Loading...
03/06/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MARCH 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 March 6, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner John Harper, City Attorney David Sawyer, Community Development Director Karen Stevenson, Assistant Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information/Discussion by Chocolate Forest (SA-88-7), Discussion on status of Market location. WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. Commissioners pertaining to the any future development at the GTI PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Discussion on Zoning Revision procedures and restatement that the public hearing dealing with zoning input had been adjourned at the last meeting. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked the Community Development Director for a synopsis of the last meeting, February 21, 1989, pertaining to the zoning revisions. 1 The Community Development Director presented the proposed changes. First, bringing in the Zoning Map into compliance with the General Plan revisions. He pointed to display boards marked for proposed changes, areas #1 thru #6 (commercial to residential, residential to commercial) in accordance with the General Plan. Area # 1 ... Residential to Commercial. Area #2 ... Commercial to Light Industrial. Area #3 ... Light Industrial to Commercial. Area #4 ... Office to General Commercial. Area #5 ... Office to R-3 (Multi -Family). Area #6 ... Office to Commercial. The Community Development Director explained that the following sections are areas that are optional proposed changes but in compliance with the General Plan. They are residential changes which are within the low density designation of the General Plan. In the General Plan, there R-1/7.2 (7,200 sq. ft. minimum lots), R-1/20 (20,000 sq. ft. minimum lots, R-1/40 (40,000 sq. ft. minimum lots). Area #7 ..A-1 (equivalent to R-1/40 with agricultural uses) to R-1/7.2 Area #8 ... R-1/7.2 (average lots are 20,000+) to R- 1/20. Area #9 ... R-1/PUD overlay zone to overlay R-1/40. Designated within the Hillside Overlay area. Area #10 ... A-1 open space zoning, undevelopable according to the General Plan, to R-1/40. Designated within the Hillside Overlay area. Area #11 ... Area #12 ... Al (R-1/40) to R-1/20. R-1/7.2 to R-1/20. Barney Karger and Fox. Lots there are square feet. Area #13 ... R-1/7.2 to R-1/20. 2 (Property owned by map split by Stephen from 13,000 to 20,000 Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the changes are done according to the recommendations by staff, would the uses still remain the same. The Community Development Director explained that the uses would continue under the Non -Conforming Use Rights. They could continue to have horses and have legal operation of horse ranching in the appropriate areas. He stated that the City Attorney has advised staff that the owners would be able to sell the use and would be able to be sold as a horse property. If the property is destroyed or burned that the owner would be able to rebuild the facility as present condition. Discussion on area #9, owned by Coast Development, and addressing their concerns of basic zoning and possible requirement of specific plan for any development on their property. The Community Development Director explained that this is the underlying zoning, changing the zoning from R-1/7.2 which would allow 4-5 times as many homes as the R-1/40. He explained that the R-1/40 zoning matches as close as possible any future projects that Coast Development has addressed. A Specific Plan would give them the flexibility to make a quality development. Discussion on the Coast Development properties and what presently exists on them. Discussion on the recommendation of Specific Plan requirement for 20,000+ developments. Discussion of the proposed Hillside Overlay and the enhancement effect it will have on the underlying zoning. The Community Development Director stated that the Zoning Revision once approved by the Planning Commission is scheduled to be presented to the City Council. At that time the moratorium should be clarified in that area. If the moratorium is lifted and Coast Development wants to come in prior to completion of the Hillside Overlay, then all of the issues will be addressed in the Specific Plan. Discussion on the Site Development Standards. During the public hearing of the February 21, 1989 Planning K Commission Meeting, concern was expressed that the lot width and depth requirements were too high. This impacted flexibility and designing of lots, according to developers. The Community Development Director explained that the lot width and depth had minor changes; R-1/7.2 is the same, R-2 and R-3 are the same, R-1/20 may have changed (the R- 1/20 is the old agricultural/residential zoning which has not been in effect in the City for the past five (5) years). He has proposed that basically the zoning go back to the R-1/20 which is the RR Zone without the agricultural uses. This will help maintain the large lot atmosphere. If the agricultural and animal uses are desirable in that area then the agricultural overlay can be implemented. He had not proposed that because he had not received any public interest to that effect. Discussion on the proposed R-1/20 and R-1/40 minimum square footage of living area. Commissioner Buchanan suggested the square footage be reflective of the surrounding existing homes. The Community Development Director referred to Table 18.12.040 Site Development Standards based on the 1987 approved figures by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Planning Department did not recommend any revisions or changes. The Community Development Director encouraged the Planning Commission to discuss the feasibility of larger square footages, if desired. Discussion on the degrees of discretion taken by staff or the Planning Commission for single family homes to be in comformance with the surrounding neighborhoods. The Community Development Director explained that the procedure is to address whether the minimum setback requirements have been met and if the lot is suitable. Discussion on the public comments from the February 21, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting regarding density. Commissioner Buchanan referred to Table 18.12.040 Footnotes, section b. He stated that based on those ratios it would allow two dwelling units on a 20,000 square foot parcel in an R-3 zone which would not be economically feasible. 4 The Community Development Director agreed that this ratio does work out in this questionable fashion. However, this ratio was also worked up when Zoning was completed on the westside of the City. Discussion on Table 18.12.040 Site Development Standards for the living area, 800 minimum square feet for studios and one (1) bedroom apartments. The Community Development Director stated that these figures were approved by Council in late 1986 and early 1987. Currently, staff does not propose any changes. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she did not see the value in having both at 800 square feet. She recommended deleting the studio apartment category. Discussion on the reasoning for studio apartments in the City. Commissioner Munson stated he believed that it was used as a prevention measure against having large quantity of small apartments. Discussion on 18.12.040 Site Development Standards, density issues. The standard of 1-12 and the density bonus of 25 + . Commissioner Van Gelder suggested reducing the density bonus. The Community Development Director stated that the local ordinance of 20% density bonus can be decreased. The 25% density bonus is mandated by the State and cannot be changed. Commissioner Van Gelder clarified the decreasing of the 1-12. The Community Development Director also commented that the City does not have to give the 20 %. Even if the land is donated the City is not obligated to give the 20%, it is a discretionary bonus. He recommended keeping it at the 20% because of the Housing Element Review upcoming by the State. This will help meet the low moderate income figures. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was a formula to determine how much of the 20% a developer could use. The Community Development Director stated there was not M one at this time. He recommended maintaining the current density bonus. The Council needs to determine what it wants from the developers. Discussion on low or moderate income projects and x percent of them need to be low income units. He referred to Section C-2. Commissioner Hawkinson suggested increasing the minimum living area in the R-1/20 and R-1/40 from 1350 square feet to 1850 square feet in the R-1/20 and 2500 square feet in the R-1/40. Commissioner Buchanan suggested another alternative. In the R-1/20 to 1600 square feet and the R-1/40 to 2000 square feet. Discussion on buildable areas for the proposed minimum living area in the various zones. Commissioner Hilkey suggested increasing the square footage to 2500 also to blend in with the surrounding neighborhoods. Concern was expressed by the Planning Commission with the small square footage of 1350 not matching surrounding topography and placing undue restrictions to developments. Discussion on the Site and Architectural Review Board arena to handle the requirements of the minimum lot sizes. The Community Development Director clarified that most of this would be addressed in the R-1/20 lots. All of the R- 1/40 lots in town being proposed are within the hillside zone of the General Plan. It is uncertain what the outcome of the Hillside Overlay Zone will be. A Specific Plan may group the large lots into smaller lots. Discussion on procedures for changes of the proposed amended chapters of the Zoning. Commissioner Munson stated that he was not in favor of changing areas #8, #9 and # 10. Area # 11 is Mr. Karger's property and plans are in the process. Area # 13 (part of Marian Anderson's property) should remain and he sees no rol reason for any changes that are not required by the General Plan. Discussion on the current zoning of Area #8, R-1/7.2. The Community Development Director reiterated that he is not proposing an agricultural overlay for any of these areas, because he has not heard much from the public input to that effect. The way he wrote the agricultural overlay zone was so that it could be placed in this area as well as the area on the westside of the freeway, if desired. He continued to state that area # 10 and a portion of area #11, change from A-1 to R-1/40, the real effect is that the agricultural uses would be taken away from those properties. He recommended that the A-1 zone be eliminated in this area because it is not consistent with the remaining part of the City. If it is desired to have it as it is, change it to R-1/40 and then allow the agricultural overlay. The difference would be that the A-1 zone was for agricultural purposes and the residence was a secondary use. In doing it in the new zoning, then the residence would be the primary use and if horses or a small orchard are desired they would be allowed as a secondary use. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the property owners of areas #7, #10 and #11 were obligated by the same rules when selling the property as agricultural and the facilities as R-1/20. The Community Development Director explained that the property owner of area #7 could either keep it as the existing use and not expand the use or eliminate the use and remain as a single family home. The same would apply to the property owners of area # 10 and #11. If the agricultural overlay zone is not placed on area # 10 the property owners would have restrictions regarding corrals barns and structures. Area #11 would be different because of the change from A-1 to R-1/20 and the property owners would still have non -conforming rights. Without the agricultural overlay zone the property owners could convert their property into residential 1/2 acre lots. If the agricultural overlay zone is placed the property owners could have horses on their property. The real issue in making a decision on area #11 is whether or not changes want to be made from 40,000 square foot lots to 7 20,000 square lots. applied to either one. Discussion on the agricultural overlay to make a decision brought back to the applicants. The agricultural overlay zone can be appropriate time to decide on the issue. Two alternatives discussed; this evening or address the issues when Planning Commission by the individual The Community Development Director explained that very few of the property owners have addressed the agricultural overlay issue during the public hearing. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the area is mainly agricultural and to make changes to residential would be premature. The Community Development Director clarified that area # 10 is pretty much undeveloped. Area # 11 contains Blue Mountain Court, at least three of the six properties would need the agricultural overlay zone to keep going with what exists and not have to be non -conforming. Discussion on the upcoming Hillside Overlay Zone and any future amending of Chapter 18.09.010. The addition of a zoning district as a hillside overlay zone. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the agricultural overlay is not established at this time, can the hillside overlay zone be drafted in such a way as to incorporate some or all of the existing agricultural uses as part of the permitted uses within the hillside overlay zone. The Community Development Director explained that the agricultural overlay zone has already been drafted. However, it could be changed if necessary. Commissioner Buchanan asked whether or not the same thing could be accomplished by use of the hillside overlay zone rather than put an agricultural overlay on areas that may possibly have a hillside overlay zone placed on them. He asked if the hillside overlay zone could be drafted to deal with the agricultural uses. The Community Development Director explained that would be possible. However he recommended against that because its possible that there should not be agricultural uses in the entire hillside overlay area. The developers that have expressed input on the hillside overlay area have not stressed agricultural overlay uses. He further explained that the major developers are looking at development in the future and the agricultural uses are not critically important to them but at least one would like the option later. The Community Development Director explained that the only restriction on the property of agricultural overlay uses is the size of property. It needs to go on either R-2 or R-3 properties or R-1/20 or R-1/40. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the property owners of area #7 desired an agricultural overlay couldn't they return to the Planning Commission and City Council for a change. The Community Development Director explained that they could. He stated if that is the case then do not change that area from R-1/7.2 instead make it R-1/20 because the overlay zone would work a little better. Discussion on the early history of the agricultural uses in the City for the 4H and children's agricultural projects. Discussion by the Planning Commission on the procedures in making a decision this evening on Chapter 18.09. The Community Development Director clarified that Chapter 18.09 would not be held up because the agricultural overlay zone is a listed use. It is not on the easter portion of the map but it is on the westside. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he did not wish to pass this on and then force homeowners to return on a parcel by parcel basis. On the other hand he did not feel comfortable in stating the exact geographical locations. The Community Development Director suggested approving it either with or without the agricultural overlay zone. He suggested to Commissioner Buchanan that in his motion he could make a statement that as a result of lack of comments from the property owners in that area the agricultural overlay zone has been left off. Keeping in mind that they can go to the City Council to request the agricultural Z MOTION PCM-89-24 overlay use. The actions taken by the Planning Commission will not effect the use on the westside of the City. Commissioner Munson asked for the definition of the agricultural overlay zone. The Community Development Director explained that the agricultural overlay was developed for the westside of the City. Taken from the Purpose, "...to permit limited agricultural uses in areas of the City which have historically contained such uses and where current lot size is sufficient to provide compatible relationship between the limited agricultural uses and the underlying districts residential uses. Such agricultural uses may consist of the keeping of animals and limited crop and tree farming as permitted. In order to insure quality living environment and to protect the general health, safety, and general welfare the chapter establishes certain regulations regarding the type, size and number and location of such animals permitted in the district... need 10,000 square feet for every horse, mule or pony, and 20,000 square feet for every large animal other than a horse, and 4,000 square feet for every small animal, and 4,000 square feet for each 5 birds, or rodents and 20,000 square feet for exotic or wild animal and 20,000 square feet for horticulture crops or trees... maximum of 6 horses or 12 small animals... depending on land available for each agricultural use." Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of Chapter 18.09 relating to districts and the map, as recommended by staff with the notation that the City Council may wish to draw public testimony for agricultural overlay designations. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the agricultural overlay was not discussed regarding areas #12 and #13. He asked if those areas should be incorporated into the motion. The Community Development Director clarified that the motion does not place the agricultural overlay on areas 10 #10 or #11. Still need definite public input in support of an agricultural overlay. Commissioner Buchanan suggested to staff that they provide a draft showing recommended boundaries of the agricultural overlay for the City Council to consider. Commissioner Van Gelder asked the Community Development Director his reasons for not recommending agricultural overlay. The Community Development Director explained that he was not recommending it at this time. He stated that his original thoughts of an overlay zone would be areas #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13. All of those areas could easily take the overlay zone. When he drew this map for the westside and for future application over on the eastside, those were the areas that this overlay zone would work. However, that is whether or not the property owners want agricultural uses in those area. At the public hearings for the westside the property owners stated they wanted agricultural overlay. At that time where were some property owners that made some comments that they wanted the same for area #8 however at the current public hearings we did not hear from them. He stated that it will effect the nature of the area. If we do not adopt the overlay zone then those uses that do have the horses etc., are eventually going to be replaced by conforming uses. Discussion on the feasibility of equestrian trails between the City of Grand Terrace, County of Riverside and Reche Canyon/City of Colton. Discussion on the property owners in area #9 (Coast Development and the Quarry owners). The Community Development Director explained that staff was trying not to split property ownership. However, it was done with areas #10 and #11 because of the hillside designation and the General Plan. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was a size requirement for an agricultural overlay on a particular piece of property. The Community Development Director explained that there was no set requirement but it would have to be a general 11 area and not just one particular home. MOTION Motion carried. 5-1-0-1. Commissioner Munson voting noe VOTE and Commissioner Hargrave absent. PCM-89-24 Discussion on the procedures for voting on Chapter 18.12, residential zoning. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if there were any comments on the following: Section .010. No comments. Section .020. Commissioner Hilkey referred to R-3, medium density residential district. He asked for clarification of the maximum density of 15 + dwelling units per gross acre. The Community Development Director explained that took into account the bonuses. The 12 was the density limit and with those density bonuses it could go as high as 15. Either 20 or 25 % would be approximately 15 per acre. The + was there in case they are both combined. Commissioner Hilkey explained that there needs to be a more defined and restrictive density limit. The Community Development Director stated that this section of the City Code was a direct result of the issue regarding size of apartments back in 1987. He explained the history of the the issue of density limits in the City. The density limit is 12 and the project can go as high as 15 if the City so chooses in exchange for offsite improvements. Due to this the overall density that is in the description is 15 + because that includes the density bonus. That is just the description of that zone. However what matters as far as the maximum density occurs when looking at the permitted uses and densities for the individual zones and that is set at 12. With the provisos of the two density programs that can be placed if the situation warrants. 12 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson pointed out that the 25% density bonus works out to 16, based on the 12. The Community Development Director explained that with the 20% it worked out to approximately 15. The + deals with the State's required 25% density bonus. He recommended that it be in the City Code so that when he presents the Housing Element to the State he can refer to the documented Code showing that the requirements are being met. Discussion summarizing the State required 25% and an additional 20% City discretion, which is negotiable, could be added. The Community Development Director clarified that was correct. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the only portion that the City has control over is the base number. The Community Development Director gave the following options. The City could eliminate the 20% bonus then that would be a base of 12 units per acre plus 25% bonus or plus depending how the Council and Planning Commission would use it in the future. Or the densities could be lowered and keep the 20%. However if the densities are lowered there would be no reason to retain the 20% because that would not generate enough profit for any project. Commissioner Munson suggested putting in 12 instead of 15. The Community Development Director stated that if that would be less confusing then he would make the change. Discussion on the Housing Element and the requirement by the State (Pre -review by SCAG) for the City of Grand Terrace to provide 200+ units of low to moderate dwellings. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if the mobile home units qualify in fulfilling that quota. The Community Development Director stated that would be addressed in the Housing Element. He stated that Willdan and Associates have been hired to do the Housing Element Update. The programs are being reviewed and checking to 13 MOTION PCM-89-25 see that the numbers are legitimate as far as what is required. They will look at the mobile home parks, new apartments, regional programs and try to show that the numbers have been met. The draft will go to the Planning Commission for approval and then submit it to the Housing Community and Development Department of the State of California. They will review and inform the City whether or not we are in compliance. If not, then they will recommend changes. Those changes will be done if necessary and go to the City Council and incorporate the changes if necessary. Commissioner Hilkey asked if that section could read 10,000 square feet and eliminate the word "maximum" with a density of 15 + dwelling units per gross acre. Also, add a footnote referring to Chapter 4.2 of the California State Code. Commissioner Sims stated that it was a maximum density of 12 and can it be adjusted by Section 18.12.040 of the City Code. The Community Development Director clarified that what is being addressed are the general terms and the specifics can be addressed later in the table for the regulations. Commissioner Sims suggested making the maximum 12+ and that would take into account the bonus. Commissioner Buchanan stated that makes it consistent with paragraph 4 of the R-2 section, "with a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre", and that could be higher. He asked if the 25% pertained to the R-3 Zone only. The Community Development Director stated that was correct. Commissioner Sims made the motion to make a revision to Chapter 18.12.020, no. 5, R-3 Medium Residential District. This district is intended for medium density multiple family development. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet with a maximum density of 12+ dwelling units per gross acre. Commissioner Buchanan second. 14 MOTION Motion carries. Chairman Hargrave absent. 6-0-1-0. VOTE PCM-89-25 Section .030. (Permitted Uses) Commissioner Buchanan referred to the table, private recreational facilities with no provision for it in any of the single family residential. However, it was indicated in the multi -family section. It would not permit anyone from placing a tennis court or racquetball court on an R-1 property. The Community Development Director explained that use would be for the racquet ball courts or something that would be associated with a large apartment project. He explained that this use, if it fit the R-1 lot would be applicable, he could have the flexibility under the other accessory uses and private swimming pools. Commissioner Munson referred to the table and asked for clarification of Temporary Uses, "...a change of temporary uses as approved by the Planning Director from a conditionally permitted use to a permitted use." The Community Development Director explained that it had read before, "a conditional use change" and a conditional use permit was required previously. He gave an example of a two week boutique during the Christmas holidays out in a residential garage, more than a garage sale. He could approve that if applicable. Commissioner Munson stated that he saw no fault as long as it was not contested. He proposed that a revision be added, "as long as not contested." He feels that if anyone contests a decision made by City staff then the printed law should abide. The Community Development Director stated the way the revised temporary use would work, if anyone disagrees then the party can appeal his decision to the Planning Commission. There is a fee for that process. Commissioner Munson disagreed with this procedure. He 15 stated that the printed rule should be the law. Discussion on the alternative procedure of Conditional Use Permit process which is heard before the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director explained that he would be working under the perameters of the individual situations and he would do his best to make the best decision. There could be hypothetical situations when they would have to come before the Planning Commission or the City Council. The appeal process is built into the Code wherever the Community Development Director or City Staff member makes a decision which is not agreed upon. Commissioner Sims asked if the property owners are notified on temporary use applications. The Community Development Director stated there is not a formal procedure set up for that. He would treat it much the same as a Home Occupation Permit and property owners are notified. Commissioner Munson stated that if decisions are contested then the printed word should be the law. The Community Development Director clarified that the printed word presently is that there is nothing to work with for temporary uses. He asked Commissioner Munson if he meant it should be permitted. Commissioner Munson clarified that any decision made by the Community Development Director, to grant a variance, that if not contested should be approved. However, if it is contested then the printed rule should govern. Commissioner Hilkey asked the Community Development Director if variances would be covered at a later date. The Community Development Director stated that would have to be addressed by the City Attorney. As he understood the discussion what is being done is to take away due process of appeal. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson clarified the section under discussion presently was Section 18.12.030 and variances could be addressed later. 16 Commissioner Munson withdrew his objections at this time. Commissioner Hilkey asked for clarification of manufactured housing permitted in R-1 Zones. The Community Development Director explained that includes mobile homes, prefabricated homes. According to the State Law the City is required to allow mobile homes into R-1 Zones. The City Code meets the minimum required by the State Law, and is under current study by the City Attorney. This also includes modular housing. Commissioner Hilkey suggested deleting the line that referred to private and recreational facilities not being permitted under R-1/7.2, R-1/20 and R-1/40, under section B Residential Accessory Uses. The Community Development Director explained that if this section causes confusion it can either be made a permitted use or deleted completely. Discussion on including "private recreational facilities" in the definition section at a later date. Discussion on alternative wording such as private group facilities, or private large scale facilities instead of private recreational facilities. Another alternative wording was to eliminate private then recreational facilities under R-2 and R-3 would be understood. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson suggested deleting this use then if the applicants wished they could ask for a variance or change in the code. Discussion on the residential day care facilities allowable under the State Code. MOTION PCM-89-26 Commissioner Munson made the motion that under private recreational facilities, the permitted requirement under R-2 and R-3 be removed. Commissioner Hilkey second. 17 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-26 Motion carried. Commissioner Hargrave absent. 6-0-1- 0. SECTION .040 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that the living area standards should be increased in the R-1/20 and the R- 1/40. He suggested 1800 square feet on the R-1/20 and 2400 square feet on the R-1/40. Commissioner Sims asked if it remains 1350 square feet living area and an applicant satisfies the requirements then the Planning Commission cannot reject. The Community Development Director explained the Planning Commission as the Site and Architectural Review Board could reject if it was making a finding that it was detrimental to the area and the general welfare of the neighborhood. Commissioner Sims asked what defines a detriment to the neighborhood if the project meets all of the requirements. The Community Development Director explained that staff could do surveys or investigations that are needed but it is not usually done. Commissioner Sims stated that he could not find any way to defend that 1350 square feet was not satisfactory. BREAK AT 9:05 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION RECONVENED AT 9:20 P.M. Commissioner Buchanan referred to Footnote E of the table, height of accessory structures. He questioned the 8 feet in height and suggested either increasing it to 10 or incorporating flexible language for staff to work with. Discussion on the basis for the 8 feet limitation in the R-1/7.2 was due to the building of playhouses, sundecks, 18 or sheds which exceeded 8 feet in height near the property lines. The Community Development Director explained that the accessory structure can go within 10 feet of the rear yard and the same as the initial construction for the side yards. Discussion on the allowable buildings for rear yards. These are room additions with original side yard and height requirements. Patios and covers with no height requirement for patio covers. They can go within 5 feet of the side yard or the rear yard. Also, an accessory structure such as a premade shed. Clarification that a raised deck which is a stand alone deck and not part of a patio cover would be an accessory structure which would be limited by the 8 feet height restriction. The Community Development Director also pointed out that a detached garage would also fall under that requirement. Commissioner Sims asked the Community Development Director how he arrived at the 8 feet restriction. The Community Development Director stated that he arrived at it due to the need for privacy. He further explained that it is measured to the highest point of the structure. Commissioner Hilkey referred to Footnote A 3, 5% slope, no closer than the residential structure. He asked if this was a typical restriction. The Community Development Director explained that was from the current Code. The City Engineer explained that 5% is not a steep slope. He interpreted it as trying to maintain the maximum level area on the pad. The regular grading of FHA grading is 3%. Discussion on drainage channels on properties surrounding properties with slopes. The Community Development Director explained that staff would not consider a drainage flow as part of the slope setback for yard requirements. Discussion on alternative percentage increase. The City 19 MOTION PCM-89-27 MOTION PCM-89-28 Engineer explained that the issue is the 5% shall be no closer than the side yard setback. He stated that it could be given more flexibility and still be functional. Discussion on the front, side and rear yard setbacks and the FHA requirements. The City Engineer explained that the net effect is that it will give a larger setback in both the front and rear yards. When a problem does arise with slope that will mean that a larger setback will be needed to meet the 5%. Discussion on retaining walls to be a possible solution. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to amend the line stating single family R-1/20 shall have a minimum square footage of 1600 and the R-1/40 shall have a minimum square footage of 2000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson made the motion to amend the line stating single family R-1/20 shall have a minimum square footage of 1800 and the R-1/40 shall have a minimum suqare footage of 2400. Commission Buchanan second. Commissioners Hilkey, Van Gelder, and Munson stated that it was not the City's place to dictate the size of homes. They would not want to put a limit to property owners of those type of lots. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that his motion and the second did not indicate that smaller homes were unattractive. They are trying to create a threshold that makes it easier for the work to be accomplished by the Site and Architectural Review Board and establishe some degree of comfort or assurance to the surrounding neighborhood. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson concurred. 20 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-28 MOTION PCM-89-29 Motion fails. Commissioners Buchanan and Vice -Chairman Hawkinson voting yes. 2-4-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they needed to retain the studio category. The Community Development Director explained that either the square footage could be dropped and allow studios to remain or can eliminate studios completely. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was any problem with the State Code in incorporating these into low or moderate housing. The Community Development Director explained that he was not aware of any. Discussion on rents for one bedrooms vs. studios. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to amend Table 18.12.040 (E) to read that in the R-1/7.2 district accessory structures shall not exceed 10 feet in height. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Buchanan explained that his reasons for the motion was that accessory structures require prior approval by the Planning Director and he could identify accessory structures that are located in areas that would be offensive to neighbors. The Community Development Director explained that 10 feet was an acceptable number. However, he does not have alot of say as to where the accessory structure goes on the lot. It does not need Site and Architectural Review. 21 MOTION PCM-89-29 WITHDRAWN MOTION PCM-89-30 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-30 Discussion on the 8 feet versus the 10 feet requirement. The measurement starts from base to the highest point of the structure. Discussion on the accessory structures in the R-1/7.2 Zone and currently limited down to the tract home developments. Discussion of variances under this requirement for other uses. COMMISSIONER BUCHANAN WITHDREW MOTION PCM-89- 29. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SIMS. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to amend Table 18.12.040 (E) that in the R-1/7.2 Zone any accessory structure shall not exceed 8 feet in height unless approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board and in no case shall exceed 20 feet in height. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carried, all ayes. Commissioner Hargrave absent. 6-0-1-0. SECTION .080. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW The Community Development Director explained that currently the Site and Architectural Review requirement for the residential zones are that single family homes require Site and Architectural Review, additions and remodeling to single family homes do not, and any projects in R-2 and R-3 require Site and Architectural Review. 22 MOTION PCM-89-31 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-31 Commissioner Munson asked what would be required for attached family dwelling. The Community Development 18.48 of the Municipal City Review requirements. Director referred to Section Code, Site and Architectural Commissioner Munson asked if Section .080. was approved today that it could not also be reviewed at a later date. The Community Development Director explained that was correct. Attention needs to be given to this when the Site and Architectural Chapter is reviewed at a later date. Commissioner Buchanan made the Commission recommend to the Chapter 18.12 relating to the approval of adoption of the recommended by staff, with the off street parking, as amended Commissioner Hilkey second. Motion carried, all ayes. 0-1-0. SECTION 18.60 OFF STREET PARKING motion that the Planning City Council adoption of residential districts and Negative Declaration as deletion of Chapter 18.60 by the previous motions. Chairman Hargrave absent. 6- Commissioner Munson asked for input from the City Engineer. The City Engineer referred to Table 18.60.040 and suggested including 30 degrees and 60 degrees in addition to the 45 degrees and 90 degrees in the parallel parking 23 section. There will be certain parcels where the 30 and 60 degrees would work out easier in laying out a parking lot. If 30 and 60 degrees are approved as well as the 45 and 90 degrees, the parking space needs to be defined. He understood the measurement to be 12' and 9" wide parking space that runs parallel to the center line of the aisle. As long as the space width can be measured perpendicular to the center line of the parking space than that would be more consistent. The Community Development Director explained that two issues are being addressed in the parking. One was to take away the 30 and 60 degree parking and leave in the 45 so that those strange lot sizes where angle parking is needed can be applied. A lot of communities are going to 90 and 0 degree parking. The reason for the removal of the 60 degrees was due to the various measurements for certain stall lengths. It made it easier for developers to interpret the code. The City Engineer stated that this was a project worked out by the Community Development Director and he yielded to the designs worked out by him. Discussion of the flexibility in the angle parking which the Community Development Director could work with. Discussion on the handicapped parking per State Code. Commissioner Sims asked how it worked in with the angle parking. The Community Development Director explained that any of those that are specified by the State Code would be applied by the way it is worded in the City Code. The City Engineer stated that the State Code does not address the angle parking and all handicapped parking is at 90 degrees. The Community Development Director explained that the way this amendment is written addresses the State requirements. Staff can look at the angle parking to make certain those concerns are addressed. Discussion on driveway commercial projects. 24 widths of residential and The City Engineer explained that the minimum and maximum driveway widths of residential are measured at the opening of the curb. He suggested identification of the width of the property line as the minimum and maximum and that would decrease the dimensions in each case by 6 feet based in the current County Code. This would make it in the residential zones from 12 to 20 and commercial from 20 to 34 which is measured at the property line. The Community Development Director agreed with the suggestions from the City Engineer. Discussion on the design standards regarding the parking. Commissioner Sims stated there needs to be some designation of including aggregated base underneath the parking lots. Discussion of placing a traffic index in the commercial parking lots. The Community Development Director explained that the intent was not to take away the technical approvals of the City Engineer. This deals with the designing of the lot from the Site and Architectural Review standpoint. The City Engineer explained that presently there are no structural design standards for parking lots. If a traffic index was to be included for commercial parking that would establish a precedence. Discussion on section D 1, striping. The Community Development Director explained that it was for an aesthetic approach to aid the driver. This is being adopted by many other communities. The City Engineer clarified that the stripe was 9' from centerline to centerline. The Community Development Director pointed out that staff is changing how the parking code works by and looking at the use that is generating the parking rather than the overall zone. The specific uses follow the old code. However, in the commercial office uses he has put in a provision which encourages the accumulation of lots in allowing larger projects rather than the independent uses. 25 Commissioner Buchanan asked for clarification of the 1 parking space per every 250 gross floor area or area devoted to a specific use. The Community Development Director explained that was for a use that was not in the building. He used the example of a car facility that has an open floor area not in the building. Discussion on the total square footage of each project. The need may arise that a project may have to be adjusted to meet the original use. Discussion that some parking ratios are determined by the number of employees. The way of determining this was through addressing the codes in the surrounding areas. Examples were given of hotels and delicatessans. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her concern in avoiding future parking problems similar to the Terrace Towne Center. The Community Development Director clarified that he was alluding to the overall shopping center environment where it would be one property with one development and the parking lot would be one parking area. Discussion on the shared use parking provision to be agreed upon by the property owners, and only 20% of the parking spaces that are required can be shared. The Community Development Director explained that the other major changes were in the manufacturing uses, specification was given to fast food restaurants, drive through facilities, identification of handicapped parking spaces, identification of loading spaces, addition of bicycle parking facilities, modification of shared parking and storage of recreational vehicles. Discussion on code interpretation of parking vehicles in front and sideyard setbacks. Also, the interpretation of the 6' height wall or landscaping requirement to cover vehicles or the modification suggestion to cover recreational vehicles. Discussion on code enforcement of 72 hour parking and 26 concern expressed of multiple vehicles parked in front yards. The Community Development Director explained that through the paving section it is implied and could be enforced that vehicles cannot be parked on the front yard nor on the side yards unless improved with hard pavement area. Discussion of a 3' variance in the front yard area. Staff would check with the Fire Warden's Office for the Fire Code dealing with the issue of accessibility. Discussion of alternative solutions for property owners who would not have ample room for an RV to be parked on their properties. Suggestion was to park in storage areas. Discussion of other communities who have a similar recreational vehicle section in their parking code. Discussion of temporary parking of recreational vehicles such as visiting friends or family members. The City does allow temporary parking permits. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 10:45 P.M. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor of or against Chapter 18.60, off street parking. No comments. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 10:45 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 10:45 P.M. MOTION PCM-89-32 Concensus by the Planning Commission to continue with the parking code with a few amendments. Commissioner Sims made the motion that the paving area shall be designed for a Traffic Index of 4 in the 27 commercial areas and not for the residential areas. Commissioner Buchanan second. MOTION VOTE PCM-89-32 Motion carries, all ayes. Chairman Hargrave absent. 6- 0-1-0. MOTION PCM-89-33 MOTION PCM-89-34 Commissioner Munson referred to the multiple family dwellings and the allowable 2 parking spaces. He asked if this referred to apartment housing. He understood the current code to require a two car garage. The Community Development Director explained that this is the current code interpretation. He referred to the new interpretation which is the same as the current code "...residential multiple family dwellings the provisions are in the R-2 and R-3 districts are two parking spaces per each dwelling ... at least one parking space shall be in a single car enclosed garage attached to the main unit in which the residential unit is located ... any parking space not enclosed shall be a minimum of 9' in width and 19' in length and permanently maintained for the required parking." Commissioner Buchanan referred to Section D3, specific uses, item C (Barber Shops and Beauty Salons). Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add in addition to subparagraph # 1, one parking space per each barber chair and beautician station, and add to subparagraph #2, one parking space for each employee. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to add in addition to subparagraph # 1, two parking space per each barber chair or beautician station. Commissioner Buchanan second. 28 Commissioner •' worked into section. MOTION VOTE PCM-89-34 Sims asked if the employee parking was not the parking ratio under the general commercial The Community Development Director explained that if it was not in a combined center of at least 35,000 square feet gross floor area then the independent needs would need to be met. Motion carried. Commissioner Munson and Sims voting noe. Chairman Hargrave absent. 4-2-1-0. Commissioner Buchanan referred to Section L, hotels and motels. The Community Development Director explained that the parking ratio should be two. Commissioner Buchanan referred to Section O, offices. He quoted, "...general offices requiring one parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area and medical, dental and veterinary clinics requiring one parking sparking space for every 200 square feet..." He asked if they were the same why were they separated. The Community Development Director explained it was just for the purpose of clarity. Also, the general offices could easily be 225 or 250 and still meet the parking requirements. This would encourage the bringing together the uses of the larger projects rather than the independent projects. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the special requirements, section 4, bicycle requirements. He asked if this was intended to be discretionary but in accordance to what exists out there. The Community Development Director clarified that was correct. F MOTION PCM-89-35 Commissioner Buchanan asked for clarification of Chapter 18.60.040 Design Standards. The Community Development Director stated that he did include the residential section for the table. The single family home requirement is for two garage parking spaces and that would not fall under the requirements of the table for garage parking. Discussion on the flexibility of the Community Development Director for the paving requirements. Commissioner Buchanan summarized that the wheel stop requirement, the striping requirement, the landscaping requirement all applied in the single family residential section. The Community Development Director agreed, however in reality the only ones that would really apply would be in an R-2 and R-3 situation because the single family homes would have the parking in the garage. It does give the say that if there is going to be a parking area outside it does have to be paved. Commissioner Munson asked for the definition of a garage. The Community Development Director read the current code definition. Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to Special Requirements Section D, item recreational vehicles, boats, trailers and items shall be screened from view by a six fence or other opaque screening material." Hawkinson second. 30 delete under #6C, "...all other similar (6) foot high Vice -Chairman MOTION VOTE PCM-89-35 MOTION PCM-89-36 Motion carried. Commissioner Buchanan voted noe. Chairman Hargrave absent. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Munson asked if they can put a time element for a regular temporary RV parking. The Community Development Director explained that a time restriction could be written in but a nightmare to enforce. For occasional purposes a City temporary parking permit can be used. Discussion on any discretionary verbage for boat parking. Commissioner Munson made the motion to amend Special Requirements, Section D, Item #6A, "recreational vehicles, boats, trailers and other similar items shall not be parked or stored within the frontyard setback of a residential lot without a permit." MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Discussion on special circumstances where recreational vehicles are used as employment vehicles. Discussion on whether or not the recreational vehicle special parking requirement is necessary in the City of Grand Terrace. Discussion on the frontyard setbacks requirement per code. Commissioner Hilkey stated that this should be handled as a separate public hearing item. The Community Development Director suggested that the Planning Commission can delete it and refer it to the City Council for their consideration. 31 MOTION PCM-89-37 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-37 MOTION PCM-89-38 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-38 Vice -Chairman Requirements deleted from second. Hawkinson made Section D, Item Section 18.60. the motion #6, in its Commissioner that Special entirety be Van Gelder Commissioner Munson expressed his opposition to deleting this section. He suggested allowing the City Council to make the decision. Commissioner Hilkey reiterated that this should have more public input. Commissioner Buchanan stated that it would be appropriate to remove those vehicles from the frontyard setbacks. Motion carried. Commissioners Buchanan and Munson voted noe. Chairman Hargrave absent. 5-2-1-0. Commissioner Sims made the motion to recommend approval to the City Council of Chapter 18.60, off street parking, including the amendments of the parking lot layout as presented by staff, including the Negative Declaration, and the previous approved motions. Commissioner Buchanan second. Motion carried, all ayes. 0-1-0. 32 Chairman Hargrave absent. 6- PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Co �Zt�yDev�elopment Director P.C. Meeting 3/6/89 33 Approved By, Jerry kTaw ' n, Wice Chairman Planning Cefiunission