Loading...
11/07/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 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 November 7, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director John Harper, City Attorney Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Joe Kicak, City Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Stanley Hargrave PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information presented by staff to the Commissioners. Information and discussion by the Commissioners on the hillside overlay ordinance, and concern by the Commissioners on deviations by developers or applicants on approved conditions of projects. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed a desire to have more stringent regulations. 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 with the first item. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - There were no comments from the public. 1 Item #1 P.C. Minutes 8-17-88 MOTION PCM-88-82 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-82 Discussion on the Planning Commission Minutes of August 17, 1988. Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve the August 17, 1988 minutes with noted changes. Vice -Chairman Jerry Hawkinson second. Motion carried, all ayes. 4-0-1-1. Commissioner Van Gelder abstained. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Item #2 Z-88-1 Hillside Overlay Ordinance CONTINUATION FROM THE OCTOBER 17, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the public hearing be continued and the Planning Commission continue the discussion. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson requested that he be allowed to abstain from voting on this item. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:10 P.M. 1. LINDSAY SMITH 22873 PICO STREET GRAND TERRACE, CA. 92324 Mr. Smith owns 9.1 acres on top of Pico Street. He was opposed to a hillside overlay plan. If the 30% grade was allowed it would prohibit any building by them on 1/3 of their land. He asked what use his property would have above a 30% grade. He also asked if animals would be allowed to graze and could he plant produce. Mr. Smith Osuggested that the Commission speak with the landowners 2 for their input. Chairman Hargrave pointed out to the audience that this was not the last meeting in relation to this issue. Discussion by the Commissioners on hillside development and fire hazards. Mr. Smith explained that ice plant was a popular ground cover in that area. It acted as a fire retardant. He could not understand any home up there without -double accesses to allow for fire equipment. 2. BILL MC KEEVER 647 N. MAIN STREET GRAND TERRACE, CA. 92324 Mr. Mc Keever has 25 years of engineering experience and has worked on panels handling hillside ordinances. He wished to offer some constructive criticism and hoped the Commission would take it as positive. He felt that the areas south of Van Buren, west of Observation Drive did not belong in the zoning overlay. He did not feel that there was a defined purpose in the ordinance. Developers need specific standards. He suggested that the design standards should be implemented first or else it would be a nightmare to enforce. Commissioner Buchanan asked if there were any specific cities that Mr. Mc Keever could suggest as guidance. Mr. Mc Keever referred to the cities of San Bernardino and Riverside. Discussion on the engineering perspective of the hillside overlay ordinance and design criteria for same. Mr. Mc Keever mentioned the problems with the ordinance as he saw it. Some dealt with the need for clarification of buildable area, required number of access points, limitations on street designs, and fire protection. The Community Development Director stated that he would respond to concerns expressed after all of the speakers had finished. 3. KARL ELLER 23100 VISTA GRANDE WAY GRAND TERRACE, CA. 92324 Mr. Eller stated that he only wanted to comment if the 3 hillside overlay would effect property which he wished to subdivide, east of Vista Grand Way. The Community Development Director explained that the subdivision referred to by Mr. Eller looked like a good subdivision parcel split. The only problem would be in the minimum lot size when the underlying zoning is addressed. 4. MARIANNE ELLIOTT T.J. AUSTYN COMPANY 500 N. NEWPORT ROAD NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663 She stated that they owned approximately 20 acres south of Van Buren Boulevard. They have a project still under construction. She requested that they become exempt from the hillside overlay since they are in the 5th, 6th and 7th phase of a 7 phase tract. She stated that Fieldcrest has built half of it so half of Van Buren was completed. They were in hopes of resolving some differences with the City and proceeding with the tract as designed. The grade on their site was 87% at most and the overlay would effect them if they get into addressing minimum lot sizes and slopes. It would be detrimental to their property. The Community Development Director responded that Ms. Elliott was referring to Tract Map 13050 which contained the first four phases sold off to Fieldcrest and have since recorded final maps. The City has been in litigation with T.J. Austyn Company regarding the status on the remainder of it. S. CLIFFORD HOOD COAST CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 480 W. CAPRICORN STREET BREA, CA. 92621 Mr. Hood explained that he has been in the engineering profession for 30 years. He helped draft the first grading code for Orange County and also the Uniformed Building Code, Chapter 7. He has been frequently retained on hillside overlay matters. He stated that they have owned 80 acres for approximately 7 years. He had previously worked with the City Engineer (Planning Department prior) Mr. Kicak to work with some development on the hillside that would revive economically and preserve the hillside. He stated that this ordinance would preclude them from 4 not only developing the property but would not give any flexibility in allowing them to develop the most developable parts of the property. Their concerns and suggestions have been expressed to the Community Development Director. He suggested a better design approach would be to fill across ravines, knock off ridges in areas that are easily accessible and stay away from more sensitive areas. He suggested a meeting with the involved landowners to come up with a solution that would meet both the City's purpose as well as the developers. Chairman Hargrave asked Mr. Hood, if through his previous experiences, there was a model city that dealt with each property owner separately. Mr. Hood responded yes if there was a overlay that required a precise plan. He stated that through the enforcement of the state law (Subdivision Map Act) it forces developers to be sensitive to environment. He felt that was sufficient and the City does not need another law. Chairman Hargrave asked Mr. Hood why other cities have gone to a hillside overlay and not guided by the state laws. Mr. Hood responded that they lacked the courage to say no. It was easier for the staff to comply with check marks instead of forcing everyone to analyze the design. In closing, he suggested that the City give developers guidelines as to what it wants to achieve and let the experts achieve it. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 7:50 P.M. Chairman Hargrave asked for input from the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director stated that he would present questions for the Planning Commission to think about during their discussion. He asked, " What would they like to accomplish with this ordinance? Are they looking at the ordinance to control development and prevent it from going up the hillside? Or would they allow the development and look at how it would be built as far as aesthetics?" Basically, the Planning Commission needs to decide the direction this ordinance would take. 5 He explained that the ordinance from staff is in its first draft form. Its intent was to control the development as far as high how it can go up the hillside and to protect the steeper areas of Blue Mountain and hillside areas. It is an ordinance that was intended to incorporate the developed and undeveloped areas in town. He presented the question if the Planning Commission wanted to look at density with this ordinance or do they wish to deal with it as a total underlying issue. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the requirements of the ordinance as written were to be altered would that be by the Planning Commission or would a variance be required. The Community Development Director explained that any changes of variance would be through the variance procedure. Anything other than that would have to go through the City Council through Zone Change procedures. Commissioner Buchanan asked specifically if an applicant wished to change the height of the retaining wall than as permitted would that have to be something approved at the Planning Commission level or would that be burdened by City Council. The Community Development Director explained that would be handled through the variance procedures by the Planning Commission. He cautioned that variances should not be considered as the catch all to pickup the pieces missed by the ordinances. Commissioner Buchanan stressed that variances should be tough to get. This ordinance should be drafted in such a way that variances don't become necessary. In relation to the ordinance itself, the purpose section contains valid points. He understood the comments from the public regarding clarification on the direction of the ordinance. His personal feeling was that the direction should be more towards discretionary or flexible standards for use in hillside areas. He felt that density issues are better addressed in the underlying zoning on an area by area basis. He was inclined away from the stringent cutoff of no development on 30% or greater slopes. He would prefer to see an ordinance that imposes more intensive review procedures for proposed development with guidelines for orientating development towards the lower elevations on lots away from hilltop and ridgeline development. Discussion on the requirement of grading plan review for the Site and Architectural Review. 6 Commissioner Van Gelder asked the Community Development Director if those items covered in the overlay ordinance would not be covered by other rules or regulations. The Community Development Director explained that there are existing state rules and regulations. However, this ordinance is an attempt to allow the City to set out additional guidelines as to how this hillside issue would be addressed. In regards to the density issue it is an underlying issue of the zoning. Underlying zoning allows R-1/7.2 zoning on most of the property. On Blue Mountain itself it calls for 1 acre lots and draft ordinance looks at that issue as being underlying zoning. One thing that could be done to the ordinance is to put in a slope density ratio whereas if the slopes are between 0-15% perhaps a two dwelling per acre density limit. If 15- 30% then 1 dwelling unit per acre if above the 30% then drop it down to .5 per acre. If further than that then it could go down down to .1 per acre. As the slopes get steeper the density gets lower. There are formulas that can be put into the ordinance to where that is interpreted in that manner, or it could be left to a policy basis. Those things can be worked into it if you want to look at the density issue as part of the overlay zone or if you want to leave it in the underlaying zone. Discussion on the three issues as it relates to planning. One, the General Plan to be followed as a general overall guideline for the City. Second, the Zoning allows more specificity to be assigned in areas over and above the general overview of the General Plan as well as the overlay zoning. Third, the Specific Plan dimension. There is still a requirement for any development in the current General Plan which is more than 16 dwelling units needing a specific plan. The proposed General Plan raises that to 20. The Specific Plan is the ability for the developer and the City to look at specific instances and problems with specific properties and projects and arrive at some compromise, as long as it is under the General Plan consistency. The City Attorney explained that the Specific Plan is no difference than C-2 or R-1, it is a zone. It just happens to be more specific as to what the uses are going to be or the product potential would be. The government code generally provides the specific plan as it relates to a zone which is going to be a variety of mixed uses in a substantial partial size. It would be difficult to do a single family specific zone. He suggested that be included. In relation to this ordinance as it applies to other than the Specific Plan setting probably takes away some of Mr. Hood's concerns is to address what the 7 Planning Commission would like to see in terms of criteria for the single lot subdivision up to 16 or 20. Perhaps that should be the focus of the hillside overlay. Essentially you have a hillside overlay without calling it that by requiring a Specific Plan. He suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission would want to address in the ordinance any Specific Plan that is adopted under the hillside overlay as taking into account some of the purposes of the General Plan. He understood the ordinance to relate to aesthetics, environmental concerns, limited density and slope stability. Perhaps a Specific Plan in this area needs to be more concerned about those purposes than it would be on flat lands. The Specific Plan process will take care of most 16-20 developments. He suggested that more attention should be addressed to what was intended for Mr. Lindsay Smith, owner of 9.1 acres. Chairman Hargrave asked if a Specific Plan was needed for every single family residence. The City Attorney explained that a Specific Plan for all property owners does not make sense. The Specific Plan is generally the situation that the entire property will be developed as a single entity. That would be true for Coast Development's property and T.J. Austyn's property but not feasible for Mr. Smith's property. The hillside overlay will call out and reaffirm the requirements for the Specific Plan and set forth some criteria for it on the larger developments. He suggested setting forth design criteria for those projects which will not go through a Specific Plan review process. Chairman Hargrave asked if the Site Development standards and Site and Architectural Review were sufficient for specific guidelines. The City Attorney responded essentially yes. The difficulty is that the current zoning does not take into account the fact that there is a difference between flat lands and hillsides. The first draft of the hillside overlay ordinance does deal with basic criteria for the hillside. Discussion on choices available for the hillside area. Those being either to change the zoning in the area or leave it as it is but redefine the area using the overlay plan. The City Attorney explained that under the assumption that the problems need to be addressed the options the Planning Commission and City Council have are to prepare 8 and adopt a separate zone for the area or assume the existing zoning and apply fine tune criteria as in a hillside overlay. In response to Mr. Smith's questions if grazing*or the planting of avocados were allowable, the Community Development Director explained those were the uses allowed in the underlying zoning. The draft hillside ordinance does not address that. He pointed out that does not provide an answer because in the current zoning the agricultural uses would be allowed under a format that the residential zoning was being changed it would not be allowed as a primary use but the secondary use subsequent as a hobby, could be done. Discussion by the Planning Commission on inserting strict regulations in the hillside overlay ordinance as well as maintaining some flexibility for development. The City Attorney suggested that the Planning Commission might recommend to Council that a study committee be formed to study the effects of a hillside ordinance on the property owners. The Community Development Director explained that a study committee might be a viable alternative. He pointed out that it will delay the process. Discussion on the Environmental Study completed for the hillside. Commissioner Sims asked what the purpose was as it relates to the hillside ordinance. The Community Development Director explained that the General Plan, Master Environmental Assessment, takes a look at the overall picture as far as the grading, density, drainage, City substructures and traffic issues. Since this is a project under CEQA it needs to have its own Initial Study. Therefore, his approach was that several of the items will be looked on as a detailed project. A project may come in for a subdivision and require its own Environmental Review. Commissioner Sims stated that he was not convinced that there would not be some substantial impacts, from a general standpoint, and perhaps the Planning Commission should study now. Discussion by the Planning Commission of the pros and cons of a special study committee. Discussion by the Planning Commission on the need for different modified versions of the ordinance as well as 0 innovative examples of similar ordinances in other communities. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the two issues of the hillside overlay were slope and density. The Community Development Director stated that he would add in design aspects. Commissioner Van Gelder suggested directing attention to those issues. The Community Development Director suggested that a special workshop could be planned for the Planning Commission on this item. Staff could accumulate examples of hillside ordinances from other communities, provide photos, and board presentations for the special workshop. He stated that what still needs to be decided upon are the areas involved, the purpose of the hillside overlay, design criteria or development design, and density issues. This special workshop would be on an informal basis, not a public hearing, open to the public however. PLANNING COMMISSION BREAK AT 8:45 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:00 P.M. Discussion by the Planning Commission of the pros and cons of a special workshop dealing with the hillside overlay zoning. Commissioner Munson asked if a special workshop was planned would there also be another Planning Commission Meeting with public hearing for more input on the issue. The Community Development Director responded yes. CONCENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HAVE A SPECIAL WORKSHOP ON THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY ISSUE. Chairman Hargrave summarized that a special workshop would be called for more discussion on the hillside overlay. Also, another Planning Commission Meeting with public hearing in the future would be planned. The Community Development Director and the City Attorney pointed out that the hillside overlay issue when it goes back to the Planning Commission Meeting, does not anticipate it being until next year, will be readvertised as a public hearing. If possible the special workshop 10 will be planned for early December. Commissioner Munson asked if it would be possible to contact the landowners to see if they have any projects planned. The Community Development Director suggested that an announcement could be made at the City Council Meeting and newspaper notification about the special workshop sometime in December. Therefore the public and property owners would be welcome to attend for observation purposes. Also, they would be invited to send written communication to the Planning Department. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. Chairman Hargrave stated that items #5 CUP-88-13 & #6 SA- 88-15 (Central City Recycling Center/James Fagelson) and #8 SA-88-17 (California Spirits/Haden Architects) have been continued. TTM-88-3/V-88-1 SIGLAND & ASSOCIATES 12394 MICHIGAN AVENUE APN #277-091-06/R-1 Staff report presented by the Community Development Director with the recommendations and conditions of approval by staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. This project is an application to subdivide a 1.94 acre lot into 7 single family residences (TTM- 13834). Also, an application to request variances.on the lot depths and frontyard setbacks on the lot (TTM-13834) . Discussion on traffic circulation plan for the northside of Mavis Court and Michigan Avenue. The Community Development Director pointed out that the City Engineer did not have a specific requirement dealing with a return on the cul de sac on Mavis Court in his memorandum. The Community Development Director stated that if it is a concern then it could be conditioned that this issue be taken care of before it goes to City Council. Commissioner Sims stated that if the variance is agreed upon then it should be assured that the right of way is properly handled, on the south and northside. The Community Development Director explained that the 11 right of way would be a standard requirement whenever the other lots are developed. Discussion on the memorandum from the City Engineer's Office and request for clarification of addressing curb and street improvements into the development. Discussion on the right of way on the northside, that of 25 feet from center line being shown on the proposed plans, and the ultimate right of way being possibly 30 feet. Commissioner Sims expressed his concern if the house to the north was staying then there would be a 13' setback from where the right of way is going to be on Mavis Court that would not conform to the City's setback requirements. The Community Development Director agreed and stated that would possibly point the way to another variance. Discussion on the drainage from this area into the natural easements. Chairman Hargrave referred to the centerline to Michigan and the property owner needing to extend Michigan on the westside in order to conform with the present General Plan for Michigan. The Community Development Director pointed out that the right of way was 44' and the current line would be 301. Chairman Hargrave referred to the memorandum from the City Engineer's Office which required (#3a) the applicant to install curb and gutter 32' from centerline on Michigan Street. The Community Development Director explained that he would go by the recommendation from the City Engineer of 32'. Discussion on the issue of widening Michigan Avenue to the west and the curbline brought into line. The Community Development Director pointed out that existing today the street would be widened to meet the requirements of this map. Discussion of procedures in any future changes of this project as it pertains to the General Plan. Discussion on any future development to the northside of 12 Mavis Court and if it would be reasonable to assume that those properies would also come into conformance with the same specifications of the right of way, centerline and curb line, and setbacks. The Community Development Director explained that the properties to the north are wider but the same general shape. Therefore they may not need any specific adjustments on the setbacks. Discussion on whether the various setbacks, some in conformance with the code and others if altered through variance, would make the area look a little strange. The Community Development Director pointed out that the 20/25' setback issue really is an effort to address the problems of lots 2 and 6. Instead of having those homes with the 20' setbacks and have the ones next door with 2511 staff felt it would be more advantageous to the neighborhood to be consistant with 20' as the frontyard setback. Discussion on the requirement in the code for 25' frontyard setbacks and the flexibility of the Planning Commission's powers to waive that. Discussion on future plans for the palm trees located on the corner of Mavis Court and Michigan. Discussion on the General Plan Revision and the zoning of this property as R-1/7200 lots. The Community Development Director pointed out that staff is satisfied with the individual lots meeting the minimum requirements and even surpassing some lot depths and widths. Discussion on any possible revision of the landuse designation to the south of Michigan. The Community Development Director pointed out that it is still General Commercial Zoning. Commissioner Buchanan asked for a definition of front and side yards. The Community Development Director pointed out that they are calculated by the width or narrowness of lots. Commissioner Sims asked if there was an intent to have a buffer such as a block wall between the residential and commercial properties. 13 The Community Development Director pointed out whenever a commercial structure is built that the code required a 6' high block wall as a buffer between a commercial development and a residential area. Discussion on turnaround space for emergency vehicles in the property area. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 9:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 9:45 P.M. 1. Sigland and Associates Richard Siegmund 364 Orange Show Lane San Bernardino, CA. Mr. Siegmund answered many of the Planning Commission's questions. He explained that the access onto parcel 1 would come in at the same area of the carport (which will eventually be removed). In regards to the palm trees, they could make contact with tree removal companies if agreeable with the Commission. The property to the north is deeper by 601, therefore the lots would not have to 01 go through a variance for the building setback. In regards to the building setback being acceptable it has been his experience that other cities do not allow the same building setback down the streets. In regards to the curb and gutter on Michigan Avenue, they ran into a problem with the curb return on the north. They needed to obtain an additional right of way and the current owner, of the adjacent property, is presently not willing to give up for dedication. Mr. Siegmund stated that they have come up with another proposal for that curb area. They proposed putting the curbing on the south with cross gutter all the way to the north to line up with the north curb and then just pave the turnout to Michigan. If they can get the offer of dedication at that corner they would propose to do that. Commissioner Sims asked the applicant how he intended to sewer the project. Mr. Siegmund stated that they would have to get an easement from the property to the west and go north, up to De Berry Avenue. Commissioner Sims asked if there will be a street parkway C1 14 drain system to transmit to a drainage ditch or sometype of piping. Mr. Siegmund explained that the City Engineer and himself have not spoken in detail on the subject. He did propose a 24" storm drain pipe either way or 15' easement is wide enough. Discussion on drainage at the intersection of Mavis and Michigan by creating a humping situation in the roadway which will prevent overflow from entering into the project. Commissioner Sims asked Mr. Siegmund if he felt that getting the right of way from the other property owner was viable. Mr. Siegmund explained that it could work either way as designed with a cross gutter or paving with an AC dike. They would still try to get an offsite easement however. Commissioner Sims asked the Community Development Director if the applicant was not able to build the full improvements would they be bonded for that amount, so that at some future date it could be completed. The Community Development Director explained that was usually how it was handled. Commissioner Sims asked the applicant if he anticipated a sidewalk on the northside of Mavis Court. The applicant stated that if there was no pedestrian use then it probably would not be put in at this time. The Community Development Director explained that it could be looked at on a staff level. Discussion on the history of ownership of the parcel by Mrs. Hendrix. The applicant anticipated development starting within the year after approval process and pulling of permits. Discussion regarding the property owner to the north and the request by the applicant for 10' of additional property from her. She was not receptive at this time for development. 2. Frances Carter 11938 Arliss Drive Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 15 Mrs. Carter is the property owner directly south of this project. Her property is presently zoned commercial and she is currently working on a commercial development. She feels that this property, though residential, would not have the adequate density to be compatible with her commercial property. It would not create a buffer. She does not feel that development of a half street is sensible. There is no guarantee that the property to the north would ever be developed similarly and dedicate the rest of the street. 3. Lee Switzfigure 12438 Michigan Avenue Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Switzfigure is the property owner just south of Mrs. Carter. He is a long time resident and has operated a trucking business at that location. He expressed his concern that the close proximity of the new residents will cause complaints about his trucking business. He felt that the project was a good idea but not the proper location due to the close proximity of the commercial area. The applicant, Mr. Siegmund, responded that they did have the project ready to submit about one (1) year ago. However, they were stopped by the building moratorium and therefore they have been waiting through the General Plan Revision. The property has now been zoned as R-1. So they are proceeding with an R-1 development. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 10:00 P.M. Discussion on the lot sizes and the square footage of the houses (12-1400 sq. feet, one story homes). Discussion on the wall that is proposed to go around the residential area to reduce the dust and noise level from the trucking business. Discussion on the Site and Architectural Review process of the whole project instead of site and architectural review for each single family residence. Discussion on the accepted width of the half street which meets the City Engineer's requirements. 16 MOTION PCM-88-83 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-83 MOTION PCM-88-84 Discussion on the traffic increase that will be caused by this project. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson expressed his concerns with the residential area so close to a commercially zoned area. He did not feel it was the responsibility of the trucking company to put up the block wall because they were there before. Commissioner Buchanan echoed those same concerns. Discussion on the General Plan Is circulation requirements for Michigan Avenue. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson made the motion that V-88-1 be denied. Commissioner Munson second. 2-4-1-0. Motion failed. Commissioners Hawkinson and Munson voting ayes. Commissioners Buchanan, Van Gelder, Sims, Hargrave voting noe. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve V-88-1 as recommended by staff. Chairman Hargrave second. Commissioner Sims asked when the block wall would be discussed. The Community Development Director pointed out that the standard conditions for Site and Architectural Review is that a wall 6' high run around the perimeter of the property and that can be waived by the Site and Architectural Review Board. The Community Development Director explained that the perimeter of the block wall would be on the southside coming up to the 25' building setback. It would drop down to the minimum height requirement for the front yard setback. On the northside there wouldn't be a wall and 17 on the westside it would go to the property line or it could be brought back to Mavis Court. However, all of this would be an issue of the Site and Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Buchanan asked once this project of 6 or 7 lots is approved it does not prevent the selling of one or two lots. He asked if a site and architectural review has to be done each time someone wanted to build a home. The Community Development Director explained the applicant would have a condition that the CC&Rs include the design regulations or it would be brought before the Planning Commission for approval. Such as the wall or what type of mitigation measures could be worked into the design of the project to help with the commercial - residential conflict. Those would have to be filed at the County Recorder's Office before the map could be recorded. When the lots are sold off individually the buyer gets a copy of those signed design standards and requirements. MOTION PCM-88-84 VOTE I 4-2-1-0. Motion carried. Commissioners Buchanan, Sims, Hargrave and Van Gelder voting aye. Commissioners Hawkinson and Munson voting noe. Commissioner Hilkey absent. MOTION PCM-88-85 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve TTM-88- 3 with the conditions set forth by the Planning Department recommendations. Chairman Hargrave second. Discussion on the possibility that the individual lots could be sold off an not a part of the overall development. Chairman Hargrave questioned whether that was the intent of the applicant. He asked whether another condition could be put in to insure that the six parcels be developed as a single development. The City Attorney cautioned that could not be done 18 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-85 according to loss or restraint on alienation regulations. Chairman Hargrave asked if the Planning Commission had the ability through CC&Rs or Site and Architectural approval in essence to control the six lots for development. The Community Development Director responded to the affirmative. 4-2-0-1, motion carried. Commissioners Buchanan, Hargrave, Sims and Van Gelder voted aye. Commissioners Hawkinson and Munson voted noe. Commissioner Hilkey absent. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 10:30 P.M. Item #7 Single Family Residence Marc and Ann Ivey 23325 Westwood Avenue Grand Terrace, CA. The Associate Planner, Jeri Ram, presented the staff report with conditions of approval and recommendations from staff, the Reviewing Agencies and the City Engineer. Chairman Hargrave asked what the maximum elevation was on the property. The Community Development Director stated that the far end of the property was 4,066 sq. ft. The whole property slopes towards Westwood Avenue. The backpart -of the property would be the highest elevation. Chairman Hargrave asked the Community Development Director if it was his intent to ask for a specific grading plan. The Community Development Director explained that the grading pad was already on the lot. He stated that the City Engineer reviewed the plans and had no comments, meaning that it was approved. 19 Discussion on the detailed landscaping submittal requirement. The Community Development Director explained what was presented to the Planning Commissin in their packets was a conceptual landscaping plan. The requirement of a detailed landscaping plan would provide information on the sizes of the plants, groundcovers, spacing and irrigation system. Commissioner Sims stated he observed that the front slope, which faces Westwood Avenue, appeared to be over 30 ft. in height. He understood that the UBC mandate specifies that slopes over 30 ft. require benches to prevent erosion as well as setback limitations. He asked, since this property was already graded, if the Planning Commission have any authority to make specific requirements due to the steep slopes. The Community Development Director stated that should be answered by the City Engineer. However, upon the same premise that he has reviewed the project and stated he had no negative comments that meant it was acceptable to him. He stated if the Planning Commission wishes the City Engineer to review it again, staff can contact the City Engineer. Commissioner Sims stated he could not tell from the plans what the slope and drainage conditions were south, or parallel to Westwood, and from the surrounding properties. The Community Development Director suggested that a condition be added that the City Engineer look .at the grading plans to check the conditions of the property. Discussion on the fencing requirements for the project. PLANNING COMMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 10:30 P.M. 1. Larry Vesely Architect 22400 Barton Road Suite #15 Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Vesely stated that they were in agreement on the conditions except for Item #2 (the fencing). He explained that they did not show any fences on their plans because they did not propose any. Because it was 20 in the hillside area of Honey Hills, the requirement of having fencing on the rear and side yards they felt it was against the concept of hillside development. The slope to the rear of the property rises 20-40 ft. above the pad. The southern portion whch abuts the roadway up the hill they foresee doing planting on. In terms of the area around the home, the home to their east has a fence already around the swimming pool. They are below the western property, approximately 12 ft., and they are above the property to the east. They would like to request that the Planning Commission remove item #2 from the conditions. In response to Commissioner Sims' concerns, they are presently planning to route the water from around the northern portion and bring it back through an underground piping to the driveway and down. Chairman Hargrave asked Mr. Vesely what the time frame was for construction. Mr. Vesely explained that they hoped to pull permits by the first of 1989. Commissioner Buchanan asked for staff's response on the applicant's requests for removal of the fencing requirement. The Community Development Director stated that it was a requirement of the City Code therefore there is not a great deal of flexibility. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that the best the Planning Commission could do would be to voice their opinion for fence removal to the City Council. Discussion on whether or not the City Council could do a variance on the fencing code. The City Attorney explained that the applicant can appeal to the City Council. Also, the Council can consider an amendment to the code. Chairman Hargrave suggested that this item could be continued to allow staff time to prepare a recommendation to the City Council and later bring it back to the Planning Commission. The City Attorney explained an agendized item would be the Council's consideration of amending the code. He pointed out that it takes two readings and 30 days to make it effective. He was not sure if continuing this item would solve anything. 21 Mr. Vesely stated they would like to avoid going through a monetary appeal process to the Council. The City Attorney clarified that the Community Development Director could propose a memo to convey the intent of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The Community Development Director explained that it would take awhile. First, they go to the City Council but they also have to return to the public hearing of the Planning Commission on the zoning amendment. Then back to the Council for a zoning amendment, the 30 day wait, and the second reading. The City Attorney explained that the next step would be putting on the agenda an amendment for this body and then back to the Council. Chairman Hargrave clarified if the Site and Architectural is passed then recommendation could be made to the Community Development Director that this be put on the agenda for Planning Commission consideration. Then based upon the vote would go back to the City Council. The City Attorney suggested voting on the condition optionally, that it be required under the assumption the code remains unchanged. In the event that there is a future code amendment allowing the Planning Commission to waive the requirement of the fence that at this point in time do hereby do that. In the future the Commission would consider each fence application on its merit, but there would have to be some variance type criteria. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AT 10:30 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-86 Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve SA-88-16 with the additional condition #4, review of the grading and draining plan by the City Engineer, and condition #5, which would allow the Community Development Director to waive this condition if there is a change of the Municipal Code regarding the fencing requirement prior to the issuance of occupancy for this project. Commissioner Munson second. The City Attorney clarified that the Commission was voting tonight that if in the future the code allows this condition to be waived, it may be waived by the Community 22 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-86 Development Director. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director P.C. Mtg. 11/7/88 23 Approved by, Stanley Hargrave, Chairman I Planning Commissi