Loading...
10/03/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1988 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 October 3, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman, Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner David Sawyer, Community Development Director Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT: John Harper, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Hilkey PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Comments from Staff. Comments from Planning Commissioners. Project List presentation. General Plan Update. Workshop schedule - Planning Commissioner responsibilities. CCAPA Conference in Palm Springs (10-23 to 10-26). Revision of Fee Schedule. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Chairman Hargrave opened the Planning Commission Meeting. OPublic Participation - No comments. 1 Item #1 Minutes 7-19-88 MOTION PCM-88-75 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-75 The Planning Commissioner Minutes of July 18, 1988. Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve the July 18, 1988 Planning Commission minutes with noted change on page 11 (motion vote PCM-88-55). Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Motion carried, all ayes. Gelder and Sims absent. Item #2 Joan Johnson The Chocolate Forest Sign Permit 22400 Barton Road, Suite 7 G.T. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Van The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions from staff to revise applications to conform to the requirements under the Municipal Code. He referred to the earlier proposal in the staff report from the Planning Commission Meeting on June 24, 1988. The determination denied the applicant's sign permit and suggested revisions that would enable the signage to be approved. Chairman Hargrave opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:10 P.M. 1. Joan Johnson 22400 Barton Road Suite #7 G. T. Mrs. Johnson stated that she wanted to bring up the wording in the staff report. She felt that the.way it was worded sounded as if she defied the principle of the signs which was not her intent. She had reduced the E signs and spoke with the Community Development Director after she received the letter. She referred to sign A which was eliminated per the Community Development Director's request. Sign B, which read the Chocolate Forest, was reduced from 12' to 10' and sign C happened to arrive from the sign company 101x 18' meaning both signs were 101. She interpreted the code to mean that there was 42' frontage which is the area she is occupying and believes that it is within the city requirement. Her intention was not to change the wording because the signs were on order already and were not delivered until that day she met with the Community Development Director. She is occupying two suites within the center. Chairman Hargrave referred to the letter from the Planning Department dated June 24, 1988 which related to the dimensions of the signs. He asked her to clarify her statement that she could not effect the signage changes prior to them going up in September, from June 24 to September. Mrs. Johnson stated that was correct. She said her sign company had purchased the lettering working materials already for manufacturing the signs. When the determination was made it was showing that there was 32' of frontage, now there is 42' or 43' frontage. OVice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if she was operating two separate business entities. Mrs. Johnson replied that they were all the same. In order for her business to have some exposure from the street area she placed the Chocolate Forest main sign towards the street and on the side facing the parking lot the Gourmet Market sign was placed and explains what the Chocolate Forest is. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that sign B, the main Chocolate Forest sign, is currently installed in conformance with the dimensional requirements that Mr. Sawyer set forth in his June 24th letter. He asked if that was correct. Mrs. Johnson stated that was correct. The Community Development Director stated that the staff had not yet made an official measurement of the sign. Mrs. Johnson explained that it was reduced from 12' to 101, both signs were 10' long. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he understood the 3 applicant's comment that the signs had been ordered and that there was some problem in effecting certain changes. He stated that his concern was why the signs were ordered prior to obtaining approval on the sizes and dimensions from the Planning Department. He expressed his lack of understanding if there was some confusion at that point in time. Mrs. Johnson explained that she did not know what the rules and regulations were. She stated that some of the tenants of the complex do not have permits for signs and she contacted the Planning Department to find out what the requirements were. At which point the Associate Planner had provided her with the regulations. At that stage, for expediency she approached the sign company and gave them the requirements in reference to the store front and what the additions were in regards to the patio area. The sign company worked with the initial design layout in the manufacturing of the signs. Time had elapsed and she received the letter from the Community Development Director. She then took the letter of requirements back to the sign company. Commissioner Buchanan referred to her letter, dated September 12, 1988, indicated that she was in agreement with conditions #1 and #2 which had to do with the size of the signs. He stated that she requested the wording of the signs remain as she proposed. However, -it was about that time the over sized sign was installed. There seems to be some miscommunication between the parties according to Commissioner Buchanan. Mrs. Johnson responded yes and no. She stated according to the interpretation of the store frontage requirements the sign company proceeded with those. In the same token she assumed they did reduce the sign. She was unaware of that until the very day that she was in contact with the Planning Department in reference to the other issue. She had not removed the Gourmet Market sign at this stage, particularly because she wanted to take pictures so that a determination could be made. Chairman Hargrave asked the Community Development Director for other suggestions in resolving this matter. The Community Development Director referred to the Chocolate Forest Sign. If that has been reduced down to 10' that would meet with the requirements. The Code actually states that the allowed sign is for business identification only and that the frontage that the sign can go onto is a building side or parking lot drive area, Ostaff felt that they were working with the applicant 4 trying to make the Code as flexible as possible in coming up with the compromise that they did come up with. Staff allowed her to add onto the Chocolate Forest sign, the identification as a Gourmet Market, technically is not part of their name. However, he's made. that interpretation for many businesses in town that have come in so that the sign could become a little bit more effective. He continued to state that staff did not feel the second sign was a good idea in the first place. It would be in an area that was too hard to see because of landscaping in the area. The only people that would be really identifying that sign, who could not see the first sign, are people who are already under the walkway and then it would be difficult to see. Staff just felt that it really wasn't necessary and felt that in trying to work with the applicant they would allow it to go in there at a reduced scale because it did not need to be as large as the other one for visibility sake. He did not feel that there was a fallback position from the Planning Department. He feels the first sign can be approved as it is and the second sign should be removed because of illegal copy. Chairman Hargrave stated that it would seem to him that the number of items the Community Development Director spoke about from an advertisement standpoint, commercial sense, would be best to have the Gourmet Market out in front which truly describes what the store does and would be visible from Barton Road. The sign facing towards the east would be very difficult for anyone on the frontage of the property to see. The Community Development Director explained that the problem with the second sign was that it is totally against the copy requirements of the Code. It doesn't identify the name of the business. Thus the reason why the Planning Department worked with the applicant in the beginning and came up with the compromise and said to combine the two signs; one sign reading a Chocolate Forest/a Gourmet Market out in front. He explained that was as far as he could bend the sign code as it was written now. Chairman Hargrave reiterated that the sign facing the east, regardless of the size, should not be there according to the Code. The Community Development Director replied that was correct. 5 MOTION PCM-88-76 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-76 Chairman Hargrave clarified that the problems do not deal with the sizes but that the signs do not meet the Code. Commissioner Munson referred to the history of the signage program in Grand Terrace and the grandfathering in of certain signs. He stated that he felt for the applicant and the hardships but he believed the integrity of the Code should be withheld. Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve the Planning Department's recommendations to have the applicant revise her applications to conform to the sign requirements under the Municipal Code. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that businesses need proper advertisement. However, he did agree with Commissioner Munson that this City spent untold hours in the area of the sign ordinance and sought the input of the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, separate committees, and finally came up with the present sign ordinance. He stated that he believed the Towne and Country Professional Center was in conformity with each other and praised the appearance. Commissioner Buchanan stated he personally believed that there was nothing inherently wrong with identification or explanatory comments on a sign. He does agree with the other Commissioners that consistency in application of ordinances, particularly sign ordinances is very important. The City runs the risk of establishing a dangerous precedence in approving signs installed without prior approval simply because they look okay or are expensive signs. He regretted the hardship to the applicant but unfortunately it was a hardship brought upon the applicant's self either through failure to understand the requirements of the City or ignoring the requirements. Motion carried, all ayes. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Van Gelder and Sims absent. Chairman Hargrave asked if the applicant chose to use the C. Chocolate Forest as a small sign on the side of her building. The Community Development Director explained that the wall sign requirement is one per face. The applicant would not be allowed to do that. Perhaps a smaller sign that would also say the Chocolate Forest might be allowed on the rear portion of the building but again it would only be with the copy that was mentioned. Item #3 CUP-88-8 Joan Johnson The Chocolate Forest 22400 Barton Road, #7 Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 The Associate Planner presented the staff report and history of this project. if On June 6, 1988, the applicant came before this Commission and received approval (CUP-88-8) to operate a restaurant and specialty food shop in an AP Zone. Approval was also granted to build an addition to the existing structure for purposes of seating (SA-88-7). In August, 1988, Building and Safety staff brought to our attention that the facade for the addition had been changed. In addition, an outdoor seating area had been added. He wanted confirmation that the applicant received approval for these changes. Planning Staff had no knowledge of these changes. In reviewing the changes Staff felt that they were substantial. Therefore, we have required the applicant to apply for a revision to her Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review applications." Staff also circulated photographs of the project as it existed and new documentation of an additional change which had taken place earlier that day. Chairman Hargrave opened discussion from the Planning Commissioners to staff. Commissioner Buchanan referred to condition #4, "...access to the rear patio be from the inside by sliding glass door only." He asked why a sliding glass door was recommended as opposed to the existing swinging door. 7 The Community Development Director explained that there are two doors which go into that area. One of them is a sliding glass door which goes directly to the seating area, which right now is blocked by a table. Next door to that is a normal door which also goes out into that direction, it goes not into the seating area but next to it. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that condition #4 does not add any structural modifications to the exterior of the building but merely requires that they remove some existing seating inside to provide the access. The Community Development Director replied that was correct as well as the continuance of the wall to the building. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the recommendation that the rear wall completely surround the project. He asked if that was done would the only access to the suite be through the front door. The Community Development Director replied no, not as staff had envisioned the wall. It would just be carried to the wall and that would allow them an access point from inside the restaurant to the patio area and also an access point to the rear of the property not having to go through the patio area. Commissioner Buchanan asked if staff wanted the wall extended back towards the building. He clarified meaning the wall that comes back, not the one across the back, towards the building. The Community Development Director replied that was correct. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the quality of the block wall. He asked if the block wall was constructed as part of the expansion project. The Associate Planner replied that it was. The Community Development Director explained that it was constructed at that time but it was not included in the plans. Commissioner Buchanan asked about the interior quality of the construction. The Community Development Director explained that a portion of it is a retaining wall. The Building Inspector has inspected it but staff had not been informed if it was up to code or not. 8 Commissioner Buchanan replied that the exterior appearance from the rear was poor and the grouting was sloppy. Commissioner Munson asked why the letter from the Project Research Corporation International, dealing with the parking lot being resurfaced, was submitted in the packet. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant had requested it be part of the packet. He suggested asking the applicant. He stated that the issue of parking came up during the Conditional Use Permit where staff recommended that the parking spaces be identified for this use. The Planning Commission did not approve that recommendation. Commissioner Munson asked if he understood correctly that the applicant had applied for additional signage. The Community Development Director replied in the negative. The owner of the center had a representative come in with a sign program for the entire center to develop a guideline program. O Commissioner Munson asked for clarification of the letter from Project Research Corporation Internation, Dr. Choi. The last sentence in statement 1, "...waiting for the Bank to o.k. ?" The Community Development Director stated the word should be budget. The owner had indicated that he had upgrading plans for the center. To date, no plans have been formally submitted to the Planning Department. In speaking to the owner, the Community Development Director has indicated in the past that the parking lot needs to be redone. If the parking lot is going to be redone it must be according to Code and a parking plan is needed. However, that was not a part of this recommendation. Commissioner Hilkey referred to the existing air conditioning units on the surrounding buildings which are not enclosed. The Community Development Director explained that they were not enclosed. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they were expected to be enclosed. The Community Development Director explained that in the 9 original plans they had indicated they would do that. Staff had presented that as a condition to the Planning Commission in the earlier project. Commissioner Hilkey asked who placed the benches in front of the Chocolate Forest. The Community Development Director explained the applicant indicated that was done by the owner of the center. Commissioner Hilkey referred to item #4, the extension of the wall. He stated that since the first pictures were taken the applicant had added rod iron. He asked if that satisfied the requirements of the extending wall. The Community Development Director explained that staff earlier in the afternoon had been out on the site and did not see rod iron attachments. Evidentally it had just gone up and he did not know to what extent the rod iron was up there so he did not want to qualify a recommendation on that. His primary concern would be how the rod iron would effect the fire access. Commissioner Hilkey referred to item #5, barriers separating the front of the building. He asked if that was part of the things staff wanted removed. The Community Development Director replied those were the physical barriers staff would like to see removed. There are approximately 10 benches throughout that entire center. There are 4 clustered in the direct vicinity of the Chocolate Forest, 3 are within a sectioned off area which only allows access into the Chocolate Forest. Staff felt that this constituted a seating area. If it is to be consistent with the rest of the center those barriers should be removed and the number of benches be reduced to the number of benches that are in front of similar suites on the eastside of the property; one bench. Commissioner Hilkey asked if a permit was required for the construction of a wall. The Community Development Director responded to the affirmative. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the applicant obtained one. The Community Development Director responded that they did not obtain one through the normal processing. However, whether or not the Building Inspector during a 10 field inspection included it in the overall building plans the Community Development Director was not aware of it. Commissioner Hilkey asked if it has been inspected or not. The Community Development Director explained that the Building Inspector was out there working with the applicant on that. He felt that it was inspected but the Inspector has not commented on the wall. The Community Development Director discussed the background on the patio area. When the applicant made the addition they had to put up a retaining wall and that wall was to be per code. That changed the drainage factor so they had to make some improvements. The Building Inspector worked with the applicant in field representation and was satisfied with the drainage areas. Due to that the Community Development Director feels the wall was to Code as far as the retaining portion of it. Then that since the improvements had to be made the applicant decided to make a patio out of it. This was without the Planning Department approval. Commissioner Hilkey referred was a sliding door and the asked if that met with approval. to the two rear doors; one other a swinging door. He the Planning Department's The Community Development Director explained that currently the patio area comes back and is perpendicular to the structure between those two doors. The sliding glass door is within the patio door, and the single door is not within the patio area. Staff's contention was that if the wall is brought back to the wall completely then that would go a long way to section off the patio area. At least this would be a step towards control of pedestrian traffic and trash would be a little less likely to blow around. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the choice of the doors was acceptable. The Community Development Director explained that they were. He could not answer why there was a sliding glass door there with a table in front of it. That would be the issue for the applicant which they have to recognize if the Planning Commission goes with that recommendation then they would have to rework the indoor seating arrangement because the door has to be free to access. 11 Commissioner Hilkey referred to item #9, "...a trash enclosure area should be improved by providing a door comprised of materials to be approved by the Planning Department." He asked if this meant access to the dumpster. The Community Development responded to the affirmative. Commissioner Buchanan referred to an earlier comment that if rear patio seating was allowed it would increase the parking requirements to 15 spaces. However, he did not see anything in the recommendations that addresses that. He asked if there was sufficient parking available to accomodate that without any further requirement. The Community Development Director responded that he felt the parking would be adequate. The parking however is not up to Code for the center. The center was approved pre 1982 and Chez Ole came in 1983. In 1982 the Parking Code went into effect. The parking availability in the center is less than what our Code currently provides for. They have 125 spaces and our Code would require 157 spaces. Due to that staff has completed a survey on the usage of that parking area and they are about 80% full throughout the day except in the morning. The center is full with 20% vacant suites. If the center was to be improved to the current code requirement it would be 50% full. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the addition of the front seating area crossed the parking borderline. The Community Development Director responded that staff felt that the front seating idea was not a good idea for a couple of reasons. One of the reasons was the parking. Commissioner Buchanan asked about the selling of alcoholic beverages in an enclosed or segregated area. Discussion on the ABC regulations. The Community Development Director stated the Commission could ask the applicant about her liquor license restrictions. He assumed that they may be restricted to consumption within the building. PUBLIC HEARING Mrs. Johnson referred to the seating issue. She stated that it was the owner's intention to have seating provided for all tenants. This was all agreed upon and conversed with her prior to her leasing suite #.7. At 12 that point the parking issue was discussed and the owner of the center assured her that the parking areas would be available and designated for the suite. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant for clarification of condition #1, "...all seating associated with this use shall be provided within suite #7 or in the rear patio area only." He stated that he did not understand her comment on this condition. Mrs. Johnson referred to SA-88-7 condition #1, "... either within or..." and she questioned the terminology. She interpreted this to mean that if she had the outdoor she could not have indoor and that meant either or. The Community Development Director explained that was intended to read and/or. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #2, the back door requirement, from the Fire Warden's Office. She stated that the sliding door was not intended to be used as an exit. The other door was to be used for a fire/emergency exit on the initial plan. Due to energy conservation measures she chose to use an open doorway or window. She stated that would provide cross ventilation. This along with the overhead fans would reduce energy costs. Mrs. Johnson referred to the conditions from the City Engineer's Office. She stated that she did follow each and every step that was presented to her. She expressed her confusion with the chain of command. She stated that her previous experiences in other cities dealt with inspectors who either allowed or disallowed her to proceed with her plans. She stated that she did not understand the City of Grand Terrace procedures. She questioned whether the contract between the City and the Engineering Office was on an agent base or if he was a representative. She stated that from her previous experiences with other cities if she disagreed with an inspector she could go above him. She assumed that in this particular case it would be the Planning Department. Therefore, she was not familiar with this type of procedure. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant what issues she was alluding to. Mrs. Johnson stated that the building inspector did approve her plans on everything and she followed his direction. Chairman Hargrave referred to her original renderings 13 VS. what was presently submitted and currently constructed that there was a vast amount of difference between the two. Mrs. Johnson replied that those conditions came about during construction. Chairman Hargrave asked her if she thought that was okay because it came up during construction to make changes based upon what she thought were good changes. Mrs. Johnson replied yes as long as the architect and the inspector approved. Chairman Hargrave asked her if she thought as long- as the inspector approved that then the Planning Commission approved it also. Mrs. Johnson replied most definitely. She asked if the inspector was a representative or an agent. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if she knew what a Conditional Use Permit meant. Mrs. Johnson replied that meant one was permitted to build under the requirements of the City under the conditions that were submitted. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if it was good business sense that when an applicant had serious changes wouldn't it seem logical for the applicant to go back to the agency who gave the Conditional Use Permit for approval. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if the inspector ever indicated to her that whatever he said was okay meant the same for the Planning Department as well. Mrs. Johnson stated no. Chairman Hargrave clarified then that the applicant was going on the presumption that represented the Planning Department as well. Mrs. Johnson replied yes. Chairman Hargrave directed the applicant to continue on with her responses to the conditions. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #4, "...access to the rear patio from inside suite #7." She referred to the pictures of the wall unit, which was erected the day 14 before. There is a locked gate and she left it open purposely for exit in case of fire. To the left, west of the disposal area, there is also another locked gate area. Moving into the main patio there is a door to get in there which is completely enclosed as an entry for the interior of the building to the exterior portion. Due to the drainage problems they had to extend the wall back by the sidewalk area. One-half of the wall on the eastside was an existing wall and continued it around. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if the person who did the wall extension was a licensed contractor. Mrs. Johnson replied that the individual worked for the apartment complex to the rear (Terrace Pines Apartments Project). She agreed that the craftsmanship was not appropriate but the wall could be painted. The applicant explained that the rod iron on top of it has improved the wall. Referring back to the condition of the access to the rear, the sliding glass door was not intended as an access door to the patio but rather air circulation. Therefore, the reason for placing one of the tables in front of it to eliminate any pedestrian traffic. She mentioned that there was a waterfall and trough inside the building. If she were to use the sliding glass door as an access she would have to adjust her whole rear interior. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #5, "...area directly in front of Suite 7 shall be cleared of all barriers that separate it in any way from the remainder of the Center." In reference to the surrounding 2 by 6's that she added to the existing ones, there were many reasons for doing this. It would prevent unnecessary trash and debris from being deposited on her area from surrounding businesses. She referred to suite #5 (HUD Housing) and the problems that exist which have caused concerns for the remaining tenants. Her intention was to leave a trash container and eliminate some of the traffic of that nature in front of her suite. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #6, "All benches, except one, clustered around Suite 7 shall be removed. No additional tables or benches shall be permitted in this area." Her intention of placing benches was to accomodate any heavy foot traffic, from suite #6. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #7, " A decorative trash enclosure shall be provided in the rear patio seating area to be approved by the Planning Department." She asked for clarification of the condition and an example. She stated that she has a covered trash 15 container presently on the site but she was uncertain as to the meaning of a decorative trash container. Chairman Hargrave stated that matter would be clarified. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #8, "All tables and/or benches to be placed in the rear patio seating area shall be approved by the Planning Department." The applicant explained that the benches there now are not even bolted and can be changed. She stated that she had explained this to the Planning Staff on their inspection of the site. She did not understand what type of seating could be placed in there. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #9, "The* trash enclosure area shall be improved by providing a door comprised of materials to be approved by the Planning Department." Chairman Hargrave stated that staff will work with the applicant on clarification of condition #9. Mrs. Johnson continued to state that the trash container presently in the rear does have a lid. She asked for clarification of the requirement in having a complete enclosure in the back. She referred to the City Hall trash enclosure with a rod iron gate and having no lid on the trash container. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #10, "A seating plan for the interior of the Suite shall be provided to the Forestry and Fire Warden Department for approval prior to occupancy that shows how the access from the interior to the patio will be handled." The applicant stated the seating plan could be rearranged. Mrs. Johnson referred to condition #11, "All air conditioning and heating systems located on the roof or their ducts, shall be screened from view by materials and plans to be approved by the Planning Department." She explained that the existing air conditioning structure was inspected and needed better reenforcement. She believed that the building inspector did want an enclosure. She was not questioning that but she did not know why or how it came down to the specified condition. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if there were any other requirements that the Planning Department had outlined for approval of the Conditional Use Permit that she could not or would not do. Mrs. Johnson replied that she did not believe the 16 extension of the brick wall was necessary in the back. She would like some consideration on condition #4, "Access to the rear patio shall be from inside Suite 7 by the sliding glass door only. The brick wall partially surrounding the patio shall be extended so that it completely surrounds the patio and eliminates access from outside the restaurant." Also some consideration on condition #5, "The area directly in front of Suite 7 shall be cleared of all barriers that separate it in any way from the remainder of the Center." If the Planning Department was totally negating the table and chair effect she suggested the bench seating out in front could be replaced with table and chair. She felt the owner of the property would need to make the decision on the bench effect. Chairman Hargrave asked for clarification of the applicant's intention in reference to condition #5. Mrs. Johnson stated that the barriers were needed for the health and safety of her area as well as the other tenants. Chairman Hargrave asked about the seating arrangement. Mrs. Johnson stated that she disagreed with the Planning Department's recommendation. She would prefer tables and chairs to be put in that area. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if she understood the Planning Department's concern with having benches, tables or even chairs out in front. Mrs. Johnson stated yes but she needed to control the area and it would enable her to pick up the rubbish from her patrons. She would effectively do this with the enclosure by the 2 X 6's all the way around. Chairman Hargrave asked for her comments on conditions #7 through #11. Mrs. Johnson stated that she did have a trash container out there. It met most standards in regards to enclosure. The applicant felt the tables and benches in the rear should be left up to her discretion. She stated that she would like consideration, if she were allowed to put benches, to put the same type of benches to match the interior. She would consider removing the bench that exists in front and replace it with a table and chair in the front. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if she were in 17 agreement with conditions #9, 10 and 11. Mrs. Johnson stated that she was in agreement with condition #10, the Fire Warden's requirement. She personally felt that the door should be the exit into the patio area. She suggested that the rod iron fencing could be locked if need be. She did not agree with using the sliding glass door as an entry and exit into that area. She question if the Fire Warden would allow that. Mrs. Johnson stated that she agreed with condition #11. Chairman Hargrave asked if she had any further comments. Mrs. Johnson responded that she is just a small business trying to get started and would like to resolve the issues. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Chairman Hargrave asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hilkey expressed his concerns with the project. He stated that the intent had not been clearly indicated where the public would eat, and access and exit into the establishment. Mrs. Johnson explained that there are two front entries; one is designated as an entrance and the other as an exit. The store front has two doors in the front of the building. There are french doors leading into the patio area and an exit out of the kitchen area that is not accessible to the public. There is an exit door required for that patio addition leading into the rear where there was a drainage problem and thus the reason for the enclosure. The main entry is in the front of the building. Commissioner Hilkey asked the applicant how she would classify the rear entry. Mrs. Johnson explained that it would be mainly an emergency exit or entry into the patio area. Commissioner Hilkey clarified that it would be used also as an entry into the patio area. Mrs. Johnson asked Commissioner Hilkey if he was referring to entry into the patio area from the rear. 18 She stated that was not her intent. Commissioner Hilkey asked the applicant if people can't get out the back door into the patio area. Mrs. Johnson responded that they could. Commissioner Hilkey asked the applicant if the public can get from the patio area inside the store. Mrs. Johnson responded that they could. Commissioner Hilkey asked the applicant if the alley pedestrian traffic could get into the patio area. Mrs. Johnson responded that they could not if the gate was kept locked. There is a one way exit door there and swings out. Commissioner Hilkey asked the applicant if there were any plans that the rear entry would be used for emergency exits only out to the gate. He asked the applicant if there was any way the Planning Commission could be reassured that the gate would be used for emergency exit. Mrs. Johnson responded that she could place some sort of lock on it. She explained that there is a lock on it now. She stated that there are two gates in the rear. Commissioner Hilkey asked the applicant if the gates were the simple garden variety. Mrs. Johnson explained that the eastend of the wall is 31211 with an 18" rod iron. It would be difficult for someone to jump over. On the northend the wall is 217" plus 26" rod iron and a 45" rod iron gate by the steps. The west area of the inner wall is 213". However, the main point is that it is 45" by the gate area to where the steps begin. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was anything there that would prevent the public from coming in and out of the gate. Mrs. Johnson explained that there is a locking device on the back gate. She stated that it would remain locked. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the Fire Warden's Office would allow it to be locked. Mrs. Johnson stated that she believed they would but did not know. 19 Commissioner Hilkey stated that the intent was not clear. He pointed out that if it was a fire exit then it,cannot be locked. If it is a customer exit then it completely violates the plan of the use of the patio. He informed the applicant that she still had not clarified the intent of the use of the patio. Commissioner Hilkey expressed his concern with the submittal of one set of plans for Building A and then the applicant builds Building B. He stated that defeats the purpose of the Planning Commission. He referred to an earlier comment by the applicant that the rear patio was not intended for customers and it was made as an accomodation for the drainoff, however there are benches already installed. Mrs. Johnson pointed out that the benches were not installed and she had explained that to the Community Development Director when he was there a month ago. She stated that the bench and table were comprised of leftover wood she had. She stated that it was the intent of the owner to have all of the tenants park in the rear which would eliminate a free access into that back area to begin with by the residents of the complex. She said she did not see any problem with them walking around to the front entrance with the assumption that the back gate is permitted to be locked by the Fire Warden's Office. She explained that the pitch from the sidewalk to the building's door requires a stairway which would need rails. It would have the illusion of an entrance or exit. It was required she could not ramp it due to the steep pitch. Commissioner Hilkey stated that there appears to be missing data from the City Engineer and the Fire Warden regarding the seating arrangement. The Community Development Director explained that the Building Inspector had indicated that he had inspected what was out there and it is physically sound. The problem is that there were not any plans to go around with that inspection. His impression from the Building Inspector was that the work being done is being inspected by him and he is insuring that it be done according to Code. The problem arose when the inspector (as he indicated to the Community Development Director).stated several times to the applicant that all of the changes had to be approved by the Planning Department and that was not done. The hitch came about in the building inspection. The Building Inspector indicated that it has been inspected and it is safe from a field inspection aspect but the permit process had broken down. With 20 respect to the Fire Warden's Office, they had approved the original layout and any changes would have to be resubmitted and approved by the Fire Warden's Office before the issuance of an occupancy permit. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the Fire Warden's requirements were covered in the eleven (11) conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. The Community Development Director explained that the Fire Warden's issuance of their approval would be standard procedure. The Health Department would come out and make inspections on the kitchen facilities. The Building Inspector will look to the Planning Department to say that the changes are okay now and then he will check those changes to insure that they are safe before he issues a final occupancy permit. They are not called out in the 11 conditions but it is a matter of standard practice. Commissioner Buchanan asked the applicant for information regarding the liquor license for the sale of the beer. Mrs. Johnson explained that she understood the license would dictate that it has to be within the property premises. It does not state indoor or outdoor. Commissioner Buchanan asked the applicant if she had a permit for takeout. Mrs. Johnson stated that she did. The Community Development Director stated he was not too familiar with the ABC issuance regulations of a license. However, if there were plans submitted to them for their approval there was no outdoor seating indicated in the original plans. He suggested that staff would need to double check that issue. Mrs. Johnson stated that she does have a letter from ABC and would be glad to submit it for the file. The changes from the original plans which do not show the area in the back were submitted. The Community Development Director asked the applicant if she did have the changes planned out for the ABC. Mrs. Johnson explained that she did so this past week. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that there is some seating in the back patio area. There is an emergency exit from the rear of the building into two locked rod 21 iron gates. Mrs. Johnson explained that one was located in the rear and through the exit area between the rubbish area and building premises. Commissioner Buchanan explained that the emphasis in his question was "locked". Mrs. Johnson stated that both gates are capable of being locked. If the concern is with the sidewalk area by the stairs, that gate is to remain locked with fire approval she thought. The inner gate between the rubbish and the building might be approved for exiting, in the event of fire. Commissioner Buchanan mentioned at this point neither gate had been designed for panic hardware. Mrs. Johnson stated that was not required on a rod iron gate. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that if it had been designated a fire exit then it would be required. Mrs. Johnson stated that on an interior door it would be but not on an exterior. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he was not a Fire Inspector but doubted if the Fire Warden's Office would require an emergency exit to remove people from a building and then have those same people trapped in a confined area under the roof. Mrs. Johnson stated that was the reason for her installing two gates. One can be left open, preferably the one between the rubbish area and the building. Commissioner Buchanan asked the applicant if she had inquired what the Fire Warden's response was as to the status of the fire requirement. Mrs. Johnson replied no. However, if what was being suggested was to place a cement block wall extension that would eliminate all exiting without jumping over. In this manner there is the flexibility of exiting at least one of the two door areas. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the extension of the block wall would simply require that someone on the patio to exit the facility would have to make a u-turn through the sliding glass door and out through the emergency 22 exit. Mrs. Johnson stated that they are right next to each other. Commissioner Buchanan explained that he understood the intent of the block wall to join the small wall area between the sliding glass door and the emergency exit. Mrs. Johnson replied that by placing a solid wall it would affect the entire drainage circulation and thus the reason for her redesigning the rear area. She stated that the wall cannot be extended to the remaining part of the building because the water flow would enter the building. Mrs. Johnson continued to explain that the pitch off the backend of the patio area is designed to go off the premises all the way to the west of the building. A whole trough area was placed in there to take all of the water off the back and carry it out onto the street. Chairman Hargrave interjected that it could be determined that the applicant and Commissioner Buchanan disagreed on this issue. Commissioner Buchanan asked for the Community Development Director's input on the issue of the drainage since this was the first time the Planning Commission had heard about it. The Community Development Director explained he was not certain how the drainage issue was worked out with the Building Inspector. He suggested that a wall could be built, perhaps with enough space to handle the drainage and flowthrough. On another point the rod iron and gate was not considered by the Planning Commission prior to this evening. He did not feel it was a very attractive feature with the add on appearance it has now. He stated if the entire unit was built as one unit and combined with a gate instead of a wall extension that might be satisfactory. He referred to Commissioner Buchanan's previous statement regarding the need to have the Fire Warden's approval of a locked gated area enclosing a fire exit door. The Planning Department would have to consider that it comes back perpendicular and that fire exit door would be free access into the parking area. Mrs. Johnson stated that if there was a wall as suggested by the Planning Department then the people in the seating area would have to make a u-turn back into the building before they could exit. 23 Commissioner Buchanan referred to the front of the building. He understood from the applicant that the intent of the 2x6 barricades was to discourage the undesireable elements from spilling over into her business area. Mrs. Johnson explained that it was also intended to control her business patrons and the debris left behind. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that the present intent of the front area was to use it for customer seating. Mrs. Johnson explained that it would be used for similar purposes as the other tenants in the complex. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that her customers have food and drink. The Community Development Director pointed out the rear portion of the building, the rear seating area and the garbage area on the renderings. He pointed out the block walls and the gates. He stated that staff was recommending that the sliding glass door have the table in front of it removed so that there is access from the sliding glass door portion of the entryway in and out of the rear seating area and that this be sectioned off. It should be sectioned off with a wall, as long as the drainage can be addressed. If the rod iron is to be a part of the issue the rod iron and gate can come up a little higher. He clarified that the applicant had proposed that the rod iron come through and have two gates at the designated areas. He felt that the Fire Warden's Office would have problems having the access brought from the public out of the building and have no further access from that point. It would require further access. He indicated that staff would submit that proposal to the Fire Warden's Office and let them make the determination. Mrs. Johnson replied that if the public comes out the back door they can turn left where the little gate is located. If the Fire Warden's Office requires that gate left open that would not be a problem. Her contention is also that on the side where staff wants the wall, if a fire occurs, the public in the patio area would have to make a u-turn and go through the backend or jump over a 5' fence. The Community Development Director explained that a gate located there would be an alternative to the wall, 24 particularly if the wall Is height was an issue. He stressed that the problem this evening was having to plan on the spot. In addition to the plans coming in at the last minute and last minute changes are having to be dealt with. Commissioner Munson asked the Community Development Director to point out on the plans the direction of the water flow now and before the walls were built. The Community Development Director explained that he was not in on the initial design of that. His impressions are that the drainage still comes through and any drainage that would come off the roof into the rear seating area would go through and pass down through the garbage area. Commissioner Munson asked the Community Development Director if the building was below the street level. The Community Development Director replied yes. He explained that the rear street and the parking area are higher than the floor of the building. The rear seating area is even lower. Mrs. Johnson explained that the drainage was at the lowest point of the property. In order to prevent what was an existing flooding problem in that facility the changes had to be made for the drainage. The pitch does come from the left and goes behind the garbage area out into the westend of the property. Commissioner Munson stated the original plans indicate guttering in handling the drainage problem. He stated that the building addition does not have any guttering. He assumed that the block wall was designed to prevent the runoff from entering her business. He expressed his disfavor with the rod iron effect. He referred to the Chez Ole area being used for storage. Mrs. Johnson explained that the Chez Ole has approximately 5,000 sq. ft. exterior. She stated that her project does not compare with the square footage of Chez Ole. Her area is a small enclosure and it must be maintained. Commissioner Munson pointed out that the rear seating area was not shown on the original drawing. He assumed that this was an addition and the applicant would try to utilize it. He asked the applicant if she could successfully operate her business without the rear seating area. 25 MOTION PCM-88-77 Mrs. Johnson replied that she believed she could. The applicant referred to the drainage pipe which was already in existence before the conception of her project. Mrs. Johnson referred to the enclosed area and its effect on the drainage. The retaining wall was a garden wall as was the whole far end from the north to the southend of the property. It was dug up, reinforced, and sealed to insure the property stability and drainage. Chairman Hargrave stated he was ready to make a motion. He mentioned that he did not feel it was the Planning Commission's position to redesign the whole building. The applicant was aware that she submitted one set of drawings and now is back with a completely different set of drawings. He stressed that the procedural system in Grand Terrace does not work that way. He did recognize that the applicant is trying to put her business into operation. In due respect with that rather than rejecting both the Conditional Use Permit changes that are being proposed this evening and even further going onto the Site and Architectural Review which would not be appropriate at this time due to the confusion with the Conditional Use Permit. He indicated that there is definite disagreement on the issues and they need to be resolved. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to continue CUP-88-8 to the next Planning Commission Meeting, October 17, 1988. Commissioner Munson second. He requested that both the applicant and the Community Development Director come to some agreement. Based upon that the Planning Commission would so rule for or against the project. He stressed with the applicant that she be aware that she had gone out of the system for whatever reason. The Community Development Director asked for clarification in which direction this would go. Chairman Hargrave stated that he was ready to approve all of staffs recommendations except for one. He stated that there are two disagreements presented this evening. He directed the applicant to spend more time resolving the project's issues with the Community Development Director and then return to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Munson expressed his concern with the 26 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-77 barricades in the front area. He stated that he did not feel it was the applicant's right to change the existing complex for her benefit. He requested more discussion on the instructions from the Building Inspector on the project and also on the drainage issue. The Community Development Director replied that the City Engineer's Office could present their report to the Planning Commission. Motion carried, all ayes. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Van Gelder and Sims absent. Chairman Hargrave asked the Community Development Director if staff could be prepared by the next meeting. The Community Development Director stated that he did not see a problem. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant if she understood what was being done this evening. He asked the applicant if two weeks would cause an undue hardship. She stated that she understood the Planning Commission process. Chairman Hargrave directed the applicant to follow the directions from the Community Development Director regarding whether or not a change would be okay or not. The Community Development Director stated that the same motion should be directed for the Site and Architectural Review Board. PLANNING COMMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:50 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-78 27 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-78 Chairman Hargrave made the motion to continue SA-88-7 to the next Planning Commission Meeting, October 17, 1988. Commissioner Hawkinson second. Motion carried, all ayes. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Van Gelder and Sims absent. Chairman Hargrave asked if there was any other business. There was none. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer Community Developm nt Director 28 Approved by, ALa Stanley Har rave, Chairman Planning Commission