Loading...
10/17/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 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 17, 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 Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Department Secretary Absent: Ray Munson, Commissioner (left early) John Harper, City Attorney Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Van Gelder PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. * Information/from staff to Commissioners * Information/from Commissioners to staff. * Discussion on the minutes. * Discussion on the Chocolate Forest and conditions of approval for the project. Discussion on Planning Commission's enforcement powers for violation of those conditions. * The Community Development Director presented the history and development of the Chocolate Forest Project to date and Planning Department and City Engineer's staff procedures. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. ITEMS: Public Participation - There were no comments from the general public. 1. Minutes - Discussion on the Planning Commission Minutes of August 15, 1988. MOTION PCM-88-79 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to approve the August 15, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes. Commissioner Munson second. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-79 Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. 2. Z-88-1 Amendment to Chapter 18 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code/ Creating a Hillside Overlay Zone Eastern portion of the City Commissioner Hilkey requested to be excused from the hearing dealing with this item since he is a resident in this area. Community Development Director explained that staff was directed by the City Council to prepare an overlay zone which addresses the issues of grading, drainage, public safety and density in the hillside areas of the City. In response, staff has drafted a Hillside Overlay District. A slide display was presented of hillsides around the area. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 7:40 P.M. Discussion among the Planning Commission and the Community Development Director explaining how the percentages were calculated for the hillside overlay. The Community Development Director referred to other r ordinances as a guideline. r 2 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:40 P.M. 1. Mr. Bill Addington 12055 Westwood Lane Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Addington expressed his concern with the Honey Hills area east of Honey Hills Drive in the southerly project. He mentioned the historical perspective for the hillside view lots according to the San Bernardino County Code back in the 60Is. He stated that minimum size lots and minimum width lots should be addressed in the new proposed hillside overlay ordinance. 2. Gene Mc Means Riverside Highland Water Co. 1450 Washington Colton, CA. 92324 Mr. Mc Means expressed concern with breakdown on the hill and effect in Reche Canyon. He expressed approval of the overlay. The water supply would be fine and there would be no need for r additional pump stations. 3. Nat S. Harty Coast Construction Co. Inc. 480 Capicorn Avenue Brea, Ca. He expressed his opposition due to their property being unbuildable if the ordinance was accepted. They own 84 acres at the eastend of the City. The majority was in excess of 30% slope. Some of their grading ran up to 60%. Mr. Harty presented a historical background on their lots. In 1984 they proposed a development to Joe Kicak, City Engineer, and were able to reduce the grading by 60%. He explained that they feel any future development of theirs can provide an economic value to the land. 4. Larry Vesely Architect 22400 Barton Road #15 Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Vesely stated that definitions were needed in the ordinance. He expressed concern with 42" high retaining wall 3 which he felt needed to be viewed architecturally. He suggested 48" high retaining wall to ease access into pads. 5. Jerry Irby 22738 Pico Street Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 He expressed his support of the intent of the ordinance. However, he pointed out that the maximum slope on his property was 7%. He questioned the inclusion of his property based on earthquake shaking. 6. Forrest V. Poore 23253 Westwood Street Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Poore requested to be placed on the general zoning mailing list. 7. Paul Damitio 22250 Fulmar Place Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 He expressed an interest in property on Westwood backed up to Observation Drive. One-third of the property was developed, but he was concerned that the remaining property would not be developed according to the hillside overlay. He was concerned with the proposal of a 42" retaining wall. 8. Herman Hilkey 23196 Glendora Dr. Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Hilkey expressed his concerns with the proposed section of the overlay zone. Also, he felt the 7200 square footage endangered the Honey Hill atmosphere. Mr. Hilkey questioned the Commission and the Community Development Director what lay ahead for investment purposes and development in that area. 9. Mr. L.R. & Linda Banks 23015 Wren Grand Terrace, Ca. 92324 O(Here to observe only). 4 10. Lois Nesse 22864 Arliss Drive Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Ms. Nesse explained that she was interested in the area on the northeast side of Honey Hills. Her lots were split in 1967 and the pad was graded in 1978. She wondered if the proposed hillside overlay would effect her in anyway. 11. Barney Karger 11668 Bernardo Way Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Karger expressed his opposition to the proposal. He wanted to see more lots developed with views. He did not feel that Mr. Irby's property should be considered as part of the overlay. He expressed his beliefs that the reason for considering the hillside overlay was to stop the T.J. Austyn development. He spoke about the early history of Blue Mountain and the Honey Hills Estates. He felt a higher retaining wall would be more costly. 12. Tony Petta 11875 Eton Drive Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 He questioned the Community Development Director on the idea if the overlay was in effect before the Honey Hills, could that development have been built. Mr. Petta stated that land availability today was limited. PLANNING COMMISSION RECESS PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:08 P.M. 13. Marian Anderson Main Street Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mrs. Anderson expressed her opposition to the hillside overlay proposal. She felt that this would wipe out any real estate development. She would like to be allowed to build up to the water supply (1400-1500). The City Engineer responded to the issue of the water supply. He stated that on Mrs. Anderson's particular property, if the 5 slope is taken parallel to Main Street then it would be approximately 46%. Chairman Hargrave asked Mrs. Anderson how she felt regarding the proposal of the buildable lot size vs. the lot size itself. Mrs. Anderson stated that usually on the hillside lots, a large lot, at least half of it was air space. She stated that would attract people who were looking for a view lot. She continued to state that on the flat land, as it sloped up the mountain, at least 3 houses per acre could be built on that area. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. PLANNING DISCUSSION RECONVENED 9:15 P.M. Commissioner Hawkinson supported the investors and opposed causing any financial hardships. He stated what needed to be done was to establish engineering standards. He agreed that Mr. Irby's and the Catholic Church did not belong in the hillside overlay. He was not in favor of any harsh overlay. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her appreciation to staff for their work in the preparation of the staff report. She questioned what the purpose of a hillside overlay was and what was the direction for the City. She felt that what was needed was to keep some of the City in the natural state. However there should not be any harshness caused to the property owners. Commissioner Sims stated he felt that a hillside lot with a view was a plus. However, he did mention that some developments of lots with views involving slopage were poorly kept. He questioned what the environmental issues were from the development or overlay impact standpoint. The Community Development Director explained that the ordinance was implemented by the General Plan. A portion of it was due to mitigation measures. The purpose of the ordinance was to control development that carried out the General Plan environmental policies. He stressed that any independent project has to go individually through CEQA and would have to answer questions on an independent basis. Commissioner Sims asked what the purpose of the environmental Oassessment was. 6 The Community Development Director explained the reason was that CEQA stated that any ordinance or law was "their project" and an environmental study has to be completed. It should be treated as a project. The justification for the "NO" answers was that this was a mitigation measure for the General Plan's EIR and that additional projects that come in will have Environmental Review on them independently. Some of those questions that are "NO" on the general items will be "YES" on the individual basis. Commissioner Sims asked if it was prudent for the Commission to look at this from the standpoint, i.e., alteration of the course of floodwaters. He pointed out that in all hillside developments that he has been involved with, ravines were be filled in and altered. He questioned whether it was appropriate to answer "NO" in this assessment. The Community Development Director explained that they don't necessarily have anything to look at in this case. Commissioner Sims stated if there were enough "MAYBE's" that could defeat the hillside overlay. The Community Development Director explained that the "MAYBE's and NO's" would indicate that an EIR might be necessary. Discussion on the General Plan and the Environmental Measures. Also, what would be required for the individual projects. The Community Development Director pointed out if the Planning Commission did not agree with the measures indicated, it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to change the recommendations. Commissioner Sims stated that if "NO's" are reflected then it gets you off the hook so that mitigation measures don't have to be proposed which could effect the written verbage as far the ordinance itself. He stressed that the study needed to be analyzed from the standpoint of the issues in the assessment and related the words and the language to the ordinance document itself. Chairman Hargrave asked Commissioner Sims if he was challenging this Negative Declaration. Commissioner Sims stated that he saw a few items if addressed in a separate manner would require more time to study in detail. He would like to have them addressed to his satisfaction as to whether or not he would agree with them. 7 The Community Development Director explained that the answers and justifications for the ordinance were not in the Negative Declaration for the initial study for that ordinance. The Negative Declaration was not the justification for the ordinance. Commissioner Sims asked if they didn't work together in supporting the ordinance itself. Because a restrictive situation was being placed in the ordinance where grading was greater than 30%. He interpreted this that aesthetically anything that went over that 30% was not going to be very attractive therefore it could create an impact. The Community Development Director explained that which was being stated in the ordinance was more restrictive. If it was the other way around, if they were looking at the open space in the General Plan, the zoning was already negative and couldn't allow development, and this ordinance was saying that in that area this ordinance would precedent and you could develop then he would state yes. This ordinance would then take something and create a possibility of that problem. If the underlying zoning stated that the development could happen this would put more restrictions on it. If the underlying zoning stated no the development could not happen this would not make any difference. Thus, the concept of why the Community Development Director answered no to these questions. The Planning Commission requested copies of the draft on the approved General Plan. Chairman Hargrave closed the discussion on this item and continued this issue to the next Planning Commission Meeting, November 7, 1988. The Community Development Director explained that the advertisement for this issue for the next meeting would be advertised in the normal procedures through the paper, staff would not do another mass mailing since this item was a continuance. ITEM #2 CHOCOLATE FOREST JOAN JOHNSON CUP-88-8/SA-88-7 22400 BARTON ROAD SUITE 7 GRAND TERRACE, CA. 92324 Chairman Hargrave pointed out that this item was a continuation from the previous meeting. Resubmittal for 8 changes in the Conditional Use Permit of a specialty sandwich shop in an AP Zone. The Community Development Director explained that staff met with the applicant since the last meeting. They have come to a couple of different agreements and have changed the conditions slightly. In reference to condition #1, "all seating associated with this use shall be provided within suite #7 and/or in the rear patio only," that was a clarification that was asked for by the applicant. In reference to condition #4, "access to the rear patio shall be from inside suite 7." The Community Development Director and the applicant had not reached a compromise as yet. In reference to condition #5, "the area directly in front of suite 7 shall be cleared of the barriers facing the front parking area. The barriers to the east and west may remain but cannot be increased or changed without prior approval of the Planning Department." He explained that was a compromise on the front seating area. Instead of the previous requirement where it was required that all of the barriers be removed and all but one bench be removed from in front of the suite, it was indicated that the applicant could keep the two barriers which run east/west. This would keep traffic from going into the planted area to the east and cross into one of the other units on the west. Also, two benches can remain, one of the benches will stay with its back facing each of those barriers. In reference to condition #6, "all benches except two clustered around suite #7 shall be removed. These benches shall be placed around the east and west barriers parallel to each other. No additional tables or benches shall be permitted in this area." Those are the only changes made by staff dealing with the conditions in the report. The only issue still in contention is the rear seating area and how that should be enclosed. Commissioner Sims clarified the Community Development Director's statement that the room addition blended in better with the surrounding center and if he (Community Development Director ) had been shown this type of room addition previously he would have required a different roof treatment. Commissioner Sims asked if that had been discussed at the previous meeting. The Community Development Director explained that had been discussed briefly at the last meeting. The roof treatment now was a horizontal continuation of the building. There was no treatment that would give relief to that. It may have been if this had come through the Planning Commission with this design it would have been required to have some false front type roof to eliminate the stark horizontal addition look so that it would better match the existing building. 9 Commissioner Sims asked if this would be better now. The Community Development Director explained that it could be appropriate if the Planning Commission felt it were necessary. He referred to photographs of the center and the individual units. He stated he would not be opposed to that but he would not argue at length over it. He stressed that they were at a critical point on this project, unfortunately, it was never the intent of the staff to kill a project. He stated that the changes need to be decided upon and completed in order to allow the business to open. Commissioner Buchanan asked the Community Development Director what the policy considerations were regarding the restrictions on the access to the rear patio area. The Community Development Director explained that it began with the AP zoning requirement that restaurants were allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit, if the restaurant was contained within the building, without driveins or walkups. A precedent had been set in this particular center with Chez Ole. They were allowed an outdoor seating area. It was an area that was enclosed by a fence and an area that was accessible under normal circumstances only through the restaurant. Staff looked at the precedence in looking at this new project. The seating in front went beyond that. It was more than what Chez Ole had been allowed and was more than what the Code allowed. The seating in the rear was along the same concept of Chez Ole's patio. The reason for returning to the Planning Commission was because the first condition of the Conditional Use Permit (Chocolate Forest) was that there would be no outdoor seating. In order to allow that the condition needed to be revised. The issue of patio enclosure needed to be discussed. It should not be a meeting place or trash collector for the apartment residences or passing traffic. There needed to be security around the seating area so that area was identified as Chocolate Forest's. If it was a mess then enforcement goes after the Chocolate Forest since it would be their seating area they would be responsible for it. In regards to the access it was recommended that the wall be continued back towards the building to help enclose that off. As discussed at the last meeting, a secured gate could also achieve that. Prior to the last meeting, the rod iron fencing went up and was gated off in a different manner. The issues that staff was concerned about, indicated on the plans, was the fire access. The Fire Department has not seen that nor have they commented. If the Planning Commission approves that type of layout it should be approved contingent upon the Fire Warden's Office approval. Perhaps there was some type of gate locking mechanism that would meet to their satisfaction. If there was not then it needed to be done differently. In regards to the sliding glass door, staff had 10 indicated that they would like to see the sliding glass become the entrance way onto the patio that was under the premise the patio would be blocked off with the wall and not as they have indicated. In order to do that the sliding glass door would have to be changed to where it was not a sliding glass door but it would be an approved fire exit. This would involve additional work and cost but may be appropriate. If the Planning Commission did decide that their design was acceptable with the rod iron, staff was still concerned with the look of the rod iron, quality of the wall, and the patio enclosure itself. Staff would strongly urge the Planning Commission to consider having the wall treatment redone in a single effort rather than as an add on for a better appearance. Commissioner Buchanan suggested ignoring the patio eating area should there be any restriction in using the backdoor as ingress and egress as customers for the restaurant. The Community Development Director explained that without the seating staff would be more likely to say there wasn't a problem. He stated they would prefer the public going through a backdoor which was intended for access rather than going through the landscaped areas to take the shortest route to the front, with the rear seating in there it depended on how it will be enclosed. If it was enclosed as staff has recommended, he would not have any problem with the second entrance into the patio area or with the locking gate to be locked or unlocked during business hours. He said he would not be totally against what the applicant was proposing. Since the gate would be open half the time you might as well not have a gate on there. Commissioner Buchanan suggested an alternative that requires a gate, not necessarily a locked gate, along the extension of the wall back to the building between the two doorways and a requirement for the posting of signage (Customers Please Use Front Entrance or Exit Only/Do Not Enter). Also, an additional requirement that those gates be locked during non - business hours. This in addition to the gates that are existing. There could be some sort of mechanism that would allow people to open the gate from the inside for an emergency but would not allow opening from the outside. Discussion on alternative plans for number of gates and gate location. The Community Development Director explained that the Fire Warden's Office would have to address the fire escape route in relation to physical barriers as gates. 11 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the door that leads from the building to the patio was a one way door which would not open from the outside. She stressed what needed to be addressed was what the Fire Warden's Office would approve. She stated that the height of the current wall would not keep anyone out. Commissioner Hilkey asked what the Community Development Director's recommendation would be for the entire package. The Community Development Director explained that it would be as staff has recommended. He would expand on condition #4 so that the gates as the applicant had proposed would be removed and the fence where the gate would go on. He would like to see the fence and wall torn down and replaced with quality construction materials. The wall would go up and then the rod iron would be worked intrically into the wall as a structural component of the wall. The wall presently was 2- 3' and a building code wall requirement that would bring it up to at least 41, whatever the UBC required. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the Fire Warden's Office saw a problem with the exit how would that effect the Community Development Director's recommendation. The Community Development Director suggested that the Planning Commission do a recommendation tonight and approve it. Then if the Fire Warden's Office did not accept it then let staff work with the Fire Warden's Office and the applicant for any alternatives. That way it would avoid any further delays for the applicant. Commissioner Hilkey expressed his concern with the patio area being near an alley which was a congregation point. Also, the plans that were submitted and approved did not represent the building that was built. He asked if there was a chance that could happen again. The Community Development Director stated that he hoped not. He explained that the way that came about was a break down on staff communication to a certain extent. The City Engineer's Office works very well in communication with the Planniing Department. However, this was one of those instances when the building inspector had caught something and informed the applicant to go to the Planning Department for approval and that was not done until this late date. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was a condition to have the removal of the existing wall. The Community Development Director explained that he did not have that as a condition. He strongly recommended that the 12 existing wall be removed but he did not have that in his staff report. Commissioner Hilkey asked about the height. The Community Development Director explained that the height was functionable because he believed it was done to the Building Inspectors recommendations for the UBC requirement. The applicant has indicated that was why she put that on there. Staff would double check that and if it was not to that height it would have to be added on. The height of the fence can be done in the same manner that they put the fence up in the first place and not tearing down the wall and building it into the wall. He stated that was his problem with the aesthetics. One, was the workmanship of the wall was poor and visible. Second, the fencing idea was an after addition and it looked like it. It showed where it was tacked onto the wall. It should have been all done at once and worked into the wall. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the height was based on the patio or the road. The Community Development Director explained that the height requirements would be from the highest point from the road. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for clarification of conditions #7 and #9, "...a decorative trash enclosure shall be provided in the rear patio seating area." Also, she asked if that was only in the case that they decided to have food in the patio area. The Community Development Director clarified that was not one of the requirements of the original CUP. Now that people would be eating out there, the trash enclosure was directly next to the eating area, staff felt that should be finished with the requirement as part of the project. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that conditions #7 and #9 were both referring to the trash enclosure. The Community Development Director corrected his clarification that condition #7 stated, "...a decorative trash enclosure shall be provided in the rear patio seating area." He stated that was simply a trash can. He stated that condition #9 requires a door to the garbage unit enclosure. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that it was her understanding that particular trash receptacle was for all businesses along the complex. She assumed then it was still this applicant's responsibility to put a door on it. 13 The Community Development Director explained that if the applicant wanted food next door to it then he would say so. He stated that their reasoning was based on the health considerations. Also from an aesthetics point of view, they would not want an open trash enclosure next door to a patio eating area. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if that was a requirement for every business in town. The Community Development Director stated that it was a requirement for every new construction in town that the trash enclosure be of a certain specification. Also, that it have an opaque door enclosure that closed off to block the view of the trash. He explained that was a recommended requirement but if she was not having food outdoors staff would not make that a requirement. If the owner of the center would come in and redo the center, staff would make him do this for all of the tenants. The planning department saw this as an individual issue that is caused by this application, whether or not the owner or the applicant has to pay for it is up to them. Chairman Hargrave stated that the applicant might be better off just to tell the Planning Commission she decided not to have the patio area as an eating area and that would solve at least two of the problems. Because it was the eating area that was causing a number of the provisions, and probably rightly so by staff, to be put on the project. He stated that he was over at the project earlier and observed the eating area which did not seem to be large enough for the public. Commissioner Sims added an additional comment that the Community Development Director has been accepting blame for this situation. He did not feel that was right. He stated that staff did their job on the first CUP application and it was approved under certain conditions and those conditions were not followed. He did not feel that the blame should be put back on staff to have to patrol and make sure all of these things get done but if the applicant knew that these changes were going to be done the applicant should have been the first one beating on the door and saying she wanted to make the changes. Chairman Hargrave clarified that he was not blaming staff, he thought they were doing an outstanding job, and he felt that the applicant has 100% share of whatever blame or cause. His point is that the problem exists and it behooves all to try and get this project approved and get it in operation since it is a business that would benefit the community. However, the Planning Commission has a responsibility to make sure that all of the rules and regulations are upheld and staff has done 14 a wonderful job. If this problem occurred again he would want to see staff handle it the same way. Chairman Hargrave opened the hearing to public input. PUBLIC HEARING Larry Vesely, Architect 22400 Barton Road, Suite 15 Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 He commended staff for their cooperation in working with him on this project since he has been recently involved. He stated that there were a couple of items which presented a problem but he felt that they could come to an agreement. In terms of condition #4, the access to the rear patio, it is a requirement that there be an exterior exit from the dining room and will also require one from the patio area. By the addition of that one gate that staff is recommending it will create a traffic problem. One, as someone exits the patio the gate will open out into the doorway of the exit door from the dining room. The Fire Department has been by since the gates were erected and had no problems with what was existing. He stated that the applicant has no problem with putting a lock on the gate that are presently there. He stated that the applicant is required to have all doors open during business hours because of the occupancy and if necessary it can be stated. It is the applicant's recommendation to have that as an emergency exit only. The present door that swings out into the area can be opened from the outside, it does have the handle. Because of the panic hardward that is on the inside is the only reason it is staying locked at the present time. During business hours that panic hardware is in the open position at all times so those doors freely swing open. In terms of the rod iron that is presently around it, the requirement is 42" above grade for safety sake which it presently is. The applicant does not want to extend the wall up to that level mainly because the area is so small, it would visually enclose everything in. The applicant feels that the rod iron is appropriate at the level it is presently. In terms of tearing down that wall and rebuilding it, it will still look like an add on. There is not much that can be done short of breaking into the existing wall, which is now part of the building. The recommendation he offers to the Planning Commmission tonight is to approve condition #4 as it is written. They feel it is appropriate for the site. The next item of contention, the trash enclosure. The addition of a gate on that enclosure will not be seen by anyone sitting in the eating area. It was not a condition at the original Conditional Use Permit submittal. They feel that it is above and beyond the requirements of this Conditional Use Permit. 15 Also, he stated that he has been asked by the owner of the complex and they are working on a center upgrade plan to include parking, air-conditioning equipment and trash enclosure gates because there is another tenant by his suite that needs one also. They hope to have that finalized and presented to the City within a month. Another item of contention is another condition which they do not feel is the applicant's responsibility. The air condition unit that was replaced was not done so under her rehab, it was done under the owner's request replacing different units within the complex. There are three others scheduled to be replaced in the easterly building, which presently sit on the ground. They would like to request that this be removed as a condition of this item and definitely will be added to the center upgrade project as they are presented. He realized that it does take away some control from the staff of the City on what can or cannot be done. The owner is and does want to make that complex a beautiful complex for the City. In terms of seating in the outdoor seating area, they are anticipating one maybe two tables with a maximum of six (6) seats. By UBC Code they are allowed eight (8) but mentally and emotionally it does not fit the human needs. Commissioner Buchanan stated that Mr. Vesely had indicated that condition #4, "access to the rear patio shall be from inside suite #711, should remain as it is written. He asked Mr. Vesely how they proposed providing access to the patio are from inside suite 7. Mr. Vesely explained through the existing door that is there. He clarified that the sliding glass door is not an acceptable exit in any commercial structure. Commissioner Buchanan asked if they considered the door that is now in existance access to the patio area. It does not open up directly into the patio area. Mr. Vesely explained that it does not and it serves two purposes there. One, it serves as the main exit from the structure and secondary as the exit to and entrance to the patio area. Commissioner Buchanan stated that it seemed to him the correlary of the requirement that access be from inside suite #7 is that there is not access from outside suite #7. He stated he was not sure he understood the applicant's method of restricting the access. Mr. Vesely explained that presently there are a pair of rod iron gates at the sidewalk and there is also a rod iron gate which serves as a closure between the trash enclosure and the r building itself. The double gates will have to be open during 16 business hours for exiting purposes. He felt that through signage this could be handled. If someone wants to get inside they will do so anyway they can. Commissioner Buchanan asked about the possibility of modifying the existing rod iron gates, at the top of the steps, even when unlocked during day time hours not be openable from the outside. In otherwards it could only be opened through the use of panic hardware on the inside. Mr. Vesely explained that due to the height of the gate, 4211, that makes it unfeasible. That would allow anyone to just reach over and release the panic hardware. Commissioner Buchanan stated with respect to the condition of the rod iron and the block wall, he did not feel the appearance of the block wall was proper. He asked if it was possible that it could be corrected, rather than replacement of the block wall, by stuccoing over the face of the block wall to improve the appearance. Mr. Vesely stated that was possible but it does not fit in with the rest of the center. He suggested that one thing that could be done would be to take the excess slop off. Commissioner Hilkey asked Mr. Vesely if he made the original drawings. Mr. Vesely explained that the original drawings were made by the food equipment supplier. Commissioner Hilkey asked if that was the glass atrium. Mr. Vesely stated yes. Commissioner Hilkey asked when the present drawings were made. Mr. Vesely replied, during construction. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he wished to stress similar concerns as Commissioner Buchanan. He stated that the idea of a patio eating area was aesthetically attractive. However, that was not the concept when this was made. He informed the applicant that they were putting the Planning Department, Planning Commission and future customers in a very awkward position. Because the applicant was going to put in an atmosphere which wasn't designed for that purpose. Now they are trying to find some way to make it a safe exit yet don't allow people to enter out through the back of the building. Now the Planning Commission is faced with that problem and he does not feel it is their job. 17 Mr. Vesely stated that he would like to back up, he did not know exactly what had been explained at the last meeting. Commissioner Hilkey replied that a lot had been explained at the last meeting. He stated that they understood it entirely. Unless there is a simple concise way to give access for people getting out of that building in case of fire but prevent people from coming in. He stressed the main point is to protect the customers in case of fire. He stated that the question of access and not ingress has not been addressed. Mr. Vesely stated that he did not see that as an access problem. He reiterated that with proper signage, Exit Only, the situation could be handled. He explained to get back through the complex to get to the serving line it is easier to go around and enter through the front door. The extra area created the opportunity for someone to go out and sit outside. If that had not been done then all that would be out there would be steps going right up to the retaining wall, which was required. Commissioner Hilkey pointed out the set of plans which were submitted before showed an enclosure for the air conditioner. He stated that those plans were approved and the applicant stated that was okay. Now the applicant is returning and stating they do not want to enclose the air conditioner. Mr. Vesely explained that the applicant would like to defer that to allow the owner do tie that in with the rest of the development. Commissioner Hilkey stated that was a compromise. He explained that the Planning Department would then have to police the back gate to make sure that the public are obeying the signage. He stressed that with other items that were entrusted with the applicant before have not been done, such as not building the same building project from the beginning. Mr. Vesely explained that was outlined in the letter why the applicant did not. He referred to the atrium structure which was originally proposed. He stated that was not a portable structure it was as permanent as what was there. Commissioner Buchanan asked Mr. Vesely if he was involved in this project before construction started. Mr. Vesely replied that he was only to the extent of providing the basic layout of the building. Commissioner Buchanan asked what was planned for that outside corner originally, where the patio is now. 18 Mr. Vesely stated that they were planning on landscaping. It was during construction that they came across problems such as the storm drain that required that they rework that area. That patio area essentially came into being because of the onsite conditions. Commissioner Buchanan clarified Mr. Vesely's statement that something had to be changed in the rear area and could there be some economic use with it. Commissioner Buchanan asked the Community Development Director if there was a way of dealing with the onsite conditions at the corner of that property consistent with the applicant's original plans without going to this extent. The Community Development Director explained that it would have been consistent if it had been developed in any other way than a patio. The problem with it was the outdoor seating and the condition was that there be no outdoor seating. It could have been filled in with landscaping, as Chairman Hargrave suggested, as long as the drainage situation was taken care of with appropriate piping or whatever was required by the building department. Commissioner Buchanan asked the Community Development Director to clarify his earlier statement that according to ordinance a restaurant in this zone could have internally contained seating but that a precedent had been established by Chez Ole. The Community Development Director explained that the zone actually states that a restaurant was an allowable use if it's seating was completely contained within the building, "no walkups and no driveins". He interpreted that as meaning the A-P Zone was an office/commercial area and not to have the restaurants with walkups, but it does have indoor seating. He interpreted that so it gave him a little bit of flexibility then he looked at the precedent/Chet Ole. He considered that precedence to sway whether or not an outdoor patio was acceptable. He took a great deal into consideration before he made a decision like that. Commissioner Buchanan stated that in some cases the Commission itself does not have the authority to vary from the requirements of an ordinance. He asked if this was one of those cases where the Community Development Director had interpreted some latitude on their part or if this was something the Planning Commission really did not have the authority to act on. The Community Development Director stated that he had interpreted this to where they do have the latitude because 19 of the interpretation of what it said and because a precedence had been set. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the Planning Commission was greatly concerned about the precedence they set by approving things after the fact that are contrary to what was approved ahead of time. On the other hand, this patio area exists and unless the Planning Commission require that it be removed it was going to pose the same problems whether there was seating there or not. If it was simply an open patio area that has plans for decorative stature out there, it still had the potential of an area of congregation by apartment traffic or visitors in the area. Unless the Planning Commission require that it be filled in some way with something it would not alleviate that concern. He referred to Mr. Vesely's earlier comment and stated it was a valid point with respect to putting in a gate in between the building and the wall extension creates a possibly hazardous situation. It would need to swing out for access from the patio but it would swing out in front of the rear emergency exit from the building. By the same token he did not see where emergency hardware at the top of a gate would do much good either. He was not at all inclined to modify staff's recommendations with respect to the trash or the air conditioner. However, the patio did give him some concern. He suggested one possibility in order to allow the applicant to get on with her business would be to grant a permit without regarding seating permissable but without foreclosing that possibility in the future and allow the applicant to try and come up with some solution to the concerns that the Planning Commission has. He stated that he was not satisfied with what he had seen so far. He stated that he felt the wall was a good height. He liked the idea of the rod iron on top because if the wall was extended any farther a hidden onclave would be created. If people are climbing back there for illegal purposes it would restrict the view from the apartments or policing agencies. He did not know if all of these concerns should be resolved tonight. One possibility might be to change condition #4 to not allow outside seating and require that those gates be locked during non -business hours and can leave open the possibility of an acceptable solution to the patio. Chairman Hargrave asked Commissioner Buchanan if he wanted to make that a motion or leave it open for discussion. Commissioner Buchanan asked for comments from the Planning Commission. Chairman Hargrave asked for comments from the Planning Commission. 461 The Community Development Director expressed his concern with granting a permit contingent on dealing with the seating area on a later date. Chairman Hargrave stated that it would look worse for the applicant if she did not come up with a satisfactory patio plan. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that just because it was stated that there would not be seating in the patio area that would not prevent the public from going out there with food. Chairman Hargrave asked for a motion. MOTION PCM-88-80 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that CUP-88-8 be approved with the conditions recommended by staff with the following modifications. Condition #4 be modified to read, the access to the rear patio shall be from inside suite #7, that the existing rod iron gates will be left in place and locked during non business hours, that appropriate signage to be approved by the Planning Department will be placed on the gates and that they will be emergency exits only and that the physical condition of the block wall and rod iron will be upgraded to an aesthetically appropriate level to be approved 0 by the Planning Department. Chairman Hargrave asked if the last provision meant that the wall stay as it was or should be aesthetically cleaned up. Commissioner Buchanan stated that his original intent was to shift that to a discretionary standard. He did not have a problem with the structural standard of the wall as long as it was structurally sound. It could remain but should be cleaned up. If it could not be physically cleaned up or it was determined that it was not physically sound then he felt it should be removed or replaced. The Community Development Director stated that the building inspector has indicated that the wall was properly constructed. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated for the point of order he would second the motion for discussion. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned the part of the motion that included the rod iron gate have signage relative to emergency exit only. She questioned the intent that if food was taken to the rear patio that the public would have to go to the front rather than coming back through the restaurant itself. 21 If that was the case then that would not be appropriate because those gates would not be used for emergency use only. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he never thought that the public from the patio would have to go outside of the gate and back around and back through. He figured that if the patio area was part of the restaurant then the public would be able to come and go as they please from the patio to the service counter just as if they were sitting in a booth in a restaurant. He stated that Mr. Vesely had indicated that the door that was there opened from the outside but didn't right now because it was locked, however, during business hours would open. Commissioner Buchanan assumed that anyone on the patio who wanted another coke would go back through the way they came. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that may be correct but that was not what she had heard. Mr. Vesely pointed out that was correct. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the wall structure. If it was structurally sound that was fine with her however it did not look that great. If it were on the front of the building she would insist that it be removed and replaced. However since it was on the back of the building she felt it could remain. Chairman Hargrave asked the Community Development Director for direction in wording the motion. The Community Development Director stated that the items which Commissioner Buchanan had referred to in the motion were appropriate. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he made that motion primarily to expedite the proceedings however he was not particularly happy with it because he would like to do something more consistent with staffs recommendations on this. He stated that unless the Community Development Director had a recommendation with dealing with the internal gate in a way that would not create the hazard of the gate opening up and blocking an exit he did not see any other alternative. The Community Development Director explained that the space which exists does present a problem with the opening of the doors at the same time. The real concern was that the gate was left open and thereby prevents access out and that could be altered with a spring loaded gate. W, Commissioner Buchanan stated that in case of a fire or some reason to exit the building quickly that it would be likely, if the patio were occupied, people would open at the same time which was his reason for concern. He stated that if there was some way to build a sliding gate or gate that rolls back towards the wall away from the building that would be one thing but he did not see how that would accomplish anything. Commissioner Sims referred to the drawings which showed a door from the interior that was farther to the west it appeared as if it was to open in toward the building. He asked if the gate, that was shown at the patio entrance in the drainage swell corridor area, could be moved down away from the patio area so that it would not create the conflict. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if this motion would need a requirement that it be subject to approval from the Fire Warden's Office. Chairman Hargrave clarified that it was indicated in condition #2. He suggested that this recommendation could be upgraded to include that the wall cleaning and upgrading be left to the discretion of staff for their final approval. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he intended to include language that it would be to the discretion of the Planning Department. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-80 Motion carried. 4-2-1-0. Commissioners Sims and Hilkey voting noe, and Commissioner Munson absent. Chairman Hargrave asked for a motion regarding CUP-88-8. Commissioner Buchanan stated that his motion was regarding CUP-88-8. The Community Development Director stated that he interpreted that as the intention. Chairman Hargrave stated he thought that the motion dealt with condition #4. Commissioner Buchanan stated that his motion was to approve CUP-88-8 as recommended with the changes. The Community Development Director explained that was the motion recorded. 23 Chairman Hargrave asked the other Commissioners if that was interpreted the same way. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the only item remaining was the Site and Architectural. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONVENED AT 10:45 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-81 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-88-7 with the same terms and conditions as CUP-88-8. Commissioner Van Gelder second. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-81 Motion carried. 4-2-1-0. Commissioners Hilkey and Sims voting noe. Commissioner Munson absent. Chairman Hargrave adjourned the meeting. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David RtSayer, ywoCommunielpmen Director 24 Approved by, staniey margrave, Chairman Planning Commissi