Loading...
02/06/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 1989 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 February 6, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: Dan Buchanan, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information/Staff presented to Commissioners Discussion on status of Hillside Overlay Procedures for Nuisance Abatement Appeal Hearing. These items are presented before Planning Commission but according to our code are not public hearings. Code Violations on Chocolate Forest CUP-88-7, and possible revocation hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Chairman Hargrave called the meeting to order. Chairman Hargrave opened the meeting with item #1, October 3 and October 17, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes. ITEM #1 P.C. MINUTES OCTOBER 3 & OCTOBER 17, 1988 Discussion on the Planning Commission minutes. 1 MOTION PCM-89-15 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-15 MOTION PCM-89-16 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-16 Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve October 3, 1988 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Hawkinson second. Motion carried. 3-0-2-1. Commissioners Van Gelder and Sims abstained. Commissioner Buchanan absent. Commissioner Hawkinson made the motion to approve October 17, 1988 Planning Commission minutes. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carried. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Munson abstain and Commissioner Buchanan absent. Public Participation - No comments from the audience. ITEM #2 APPEAL OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT RULING VIVIAN PROCTOR 11820 ETON DRIVE GTMC 8.04.020 (14) & 8.04.020 (17) City Attorney, John Harper, explained the Nuisance Abatement Hearing of January 17, 1989 and its findings. He recommended that subsection (23) be deleted since it was included in subsection (14) already. Assistant City Manager, Randy Anstine, presented the staff report and the time schedule of violation inspections. He presented current pictures which were taken on the date of the 2 initial hearing, December 14, 1989. The property owner was sent numerous notices of violations stating exactly what she was in violation of and what corrective action was needed. He presented pictures taken on the reinspection date, January 3, 1989. As noted by the photographs there were no changes of the conditions. Due to no corrective action taken, a Nuisance Abatement Hearing was conducted on January 17, 1989. During the hearing Mrs. Proctor was given the opportunity to present her case and demonstrate to the City that she was in compliance with the ordinances. Due to the lack of sufficient evidence being presented at the hearing, staff declared it to be in violation of the local ordinances, it was declared a public nuisance. The City Attorney, John Harper, stated that the evidence presented to the Planning Commission was the same presented at the hearing. Chairman Hargrave asked if the Commissioners had any questions for staff. Discussion on the reinspection process of the property to check for compliance or non-compliance of the City Ordinance. Chairman Hargrave asked the Assistant City Manager, Randall Anstine, if the trailer was properly registered. The Assistant City Manager, Randy Anstine, responded that the trailer as well as the other vehicles (3) were not registered. Discussion on the quantity of times the property owner has received violation notices and letters to comply with the City Ordinance. Discussion on the precise ordinance and subsection violations; trailer, vehicles and overgrowth vegetation. The vehicles must be made operable and must be currently registered. The trailer must be removed and the overgrowth cleaned up. The Assistant City Manager stated that the trailer could be stored on a paved driveway area per code. Discussion on the current registered owners of the vehicles. VIVIEN PROCTOR 11820 ETON DRIVE GRAND TERRACE, CA. 92324 Mrs. Proctor stated that the Fiat has been registered and insured. The trailer has now been registered and will move it once the tire has been changed. She opposed the procedures taken in notifying her of the violations. She described the repairs needed for the Cadillac and the Lincoln Continental. She has misplaced the pink slips on all of her vehicles. She is a senior citizen and has difficulty due to poor health. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION 7:30 P.M. Discussion on alternative plans for removal and cleaning of the property. Such as storage and Senior Citizen Referral Service. Commissioner Van Gelder asked who needs to confirm ownership of the vehicles. Mrs. Proctor stated that in the first violation notices the cars were not mentioned. She thought it referred to property maintenance. She did admit that the disabled vehicles have been on her property for at least two years. Chairman Hargrave asked Mrs. Proctor how much longer she would need to clear up the problems. Mrs. Proctor replied that she would like at least 30 days. Commissioner Hilkey stated that 30 days does not seem long enough to solve the problem. He suggested 60 days to find the pink slips for the vehicles. The City Attorney explained that verification is not necessary when abandoned vehicles are hauled off to storage. There is a statuatory time period that is required under the Motor of Vehicles Code for notification to registered owner. Chairman Hargrave suggested allowing the City to haul everything off if not into compliance between 30-60 days. He asked if that would be easier on her from a cost standpoint. Discussion on the monetary value of the vehicles. Mrs. Proctor stated that she would like to try selling the vehicles herself. She stated that she was told previously by In lu MOTION PCM-89-17 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-17 the Assistant City Manager that covers would be allowed on the vehicles. The Assistant City Manager stated that the vehicle violations started February 26, 1987, and a certified letter was signed by Mrs. Proctor. Mrs. Proctor contacted the Assistant City Manager requesting an extension to March 11, 1988. Mrs. Proctor stated that she never contacted the City requesting an extension. Discussion regarding options available to the Planning Commission for a decision. The City Attorney stated that there were not any set types of rules established for decision making. The Planning Commission could rule from a denial of the appeal to an extension. Discussion on the billing of abatement on her property. The Assistant City Manager explained that would be put onto the tax bill and will remain as lien on property if not paid. The City Attorney explained that there would not be a direct cost to Mrs. Proctor. The vehicles would probably be removed for salvage, abatement only. The lien would probably not endanger her but he would need to look at what would be involved in removing the vehicles. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to deny the appeal of Vivian Proctor and to commence action of abatement no sooner than 30 days from February 7, 1989. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Motion carried. 4-0-1-2. Commissioners Sims and Van Gelder abstained. Commissioner Buchanan absent. MR. GARWHEEL 22837 MINONA AVENU GRAND TERRACE, CA. Mr. Garwheel submitted a survey and petition taken in the neighborhood between Minona and Eton Drives. It contained 50 signatures requesting a denial of Mrs. Proctor's appeal. He presented the long history of the inoperable vehicles, storage of trailer and property deterioration at 11820 Eton Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 7:50 P.M. Break 7:50 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 8:00 P.M. ITEM #2 PHIL STIDHAM - OWNER CRAIG SMITH/JOSEPH FERRY - APPLICANTS 21797 VIVIENDA AVENUE TPM-89-1/ SUBDIVISION TRACT 12015 The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the conditions and recommendations of approval from staff, the Reviewing Agencies and the City Engineer. Discussion on recommendation by the City Engineer that street improvements be delayed until such time that the rest of the area is improved. Discussion on the ultimate street width should be 36' from curb to curb measurements. The City Engineer's Office was requesting that the applicant dedicate additional right of way to provide for a 60' full street, to straighten out the angle point with the curb that is shown on the plan. The City Engineer stated that the applicant should be aware that these are normal conditions for any improvement project. Discussion on current General Plan guidelines. Discussion on any bonding for the project and assurance for the City that the improvements are taken care of. The City Engineer explained that there is an agreement normally recorded, between the property owner and the City. It carries the legal description and it is a covenant. When the City is 0 requiring the improvements then the required expenditures should be of record at the time of the lot split approval. The City Attorney explained that when the time comes to call the lien hopefully the City will receive payment. It is extremely unusual for the City to foreclose on that type of lien. He stated that bonding may not be the answer. Discussion on if the improvements were completed today the actual costs might be $15-20,000. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:12 P.M. JOSEPH FERRY 1331 LATHAM STREET COLTON, CA. 92324 Mr. Ferry stated that he is affiliated with Craig Smith Engineering and they are processing the lot split for the applicant/Phil Stidham. He stated that the applicant would not object to the installation of street improvements at the time that others are required to install the same. Commissioner Hilkey asked which property would carry the lien. The City Attorney responded that each property would carry the respected burden. The agreement would apply to both. Discussion on the zoning of the property, LDR, low density residential showing 1 to 5. The area is zoned for R-1.72 for single family homes only. Chairman Hargrave asked if a single family residence applied would street improvements and widening be required at that time. The City Attorney explained that would be up to the option of the City. He referred to earlier example that the City continued the lien because it was not an appropriate time for the development. 7 M MOTION PCM-89-18 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-18 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson made the motion to approve TPM-89-1 inclusive of the recommendations and conditions. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Buchanan absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:15 P.M. ITEM #4 TERRACE GATEWAY GARY CLARK 12028 LA CROSSE AVENUE The Community Development Director stated that it has been requested by the applicant that this item be continued until a later date. Commissioner Munson requested a special commendation be presented to the Associate Planner, Jeri Ram, at the next meeting before her departure. 8 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:15 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director Approved by, P.C. Meeting 2/6/89