said that if they go together, it would work, and if one goes individually, then they are requesting temporary turnarounds outside the subdivision for each being developed. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the Southern California Gas Co. had an objection to the plan as designed and asked if he was involved. The City Engineer stated that he had not been involved, but he does know they have facilities on the easterly end of Victoria, and he thinks their concern is that they will have to relocate. 14 Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if he concurred with the Community Development Director's assessment with respect to the access to Lots 10 and 11. The City Engineer didn't feel it would affect them at all, and they were looking at the emergency access more than anything else. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. DOUG SHACKELTON J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES 3880 LEMON STREET RIVERSIDE Mr. Shackelton said the gas line is a 2" gas line and relocating is very common, and the drainage is very easily taken care of. He said that the request of the applicant is to approve the map as submitted and not delete Lot 8 and showed a slide presentation showing the access alternative to Barton access. He said that the red area represents a design constraint, and presented different alternatives, stating that there is no way to avoid one panhandle lot. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if there was any possibility of some coordination of effort that might result in opening up the options by an adjustment to the northeast property line. The Community Development Director didn't see that an adjustment would solve the problem. Mr. Shackelton stated that they did a number of study layouts and spent a lot of time looking at a common driveway between Lots 9, 10 and 8 from above, and the result is they end up involving two owners to come together on two maps and the end result is the same. He said they shift the shared panhandle from Lots 10 and 11 up to Lots 9, 10 and 8, and he felt it was better to deal with this with a single owner. The Community Development Director stated that they would end up with two flag lots and they may want to consider a single, 40' shared access as a compromise. He said they could eliminate Lot 8 and play with the property lines somewhat. He expressed concern regarding the flag lot as it is, keeping Lot 8, stating that they are really impacting Lots 7 and 8. He said that putting this type of driveway with a 5' easement area that close to the buildable pad is creating something that can be done better. 15 Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the proposed street is the location the street has to be placed, stating that he realized the California aqueduct easement runs through there. Mr. Shackelton stated they don't have much flexibility. Chairman Hawkinson asked if this project was not approved, would Lot 8 from the adjacent parcel be landlocked. The Community Development Director stated it would not, because Arliss Drive could be continued in from the north. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that if their recommendation for the zone change is adopted by City Council, the map as it is tonight would need some modification. He expressed discomfort at looking at maps that are not what they are ultimately looking at. He said that if the applicant is not satisfied with their action on the zoning and appeals it, this would have a bearing on what this map ultimately looks like. Mr. Shackelton stated that his presumption is that the previous action would apply to this map, so he hopes they will take an action on this map noting that they will have to comply with the previous motion. Vice -Chairman Buchanan was concerned that to make this map comply, there is a lot of potential shifting of lot lines and adjusting of building pad sizes. He asked about the possibility of coming off of Lot B somewhere at or around the property line, and going east with a short side street cul-de-sac that would provide access for Lot 8 and an expanded Lot 10, which would mean the reduction of some lots. He asked what they would be talking about on an interior street in terms of the width. The City Engineer stated that the minimum they would accept would be 50', 36' curb separation with sidewalk adjacent to the curb. He said that total right-of-way width would be 50'. Mr. Shackelton stated that they are willing to look at some perimeters for redesign. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to see the reciprocal easement disappear, and see Lots 9, 10 and 11 be accessed by some private, interior street. ffZ TONY PETTA 11875 ETON DRIVE G.T. Mr. Petta stated that he intends to build his house on one lot and would like to see the best possible development. Mr. Petta stated that in his discussions with City staff, it was concluded that it was a workable situation in that they have a model directly across the street, an exit known as Victoria, which serves 3 houses. He said that the approach for Lots 10 and 11 would be safer than across the street because of the higher elevation. He said that staff and the fire department were satisfied at a meeting called by the Planning Director to iron out these problems so they wouldn't have to be confronted with what they are being confronted with right now. 10:00 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Mr. Chinnock asked if the approval of this tract was dependent upon the approval of the tract to the north. Chairman Hawkinson stated that they are two separate projects. Mr. Chinnock stated that he asked this as he sees only one access to this property if the tract to the north is not approved. Chairman Hawkinson stated that this tract would have to support its own traffic. Mr. Chinnock stated that City staff has written that the other tract is dependent upon the approval of this tract. Chairman Hawkinson stated that the comment was that the traffic flow would be improved if both projects went forward. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that part of the concern the Fire Warden has indicated is where there is a single point of access resulting in a cul-de-sac that exceeds 600' in length it requires special dispensation for it to be approved. The Community Development Director stated that the issue they are discussing is the length of the cul-de-sacs that would be created if either map 17 did not go forward. He stated that regarding Mr. Petta's map, the distance from Preston Street travelling along Victoria Street and then the proposed Arliss Drive would be approximately 860'; for the Churchwell map, it would be approximately 780' or 800' from Preston Street. He said that both maps would be over the 600' maximum for a cul-de-sac, which is a requirement that the fire department looks at, and if either map was not to go forward tonight, he would like to have the fire department comment on any additional requirements they would want to place on the property. Mr. Chinnock stated that if this map is dependent upon the approval of the other map, then there is a great issue of a traffic hazard with the traffic flowing north on Arliss Drive, and at the last public hearing, he expressed the concern of his neighbors and of himself of the increased traffic on Arliss Drive. He stated that if this was the case, he strongly objects, and urged that they do not approve this and ask the applicant to come back with a map that is the map they will use. DENNIS EVANS 22064 DEBERRY G.T. Mr. Evans reminded the Commission that they are panelled to deal with a planning matter, and what they are hearing now is economics. He suggested they look at this from a planning standpoint. He felt that there was no reason they could not decrease the number of lots if it improves access. BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA G.T. Ms. Pfennighausen stated that, regarding the properties that front onto Barton Road, she would like to commend the engineer that designed this, as a great deal of common sense was applied, but the City would have had to insist on that curve that no driveways ever open onto Barton Road. ELIZABETH KENNEDY 11831 PRESTON G.T. Ms. Kennedy stated that Lot 1 of Petta's tract will border her property 38.63 feet, and she was concerned with the pad elevation on all of his lots. She said that he is proposing an elevation change along the west border of 10' from the existing contour. She said that their map shows an incorrectly drawn property line along the south side of her property perpendicular to the west property line of Lot 1, as her south property line is actually at the bottom of the illustrated bank approximately 5-6' south of where it is drawn on the map, and she was very concerned about drainage from these banks of 10', as they will drain onto the lots that face Preston Street. She said that this drainage has a potential of undermining the existing bank along her south property line, and the integrity of the wall and the bank would be jeopardized by increased run-off. She was also concerned about the visual effect of 10' flood bank with 35' structures constructed on the top of them, as natural lighting for the homes along Victoria and the properties along Preston would be changed environmentally. She stated that she realized there were probably grading restrictions on top of the aqueduct. 10:20 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawkinson called up the representative from the Fire Warden's office. CAPTAIN ERNYLEE JONES 385 NORTH ARROWHEAD SAN BERNARDINO Captain Jones stated that she was at the meeting held at the Planning Department. She said that regarding the cul-de-sac issue, the County has accepted the Uniform Fire Code as a City Ordinance, and in the City Ordinance it says that there will not be cul-de-sacs beyond the length of 600', and the only exceptions would be for 1/2 to 1 acre lots. She said the main reason for cul-de-sac lengths is if there was a fire or hazardous materials spill, they feel the length of 600' is as far as they would feel comfortable as far as getting people out and getting to the scene. She complimented the designer, as this is a very difficult situation. She said nobody likes flag lots, but for people who wish to develop their property, it is something they try to work with. She said that both applicants and the designer were very easy to work with. She stated that the City ordinance states that 20' is the minimum for emergency fire access, but her concern is that if there was a neighborhood dispute and they had people parking along the driveway because it is joint access, they may have difficulty getting emergency equipment to those lots, so she asked Mr. Petta and his designer if they would give them an additional 5' shoulder on either side, which they were willing to do. She said that as far as the fire department is concerned, these two projects are dependent upon each other because of the cul-de-sac issue. Mr. Shackelton stated that regarding the question of economics and planning, he indicated that this is a planning issue, and his emphasis was on the planning aspects. He stated that Mr. Petta's emphasis was on economics and �� 19 rightly so. He said that a planner is taught consistency of area development, and they should focus in as to whether or not this is good planning. He circulated an aerial photo which he felt demonstrated good planning. He said that with regard to economics, one lot is a big deal. He said that adding a cul-de-sac to serve 5 or 6 lots is not the solution. He stated that the Subdivision Map Act does require that the Commission have concurrence of the developer for a continuance, and in this case, they would rather not have it continued. Mr. Munson asked if it was economically feasible to develop one project without the other, to which Mr. Shackelton responded in the affirmative. Chairman Hawkinson brought the item back to the commission for action. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for the Community Development Director's closing remarks. The Community Development Director stated that there are other alternatives that can be considered; what has been considered meets the legal requirements and is an acceptable alternative if they would like to see 20' paved accessway. He said that staff feels there is a way to obtain a solution which would be less impactive on the area, and he disagreed that this area is more R1-7.2 than R1-20. He said it was originally zoned R1-20, and staff pointed out that this is more like the area to the north than the more level area of R1-7.2. He felt the access to Lots 10 and 11 can be worked out, stating that at the meeting with the fire department and the applicants, they discussed what they can accept regarding access. He said the fire department indicated the minimum requirement of 20' and requested 5' shoulder accessway on each side of the driveway. He said staffs recommendation was that they have the 5' access and another 5' of landscaped area to provide a buffer, but unfortunately, that would mean a 40' drive access point and would basically eliminate that possibility because of the land that it would take from 7 and 8, as they wouldn't meet the 10,000 square foot minimum requirements. He stated that he doesn't feel strongly against it since it is legal, but he would recommend wider access. He said that regarding continuance, the applicant has waived the 50 day requirement for reports to the City Council, but if he would like a decision, they should consider that. Commissioner Van Gelder wanted to make sure Ms. Kennedy's concerns were addressed. She said the Department of Transportation stated in their letter that there is not a problem of impacting traffic in that area. She did not feel they should be satisfied with minimum requirements even if they have been met if there is the possibility that changes could be made that would improve the project. Pic Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that if the applicant wanted a decision based on what is before them tonight, he would vote in the negative. He felt that since the two projects are interrelated, perhaps they deserve a workshop session, and he would like to see an effort to solve the problems they have discussed in the past with regard to the Churchwell project, such as the Arliss situation and the access problems. MOTION PCM-91-4 TTM-90-04, E-90-07 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-4 Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to deny TTM-90-04. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Mr. Petta said he preferred that the decision on his project be delayed until Mr. Churchwell's project was considered. Chairman Hawkinson stated that it was too late as there was a motion on the floor. Commissioner Munson asked if they vote on these projects as independent, he doesn't see how he can vote to approve this project without a map showing the 25' setbacks or a cul-de-sac at 600'. Motion carries. 5-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. ITEM #4 TTM-89-07 RICHARD K. CHURCHWELL 23081 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 4.9+ ACRES IN THE R1-10 DISTRICT INTO 9 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. 21 DOUG SHACKELTON 3880 LEMON STREET RIVERSIDE Mr. Shackelton stated that they concur with staffs recommendation. 10:48 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING The Community Development Director stated that in light of the Planning Commission's earlier decision regarding the Petta map, staff would like to add two recommended conditions of approval to this map: The first would deal with the access by way of Arliss Drive, stating, "All conditions of approval, with regard to the improvement of Arliss Drive, shall be completed prior to the recordation of the final map. Completion bonds shall not be accepted in lieu of said completion of the Arliss Drive improvements"; The second stating, "There shall be completed emergency access to Preston Street to the south by way of Arliss Drive prior to final recordation of this map". He stated that this provides an answer to the 600' cul-de-sac problem and gives the City insurance that things will happen prior to recordation of the map. ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Mr. Chinnock stated that he would like to see the recommended map, as the map in the packet is the same they considered one year ago, and if there is a change in the map, he would like to see it. He said the map in the packet does not show an access to Arliss Drive. He said that the Community Development Director probably just answered a question which he had made in his staff recommendation of November 29 for this project, stating that this project as designed is still dependent upon TTM-90-04 due to the length of cul-de-sac. Chairman Hawkinson stated that it was stated that the right-of-way for Arliss Drive has to be accomplished before the maps are recorded. Mr. Chinnock stated that in the Community Development Director's recommendation, he states that the design of this map is dependent upon TTM-90-04 because of the length of the cul-de-sac. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that perhaps the answer to this concern is that staff has added another condition of approval which states that before this map can go forward, they have to establish that the curve off of Arliss connects up over to Preston at some other point. 22 Mr. Chinnock stated that good street planning, as it is now proposed to connect to Arliss Drive, is not there. He placed an overhead on the projector and discussed the traffic issue. He said that the developer is asking that a parkway of 12' be dedicated, which will empty directly onto his private property, and people will cross his private property. He said that in good street planning, they should follow the natural curvature of the curbs. He asked that this map not be approved with this kind of an access which eliminates his parkway and forever takes away the opportunity for a sidewalk in front of his property, takes a sidewalk to the edge of his property and stops, brings traffic to within 10 feet of his pool enclosure and brings vehicle traffic to the very property line of the parkway. He said that his land slopes in a gentle slope to the street, and if they cut back the entire parkway, there will be a three foot drop-off from his property to the street level, which will entail a great deal of expense for him as the land will erode away. He raised the issue of the drainage, as this property is lower than his property, and according the tract map, this pad will be higher than his property and will drain onto his property, which will continue to erode his private property. He pointed out that the 100' Eucalyptus tree, 48 inches in diameter, is one of the premiere Eucalyptus trees left in Grand Terrace and will have to be removed, and the tree he has planted to beautify the parkway will have to be removed. He presented pictures showing the curvature of the curb and urged that they do not approve this project tonight. ELIZABETH KENNEDY 11831 PRESTON G.T. Ms. Kennedy stated that the north border or the Churchwell development and the Martinez property line is now a brick wall, so they would have a brick wall extending all the way to the beginning of the Churchwell property, and the brick wall causes a very bad traffic hazard. She asked who would be responsible for improving Arliss Drive when the R1-20A property is developed. TERRY MARTINEZ 22950 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Ms. Martinez stated that they own the property at the northeast end of Arliss. She stated that she and her husband have been called stubborn and uncooperative by the developer and a member of staff. She said that when they purchased their home, the paved street in front of their home was pointed out as private property and they received a separate deed for it, and it was also stated by two realtors that when the property to the south was 23 developed (Churchwell's property) there was a possibility their street would be needed to provide access. She said that in October of 1989, the developer of this project showed them his tentative tract map with Arliss continuing through in front of their home. She said he asked that they consider dedicating their property for the good of this community, but they didn't give him an answer although they knew they wouldn't just give up their property. She said the developer then approached them in December of 1989, and again asked them to dedicate their property to the City. She said they spoke to him a short time later and told him no, they would not be willing to give away their property. She stated that the next contact they had was last February at the first public hearing, and they were extremely bothered that the developer never gave an input on whether their property was public or private. She said they stated they had alternative plans for access and that acquiring their property was not a necessity. She said she has not heard from the developer since then. Chairman Hawkinson asked if Arliss were to be run through straight, would they accept payment if the amount was appropriate. Ms. Martinez stated that if an honest effort was made, but it is an insult when the developer comes back and asks for it twice, and why should they lose for him to gain. BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA G.T. Ms. Pfennighausen stated that the liability for allowing an alignment as represented on the overhead, cars are going to come into a head-on situation. She said that the City would have a responsibility, if the developer did not straighten the road out, to condemn it and take the hazard away, and as a taxpayer in the City, she resents having to do what a developer should have to do in the first place, and that is to prepare a safe ingress and egress, and they cannot do it in the present configuration. AARON MARTINEZ 22950 ARLISS G.T. Mr. Martinez stated that, concerning the 2 maps together, she would like to know if drainage has been addressed. He said they have no problem right now with drainage, but 8 to 9 lots will be draining toward Arliss, and there are no improvements along the property line indicated on the map below the R1-20A lettering. 24 Commissioner Hargrave stated that the 1/2 street proposed will have curb and gutter, and if that does happen, the water will flow to the curb and gutter and down Arliss. Mr. Martinez stated that he noticed a few discrepancies in the map as presented. He said that they have been asked to provide ornamental lighting, which he has not seen as of yet. He didn't feel the way the street is drawn on Arliss is aesthetically pleasing. He stated that when the trash is picked up, the trash truck drives back into their lot, and will present a hazard backing out because of the size of his truck and the visibility behind him and traffic coming from the other direction. He said the 100 year flow plan has not been updated to allow for the extra lots that have been added. He asked that the project be denied as presented. ROMAYNE CHINNOCK 22935 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Mr. Chinnock expressed confusion about the knuckle, and whether there has been an easement secured on the private property or not. He stated that the real knuckle as it appears with the property lines makes a fairly sharp turn. He felt the drawing was somewhat misleading unless an easement has been secured. DICK CHURCHWELL 23081 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. Mr. Churchwell stated that he has lived here all his life and is therefore not a developer who will complete a project and leave. He said that the lot sizes were substantially larger than required. He said that he met with the Martinez' and they could not come to any agreement on that parcel, and they rejected the offers he made as they wanted substantially more which wasn't feasibly possible. He said that the alignment of the street was approved by City staff and recommended to the Commission, and as to the dedications on the knuckle, those property owners have both agreed to make dedications and he has agreed to improve and curb and gutter the street fully on their property, which is essentially what he offered the Martinez' in addition to an offer of some funds. TERRY MARTINEZ 22950 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. 25 Ms. Martinez stated that since they have already denied the setbacks, the lots will not meet that. She pointed out that regarding Mr. Churchwell acquiring the necessary easement on the knuckle, the lot next door is currently landlocked, and with the knuckle going through, they now have access to their lot. JOSEPH WELCH 22926 ARLISS DRIVE G.T. Mr. Welch stated that this project should not be passed as it is proposed. He said that for 18 years he has turned the comer on this street and it is marked "Not a Through Street", and tonight that sign is gone. 11:40 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 11:40 P.M. TO 11:50 P.M. - RECESS Chairman Hawkinson brought the meeting back to order and back to the commission for action. He stated that Mr. Petta asked if the commission would consider reversing the denial and continuing his item to resolve some of the issues with the property owners in the area. The Community Development Director stated that they closed the public hearing one and one-half hours ago, and there is a possibility that someone may have left knowing that the project was denied, and in order to open it back up they would have to open up the public hearing and have it advertised. Commissioner Hargrave stated that there are a lot of issues outstanding on these projects, and they haven't resolved Lot 8 as far as the depth of the driveway. He said that the setbacks need to be adjusted and the Arliss Drive situation may not be the best solution. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked the City Engineer to address the Arliss Drive situation and the possible liability standpoint. The City Engineer stated that their original recommendation was that in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance, they have to require a dedication of 1/2 plus 10' of a street to be developed along the frontage of the property. He said that he was not aware of the fact that there was no full right-of-way along the frontage of the most easterly parcel in that subdivision, but that is what they need if it is not there. He said that the only solution proposed as an alternative to what was required was the solution they see 26 MOTION PCM-91-5 TTM-89-07 right now, which has not yet been approved. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if Lot C came down into the tract and turned east instead of west, would they have any way to bring the access for this tract off of Grand Terrace as opposed to Arliss. The City Engineer stated that the sight distance from the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Barton Road is awfully short to the property line of that particular tract. Commissioner Van Gelder proposed that Churchwell and Petta form a joint venture and develop both parcels as one. Mr. Shackelton felt a continuance should be made. He said that they could legitimately, then, pass another motion that directs them to meet with the neighbors and further recommend that the Council return the Petta map to the Planning Commission after having met with the neighbors. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if the Community Development Director had a problem with the Planning Commission communicating to the City Council in conjunction with the denial on the Petta map a preference that these be considered at the Planning Commission stage together in light of a continuance of the Churchwell map. The Community Development Director stated that they can make a motion to continue Churchwell's project and recommend that City Council direct the Petta map back to the Planning Commission. He said that he would confer with the City Attorney to see if it needs to go to City Council at all or if they can just bring it back to the Commission. Commissioner Hargrave made a motion to deny TTM-89-07 due to concerns regarding safety, setbacks, 600' cul-de-sac and Arliss Drive. Commissioner Munson second. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that he would rather see this item continued than denied, as their is no evidence they would see this again. Chairman Hawkinson asked if they added the two conditions that the Community Development Director suggested earlier, if this would resolve this concern. 27 MOTION PCM-91-6 TTM-89-07 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-6 MOTION PCM-91-7 TTM-89-07 The Community Development Director stated that if they are denying it, they aren't putting any conditions on it. Commissioner Hargrave withdrew his motion. Commission Munson concurred. Chairman Hawkinson stated that he will vote against continuance. Commissioner Hargrave stated that his motion for denial stands. Commissioner Munson stated that they made no decision about Lot 8 or setbacks, and he withdrew his second. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SECOND. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue TTM-89-07 indefinitely for revision in accordance with setback requirements with further input and modifications and options for access off of Arliss or other alternative access into the development and with the desire that the applicant meet with the applicant to the south, Mr. Petta, and see if they can jointly produce some resolution to some of the issues discussed including access to Lot 8. He asked if they could assume that the comments from the applicant's representative constitutes a waiver of the 50 day requirement. He stated that the representative nodded in the affirmative. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Chairman Hawkinson stated that his position has not changed, as he still recommended denial on the basis of traffic safety and recommendations from the fire department. Motion carries. 3-2-1-0. Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Hargrave voted no. Commissioner Sims absent. 02 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-7 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion that staff communicate to City Council on behalf of the Planning Commission their desire that TTM-90-04 and E-90-07 be returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration in conjunction with TTM-89-07 with no additional fees incurred. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. Commissioner Munson stated that there were additional conditions on this map regarding Arliss Drive, and the courtesy should be allowed for Mr. Petta to go the other way. The Community Development Director stated that this would be staff s intent to make that recommendation on both maps when they are being considered. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:15 P.M TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, David R. Sawyer er awkuison Community Development Director Cha' man, Planning Commission 1-10-91 29