Loading...
02/21/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 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 21, 1989 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 (late) Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: Jim Sims, Commissioner John Harper, City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Fran Van Gelder PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. * Information presented by staff to Commissioners. * Information and discussion on zoning revision procedures. * Staff requested that the Parking Revision be continued to the March 6, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Also, the Zoning Definition Section be continued indefinitely until brought back by staff. * Staff requested that SA-88-17 (California moved up on the agenda and taken care of first. * Commendation to Associate Planner/Jeri Spirits) be appreciation for her two years as Planning Associate Planner with the City of Grand Terrace. * Staff informed the Planning Commission that Council has called a joint workshop between the of Commerce, Planning Department and themselves the Planning Department's role in the City. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Ram in Aide and the City Chamber to discuss Chairman Hargrave opened the Planning Commission Meeting Public Participation - There were no comments from the public. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:03 P.M. ITEM #2 SA-88-17 CALIFORNIA SPIRITS/ STAN CURATOLO EAST OF SOUTHWEST CORNER BARTON RD. AND MICHIGAN AVE GRAND TERRACE The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions by staff, the City Engineer, and the reviewing agencies. The Community Development Director stated that he has spoken with a representative of the applicant regarding the recommendations this afternoon. Discussion on recommendation #2, "...having the applicant work with the consultant...". The Community Development Director stated that in the design of the building it is suggested that the applicant work with the consultant, after the completion of the Barton Road Specific Plan, and staff so that the design will be more in line with what the consultant would be considering for Barton Road. The public will be able to have input regarding architectural designs and other features on the Specific Plan. Discussion on the location of this property in regards to the large groups of properties listed by Kathy Harmon, realtor. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED 1. Terry Haden Haden Architects 506 N. Eureka Redlands, CA, Mr. Haden stated that they are in significant agreement with the Community Development Director regarding the design. Based on the last meeting, the issue of most concern to them is the 2 continuance issue. Obviously the Planning Commission is concerned with future plans for Barton Road. They have no problem with the architectural and landscaping enhancement. Their main concern are the time delays and wish to start with the project. They have no desire to see this continued for a year while staff and consultant find that they probably want to say the same things that have been said in the General Plan. Commissioner Munson asked the applicant if their suggestions would be similar to the consultant's. Mr. Haden responded that he did not see how the consultant could dictate architectural style. However, in the case of their project he would see it as a backdrop building. It would not set the trend for anything being developed on Barton Road. They are in complete agreement with the Community Development Director's recommendation to pull the building 10 feet back from the side property line to allow that to become heavily landscaped so that the building would disappear if and when any large development occurred there. Discussion on any future tenants for this project. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED Discussion on the purpose of the Barton Road Specific Plan. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she felt this project should wait until the Barton Road Specific Plan is completed. MOTION PCM-89-19 Chairman Hargrave made the motion to continue SA-88-17, according to the preparation of the Barton Road Specific Plan or for one year whichever is sooner and also for condition #2. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Munson expressed his concern that past overlay plans and Specific Plans have prevented development in various areas of the City. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he had empathy for the applicant in this type of situation. He asked if it was possible to have the consultant direct his attention at the beginning of his process to situations like this. 3 The Community Development Director explained that could be worked into the schedule for the Specific Plan. However, he felt that would be detrimental to the overall Specific Plan. He agrees with the applicant when he stated this building would not be a landmark building. It will dictate how the property around it will develop. Commissioner Buchanan asked if a Conditional Use Permit would be required for a liquor store. The Community Development Director responded that a conditional use permit was not required in the C-2 Zone, even with the close proximity to the school. Presently the zoning is being revised and if that is desired it could be rewritten in the C-2 Zone. Discussion on the alternatives to the applicant. Either denial of the project in which they could appeal to the City Council or a continuance to come back to the Planning Commission. If a continuance is not acceptable then it is recommended that the Planning Commission deny this project based on the General Plan. Discussion on the Specific Plan and the addressing of Architectural Design Standards. f Commissioner Hilkey expressed his concern with the possibility of a liquor store going in across the street from the school. He has received input from the public wishing to express their opposition. MOTION VOTE PCM-89-19 Discussion on C-2 Zoning use allowances. Chairman Hargrave reiterated the alternatives available to the applicant. Motion carried. Commissioner Munson voting noe and Commissioner Sims absent. 5-1-1-0. The Community Development Director suggested that Chairman Hargrave asked for input from the applicant regarding the continuance. 4 Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant for his response. Mr. Terry Haden Haden Architectures RESCIND MOTION PCM-89-20 RESCIND MOTION VOTE PCM-89-20 MOTION PCM-89-21 Mr. Haden stated that they had no desire for a continuance. It denies the applicant the use of the property for approximately one (1) year. The Community Development Director suggested that if the Planning Commission wishes to deny rather than continue to have a motion to rescind the previous motion and make a new motion. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to rescind motion, PCM-89- 19. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carried. Commissioner Hawkinson voting noe and Commissioner Sims absent. 5-1-1-0. The Community Development Director stated that a motion is need to approve or deny. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve the Planning Department's denial of SA-88-17. Commissioner Hilkey second. Discussion on the time schedule of the Barton Road Specific Plan. Commissioner Munson asked if this is denied this evening, 5 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-21 appealed and denied before the City Council can they return to the Planning Commission at a future date. The Community Development Director explained that it would have to be changed substantially. There is a one year resubmittal period. The denial is based on the General Plan and directed Specific Plan. The continuance was offered to the applicant and they have requested sometype of decision. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL MEETING ADJOURNED Discussion on the minutes of November 7, 1988. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED ITEM #1 Z-89-1 RESIDENTIAL ZONING REVISION MOTION PCM-89-22 Community Development Director requested that the Planning Commission continue the amendment of Chapter 18.60 relating to off-street parking until March 6, 1989. Also, to continue the amendment of Chapter 18.06 relating to definitions until brought back by staff. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to continue the amendment of Chapter 18.60 relating to off-street parking until March 6, 1989. Also to continue the amendment of Chapter 18.06 relating to definitions until brought back by staff. Commissioner Buchanan second. z MOTION VOTE PCM-89-22 Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Sims absent. Community Development Director presented the staff report with the conditions and recommendations of approval. He explained that the remaining zoning revisions for the commercial, manufacturing, site and architectural review and miscellaneous chapters of Title 18 to bring Title 18 into conformance will be presented later during the year. Presentation of mark up boards indicating areas that are proposed to be changed. Section #1, R-1 to C-2, per General Plan revision. Section #2, C/2-CPD to MR, per General Plan revision. Section #3, MR to C2, per General Plan revision. Section #4, AP to C2, per General Plan revision. Section #5, AP to R3, per General Plan revision. Section #6, AP to C2, per General Plan revision. Section #7, A-1 to R1-7.2, proposed by staff. Section #8, R1 to R1-20, proposed by staff. Section #9, R1/part PUD to R1-40, proposed by staff. Section #10, Al to R1- 40, proposed by staff. Section #11, Al to R1-20, proposed by staff. Section #12, R1 to R1-20, proposed by staff. Section #13, R1 to R1-20, proposed by staff. Commissioner Buchanan asked for an explanation of Section # 1, with the PUD Overlay. Community Development Director explained that the PUD did not cover all of Section # 1. Chairman Hargrave referred to Section #7, Marmack Farms, proposed by staff to be R1-7.2. He asked if it could qualify for a lot split. Community Development Director explained that it was a large lot and without looking at any variances they could possibly get two or three lots, but probably two at the most. Commissioner Hilkey asked for the definition of an accessory structure. Community Development Director stated that staff would recommend a modification of some of the definitions. He 7 referred to section 18.06.020 of the current code definition. Commissioner Hilkey asked what the limit would be on a detached garage. Community Development Director explained that in the R1-7.2 zone it would be limited to 8 feet. Normally, in the R1-7.2 zone one does not have a detached garage built in the backyard. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he was referring to specific cases where he has seen structures in the city over 8 ft. tall. Community Development Director explained that the intent of that was the setback. He stated that would be restricted to 8 ft. tall in the R1-7.2 zone. He clarified that staff has had complaints regarding people building playhouses or sheds that are against the setback. Often there are properties with slopes that are higher than others in the backyard and it is very easy to have an accessory structure such as a playhouse where the playhouse is above the fence. The windows look directly down into the property next door to it. Discussion on the present definition of an accessory structure, not allowed in setbacks with height limits of 8'. Discussion on restrictive areas in certain zones. Commissioner Hilkey requested that there needs to be some attention drawn to the definition of accessory structure. Discussion on area #7, disallowing horses, those presently there will be grandfathered in. The property can be sold as a non -conforming use. The Community Development Director explained that an individual could buy that property and could operate it as a horse ranch with a non -conforming use for the life of the facilities. Discussion on the requirement of 1 unit per half acre if it was the average for a development or is it a minimum per unit (R- 1/20 and R-1/40). The Community Development Director explained it was a minimum. Discussion on R-1/20 (minimum lot size 20,000 sq. feet). Discussion on California Government Code, 4.2. Commissioner Hilkey requested that it be addressed in a separate motion because it deals with the 25% density issue. Discussion on the "granny flat" or second family dwelling issue which will be brought up at a later time. The Community Development Director explained that areas # 1 through #6 reflected the changes as brought about by the approved General Plan. Items #7 through # 13 are recommended by staff. The Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council since they will be the voting body. Discussion on Table 18.12.030, Permitted Uses. Discussion dealing with the chapter on second family units. It will be brought back to the Planning Commission as part of the revision of the overall title for their comments. However, they are basically written already to meet the requirements of State Law. Discussion on Table 18.12.040 Footnotes. The Community Development Director explained the larger the property the larger the project, the more that property can handle the higher density. Those ratios were worked on and approved in 1987. The Community Development Director pointed out that the guest house is a continous item for the R-1/40 and the R-1/20 zones. The Community Development Director referred to Table 18.12.030 Section D (Temporary Uses). He pointed out that staff has recommended a change since 1987. He was suggesting approval by the Planning Director or removing a Conditional Use Permit requirement. Definition of a Temporary Use. The Community Development Director gave an example if property is vacant and a use wants to come in and sell Christmas Trees. Referring to Table 18.12.040 Site Development Standards. "Distance Between Buildings (Minimum linear feet)" for R-1/40, R-1/20 and R-1/7.2 should be changed to 5 ft. to meet the UBC requirements. Discussion by the Planning Commissioners regarding the minimum square footage of living area at 1350 square feet. The figures 9 represented ordinances adopted by the City Council in 1987 and were incorporated in the residential zoning for the westside. The Community Development Director welcomed any proposed changes from the Planning Commissioners and indicated that staff had not recommended any changes. Discussion on Section 4.2 of the California State Code and the lack of authority by the City to change the Code. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED The Community Development Director clarified that section #2, Wildan Pump, going from commercial to manufacturing. The General Plan indicates that it should go to industrial and there is the choice that it can either be heavier or lighter industrial (M-R or M-2). Staff is recommending that it be the lighter industrial, M-R. The blank spaces are being recommended to go commercial which they are presently. The CPD overlay zone has been removed and staffs recommendation is that the C-2 remain. The direction from Council on the General Plan was to come up with a new commercial zoning designation that would be a mix of commercial and the light industrial uses. The recommendation from staff would be to have a new zone not with an overlay zone. Commercial zoning revisions will be addressed at a later date. 1. Jerry Irby 22738 Pico Street Grand Terrace, CA. Mr. Irby questioned the non -conforming use issue. If a property owner wanted to repair a structure of a non -conforming use the property owner would not be able to obtain a permit. This would possibly cause the property owners to discontinue using the structures. The Community Development Director referred to the non- conforming building section of the code, "...ordinary maintenance and repairs may be made on a non -conforming building provided that no structure alterations or additions are, provided further that such maintenance and repairs do not exceed 15% of the fair market value of the building in any one 10 year period. Any repairs necessary to bring a non -conforming building into compliance with the City Code regardless of whether such repairs exceed 15 % of the fair market value of the building in any one year period, provided that the total floor area of the building shall not be increased. Any structural alterations or additions provided that the total floor area of the building shall not be increased by more than 20% or 120 square feet, whichever is greater." The City Attorney has also indicated if any non -conforming structure was to bum by natural phenomenon then they would be allowed to rebuild. Mr. Irby expressed concerns that if he wanted to change any structures that might benefit his farm, then it would involve a great deal of problems. He referred to A-1 property and restrictions placed on it for owners to have horses and desired improvements. Discussion on the planning and building permitting procedures on maintenance, repairs and additional buildings on non- conforming use areas. The Community Development Director presented examples of strict non -conforming use city codes. He pointed out that the City of Grand Terrace has a lenient non -conforming use policy. Discussion on areas #1, Residential to Commercial Use, per the request of the property owner. Areas #10 and #11, A-1 (with existing horse facilities) to the R-1/40 (which does not allow horse facilities). The agricultural overlay could be placed on the latter two areas. The Community Development Director did not recommend the agricultural overlay for area #7, due to the area location. Mr. Irby stated that he is in area # 1. He has goats and horses and would like to continue with those uses. He stressed that the size of the parcel should be a factor. The Community Development Director explained that if they are legally non -conforming use then he can continue with those use. He explained that the determination for a legally non- conforming use would be whether or not the owner obtained the use and had that use going when it was legal to have the use on that property. If the property changed then it would be a non- conforming use that was legal and could continue under the Code. Chairman Hargrave suggested to Mr. Irby that he make an appointment with the Community Development Director to discuss 11 whether or not he has a legal non -conforming use. 2. Barney Karger 11668 Bernardo Way Grand Terrace, CA. Mr. Karger stressed his opposition to the zoning area changes on areas #1, #7, #8 and #10. He stated that the citizens of Grand Terrace wished to maintain the rural and agricultural atmosphere. He stated that he constantly has problems when he is trying to work on his projects in the City. He constantly has to go around and polish someones shoes. He will not pay off to anyone no matter who they are. He disagreed with the necessity to have a definition for Permitted Uses since it is covered under the State mandate code. He asked that private recreational facilities be defined. Mr. Karger expressed his concern with the various uses under Table 18.12.040 Design Standards. The Community Development Director referred to the early explanation on non -conforming uses and agricultural uses. He clarified that what is being addressed this evening is the underlying zoning. He stated that the overlay zoning could be applied to any area. The reason staff had not indicated agricultural overlay on any of the properties in the hills was the desire to have more public input. In regards to the comments about area #8, that area has been residential for 5 years and the agricultural use has not been used. Staff will work on proposing a definition for "private recreational facilities." Lastly, he requested that Mr. Karger either back up his comments or refrain from making comments implying payoffs to City employees. If the tables are confusing staff can revise for clarification. 3. Chauncey Eller 23100 Vista Grande Way Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Eller mentioned that they have been residents of Grand Terrace since 1957. Most of their property has fruit and nut trees. With the 20,000 square foot minimum it is virtually impossible to split their lot because of the 355 foot width Southern California Edison easement on the northside of their property. He stated they can do it with a 10,000 square foot minimum. They are restricted on any type of development by the SCE easement. 12 The Community Development Director explained that he had met with Mr. Eller earlier. He stated that Mr. Eller could split the property without any problems under the R-1/7.2 zoning. He does not meet the requirements for the R-1/20 zone. The Community Development Director explained that he could look at a variance. In order to get a variance proof has to be shown that there is something physically wrong with the property; size, shape or topography. With the easement he could probably show that a variance would be justified. It cannot be guaranteed and it first has to be presented before the Planning Commission and the map presented before the City Council. 4. Clifford Hood Coast Construction Company 480 W. Capicorn Brea, CA. Mr. Hood objected to the rezoning of their property from R-1/72 to one acre. He did not feel the one week notification was sufficient time to respond to this proposal. He stated that they would be delighted to meet with staff and talk about the development of their property. He responded to the requests and gave written comments on the hillside overlay. He corrected the previous minutes, that they have owned the property for 11 years not 7 years. The one acre requirements do not work for them dimensionally nor in yield. They would have to develop some land at R-1/7200 but in return they could give the City 30-40% of the hillside. They built custom homes in the Honey Hills area and hope to build the same quality in area #9. He asked for clarification from the Community Development Director that they would have the opportunity to bring in a Specific Plan with their suggestions to develop the property. The Community Development Director referred to their meeting last week in which they went over plans for their property. He restated the fact that staff is proposing a change in the zoning. The Coast Development plan shows 15 units over the allowable limit with the zone change. He restated to Mr. Hood that the Specific Plan would be a requirement and the Specific Plan does take the place of the zoning. Staff would be looking at the underlying zoning and any overlays as guidelines in that Specific Plan. The Specific Plan would be required. Mr. Hood suggested that if a Specific Plan is required then most of the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code should be 13 thrown own. The Specific Plan should be looked at in its infinite detail by both the staff and the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director stated that would be a requirement. Mr. Hood stated that if that is the case then the minimum lot dimensions in effect, 5% maximum grades in the setback areas, are flatland standards. Proposals on hillside lots are overly restrictive particularly when the developer is trying to develop the useable part of the property. He suggested that they would like the flexibility to come in with a yield that matches what they brought into the City before it was incorporated. They feel the property will yield between R-1/20 and R-1/40. They are asking that it be no less than R-1/20 as far as density is required but they do need the flexibility of R-1/7.2 to cover the lot sizes with their development plans. Discussion on the PUDs and the replacement concept of hillside overlays. The Community Development Director explained that there are two things which effect this piece of property. One, is the fact that the PUD is being removed which did not cover the entire property and did not cover the area which is being proposed for development. The hillside overlay it is anticipated will incorporate those elements of the PUD. Secondly, the Specific Plan requirement is a requirement for any propety which has a proposal of more than 20 units or more. The Specific Plan replaces the zoning. As long as the Specific Plan is in conformance with the General Plan it can replace the Zoning. Staff would be looking at the zoning to give guidance as to what the City wishes to see in that area but it allows the flexibility to mold that project to get away from the strict rigid requirements of lot width and lot depth, street frontages, lot sizes as well as the density. Discussion on the underlying zoning which would not serve as a maximum limit, but looking at the General Plan for the maximum limits. 5. Mr. Bill Addington 12055 Westwood Lane Grand Terrace, CA. Mr. Addington complimented staff on the preparation for the 14 proposal. He stated that it is consistent with other hillside ordinances from other cities. He is concerned with Coast Development's proposal for development. He felt that the R- 1/40 and standards are very appropriate. In the R-1/40 he suggested that the minimum single family residence should be approximately 2500 square feet, 2,000 square feet on R-1/20 which would be consistent with the neighborhood. He referred to area #8 which was all developed and averaged 3/4 of an acre. He felt that was the way it should be developed. 6. Richard Sigmund Sigland and Associates 364 Orange Show Lane San Bernardino, CA. Mr. Sigmund stated that they have submitted a tract 13834 on Michigan, off of Mavis. He stated that at one time the Community Development Director had indicated that this area was going to be R-1/2000 and now it is slated for R-1/7.2. He asked for clarification of this. The Community Development Director explained that staffs proposal is for R-1/7.2. Mr. Sigmund referred to his participation with the Honey Hills development. He suggested that R-1/40 lot width of 150 be changed to 120, and on the R-1/20 lot width be changed to an 80 foot minimum. Otherwise, designing would have to be centered on a square lot which could be difficult. He agreed with Mr. Addington that the larger homes on the 20 and 40,000 lots are logical. He questioned the density bonus and how low or moderate income homes of 1350 square feet would be achieved. He referred to R-3 at 12 units per acre and the density there would be 3600 square feet per parcel. In R-2 the density would be 8700 square feet per parcel. In R-1/7.2 the area per unit would be smaller than in R-2, he questioned the computation. He questioned the standard of slopes exceeding 5%. He stated that under the FHA standards, grading plan, they are allowed to have a 21% slope away from the home. In regards to this proposal the 21% could not be used. The Community Development Director explained that was an attempt to clarify what exists in the present Code. The setbacks begin at either the toe or base of the slope. The intent is that the required yard be flat and not to be in slope. 15 Mr. Siegmund asked if a retaining wall could be placed on the cut slope side. He suggested that the terminology read that the 5% be qualified as the slope from the lot line towards the house. The Community Development Director replied to the affirmative. He welcomed any suggestions in rewording that portion of the proposal. 7. John R. Taylor 22843 Vista Grande Way Grand Terrace, CA. Mr. Taylor complemented staff and the public on their efforts. Mr. Taylor asked for clarification if the density bonus would be addressed this evening. The Community Development Director stated that the only item which will be addressed at a later date will be the hillside overlay and the definitions. This evening all discussion will refer to the residential districts and the off street parking. Mr. Taylor referred to the R-3 Zone and the density of 12 units per acre. He asked if the State of California had approved this. The Community Development Director explained in 1987 the Housing and Residential requirements were revised for the westside of the City. At that time the Planning Commission and the City Council considered the living area requirements, densities, ratios for the R-2 and R-3 properties for development and site sizes. Then the remaining portion of the General Plan was revised in accordance to those requirements for density. Now the residential codes are being brought into conformance for the General Plan for the rest of the City. They do not have to go to the State regarding the changes that were made with the exception of the Housing Element. The Housing Element has to be reviewed by the State. At that time staff contacted the Housing and Community Development Department of the State last year with those densities and informed them of the changes and those would be included in the Housing Element during the review of the Housing Element this year/1989. They stated fine it would be acceptable. Staff is preparing the Housing Element for their review by June 1989. Commissioner Buchanan referred to Section 18.12.020, definition 16 of the residential districts, "...R-3, minimum lot of 10,000 square feet, maximum density of 15 + dwelling units per gross acre," and the Site Development Standard Table for density has 1-12. He asked for clarification of the difference. The Community Development Director explained that the 1-12 is the standard zoning. The 15+ includes the 20% bonus density which is allowable if the developer does off site improvements. They have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit or a Specific Plan to obtain that. 8. Marian Anderson 22872 Main Street Grand Terrace, CA. Mrs. Anderson explained that she has the 52 acre parcel in area #10 and area #11. There are areas on her property which better lend themselves to smaller lots and some to larger lots. The way this proposal is laid out and the upcoming hillside overlay, out of 52 acres she has about 1/5 of the property which will be utilized. She hoped to see a profit on any future development of her property but with this proposal it would be questionable. Hopefully the Specific Plan would address the issue at a later date but would they have a guarantee of that, over 20 units per acre. The Community Development Director explained that main portion of Mrs. Anderson's property is currently zoned A-1, which is 40,000 square foot minimum lot size. That would not change anything for her on the upper portion of the slopes. The lower portion, area #11, is also A-1 which is R-1/40 and is proposing to change that to R-1/20. In the underlying zoning, without looking at the Specific Plan or hillside overlay, she would be getting an increased density which would be allowable on the flatter portion of her property. The upper portion would remain the same as far as density. The zoning is saying that it is no longer agricultural not restricting any building. The density for homes is not changing for what it is now. The Community Development Director clarified that the issue of density transfer still remains for her property and all of the properties along there. The hillside overlay will be the mechanism used to deal specifically with the density transfer. Discussion on the R-2 zone, minimum parcel size of 10,000 square feet, allowing only one dwelling unit. Discussion on the R-2 zone which allows for multiple residence. 17 The Community Development Director explained that the ratios were a result of the Planning Commission's and the City Council's actions in 1987. Staff was not recommending any changes since the ratios were so recent. Discussion on the public concerns regarding slopage, restrictive building on 7200 square foot lots, expense of retaining walls for sloped lots. 9. Nat Hardy, President Coast Construction Mr. Hardy presented an overall summary of the public input. He stated that Mr. Addington has expressed support of the overlay procedure. Mr. Karger, representatives from Mrs. Anderson's property and himself are against the overlay. He has not heard any new public input either for or against. He has heard very little discussion from the public on areas #1 through #6. Area #7 is unique with its own problems. Area #8 is virtually built out. He has heard very little discussion from the public on areas #9, # 10, # 11, # 12 and # 13. Those areas have the most available developable properties. They have never said that their parcel is unbuildable. Their tentative map was approved by the County before Grand Terrace became a City. At that time 105 lots were approved and the majority of the property was developed. He suggested that the similar density could be achieved with smaller lots using the PUD. He was encouraged that they can meet with the Community Development Director to discuss a Specific Plan. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner made the recommendation that the Planning Commission should approve areas #1 through #6 this evening. Chairman Hargrave recommended that any action on areas #7 through # 13 be continued to the next meeting. Discussion on whether or not there was any benefit in dealing with areas #1 through #6 this evening or continuing all action to the next meeting. The concensus of the Planning Commission was to handle all of the zoning areas at the next meeting. 18 MOTION PCM-89-23 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-23 Chairman Hargrave made the motion to continue Z-89-1 to the next Planning Commission Meeting, March 6, 1989. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carried, all ayes. Commissioner Sims absent. 6-0-1-0. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED Respectfully Submitted, David .Sawyer, Comnity m Development Director P.C. Meeting 2/21/89 Approved by, Stanley H grave, Chairman Planning Commission 19