Loading...
04/03/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 3, 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 April 3, 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 Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner C WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information/Discussion on SA-89-03 (La Mancha/MPA Associates) Denial versus coming back with conditions of approval and discussion on appeal process. Discussion on the status of the Chocolate Forest. The Community Development Director explained that the tables have been removed and the illegal signs are still up. Staff contacted the Chamber of Commerce and relayed information on the code enforcement on this project. Staff informed the Planning Commission that a Special Meeting between the Chamber of Commerce, City Council, Planning Commission and local developers of the City has been planned for April 22, 1989 starting at 8:30 a.m. Staff informed the Planning Commission that the Nuisance Abatement for Vivian Proctor, 11820 Proctor Avenue, Grand Terrace has been completed. The applicant has cleared the debris, autos and rubbish from her property. WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Public Participation - No comments. ITEM #1 MINUTES JANUARY 16, 1989 MOTION PCM-89-39 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-39 Commissioner Hilkey requested that staff check on the attendance status of Commissioner Munson and himself for the meeting of January 16, 1989. Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to accept the Planning Commission Minutes for January 16, 1989 as revised. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carried. Commissioner Hawkinson abstained. 6-0-1-0. O ITEM #2 CHARLES HARTZELL 22558 CARDINAL GRAND TERRACE The Community Development Director presented the staff report dealing with the Nuisance Abatement Hearing. Discussion on the length of time the City has been working on serving this property, 22558 Cardinal Avenue, with Code Violations, Notice of Hearing on Abatement of Nuisance. The violations have been ongoing since November 17, 1979. The Community Development Director explained that the City went out immediately and removed the materials, other than the buildings that were constructed. Other items that were in violation were then corrected by Mr. Hartzell. The only items that are still in contention are the buildings that are in violation of the building setbacks. That includes the carport that comes out into the frontyard setback and an accessory structure which is built in the backyard. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was any reason why this was not 2 brought before the Planning Commission before now. The Community Development Director explained that the applicant had not appealed prior to this time. There is a ten day appeal period that was not met, but the applicant has since indicated that he did want to appeal and therefore is presented before this body. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the structures within the setbacks were still sound. The Code Enforcement Officer, Randy Anstine, responded that the Building Inspector did approve the structures approximately two years ago. He did not have a problem with the structures from a building and safety standpoint. The Community Development Director recommended that the Planning Commission declare the structures a public nuisance and that they be abated. The questions that Mr. Hartzell will be asking will be regarding the scheduling of abatement and when he has to have those items removed. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CLOSED AT 7:10 P.M. Chairman Hargrave referred to the March 22, 1989 letter from Charles Hartzell III requesting extension to November 1989 to allow removal of the structures from his property. Charles Hartzell III 22558 Cardinal Avenue Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 Mr. Hartzell stated that the City removed personal materials that he was planning on using to repair his motorhome, from his property. He stated that he had permits from the County for the accessory structure and the carport. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how much could be removed from his property before the summer. Mr. Hartzell responded that it would be easier for him to do a complete removal all at one time. He was planning on using an 18 wheeler to remove all of the materials and structures to Arizona. It would take him some time to make the appropriate arrangements. Commissioner Hilkey asked for information on the carport in the setback area. o Mr. Hartzell responded that his carport structure was 5-6 years old. He referred to his next door neighbor who also had a carport in the setback. The Community Development Director stated that this evening's violations dealt with the existing structures on his property. Discussion on the history of complaints from the neighborhood regarding the debris and materials at this property location. Mr. Hartzell stated that he responded as quickly as he could. He thought he had taken care of the problem and thought everything was fine until he discovered that his materials had been removed from his property. It cost him $250 dollars to retrieve the materials from the storage. He is asking for an extension to the end of November. Barbara Pfennighausen City Councilperson Grand Terrace, CA. Ms. Pfennighausen stated that she was concerned with the time element. This has been an ongoing problem and the City has received numerous complaints over the years. The structures have been there longer than 5- 6 years. The structures are in the fire access area. It is unsightly and still overridden with debris. She requested expeditious movement by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hartzell responded that he does not feel there is a fire hazard problem. The third garage was built before the city became a city and was approved by the County. His neighbor had similar structures approved by the County. He paid for half of the block wall with his neighbor and his neighbor gave the property to him. Discussion on the location of Mr. Hartzell's property line. Commissioner Munson asked what type of arrangements he has made for removal. Mr. Hartzell stated he has a storage facility by the river. Commissioner Munson asked what cost it would be to the City for abatement. The Community Development Director responded that it would only be an estimate, but would presume it to be at $10,000. Commissioner Munson suggested that a time schedule be established for 4 MOTION PCM-89-40 cleanup. He expressed his concern that nothing would be done without it to remedy the problem. The Code Enforcement Officer/Assistant City Manager, Randy Anstine, suggested that this be discussed by the City Attorney. The City Attorney, John Harper, stated that if the removal is scheduled and the remaining is removed by the City that would be fine also. This could be continued for two weeks and the applicant can work with the Assistant City Manager for a cleanup schedule. Mr. Hartzell stated that he could come up with a time schedule. He stated that frequent trips to the river would be very high costs to him. Commissioner Munson made the motion to continue this item for two weeks until submittal of a cleanup schedule. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Commission Buchanan asked about the zoning and the dimensions of the lot. Mr. Hartzell stated that he thought it was 72' by 105'. The Community Development Director explained that it is now a R-1 Zone but will be under the new zoning revisions, R-1/7.2. Commissioner Buchanan asked what staff was recommending in terms of abatement. The Community Development Director suggested that this item be continued until the next meeting. He recommended the applicant take out bonding to insure scheduling is met, approximately $10,000. The City Attorney stated that would be appropriate. The City would have to do a lien if the City abates. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the structures were dismanteled what storage accomodations could be arranged until the applicant removed the debris. Commissioner Buchanan expressed his concern with the fire code if the demolition materials are stacked on the property. W1 MOTION PCM-89-41 The City Attorney stated that the bonding would be reduced if the materials are stacked for later removal. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the appeal is denied tonight would the time structure for deadline of removal on bonded basis with the City be sufficient or would it be better to continue for two weeks. The Community Development Director explained that staff could work out a schedule and come back to the Planning Commission at the next meeting, April 17, 1989. Commissioner Sims asked if the denial is voted on tonight how long does the applicant have to clean up the property. The Community Development Director stated that the process could start immediately. Commissioner Sims stated that he felt the November deadline requested by the applicant was too much time. The neighborhood had suffered too long. The Community Development Director stated that they can work with two key dates. The date of the dismanteling and the date of the site clearance. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve staff's recommendation of denial of the Nuisance Abatement appeal, Charles Hartzell III, 22558 Cardinal Avenue, establishing the following conditions for abatement; 1. The dismanteling of the structures must be completed within the next 45 calendar days, starting April 4, 1989. The completion date will be Thursday, May 18, 1989. 2. Staff and the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission at the next meeting, April 17, 1989, with a schedule for removal of the building materials and acceptable bonding requirements. 3. If these conditions are not met then at the next Planning Commission meeting, April 17, 1989, a date will be set for the City to begin abatement within 30 days from that meeting. Second by Commissioner Van Gelder. 6 C MOTION VOTE PCM-89-41 Motion carried. Commissioner Munson voted noe. 6-1-0-0. The applicant was told to contact the Assistant City Manager/Code Enforcement, Randy Anstine, the next day to work on the bonding and the scheduling. ADJOURN PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ITEM #3 MICHAEL PALMER AND ASSOCIATES MS PARTNERSHIP 22484-22488 N. BARTON ROAD 6,283 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL RETAIL STRUCTURE The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions submitted by the City Engineer, reviewing agencies and staff. Refer to the Planning Department's recommendations of denial. He presented the concept of the Barton Road Specific Plan. Commissioner Sims referred to the City Council minutes, March 10, 1988. It was stated that Mr. Curatolo has the lease on the property until June, 1990. He recalled asking earlier if the Planning Commission were to approve this project would the Commission's decision be null and void at that time the lease ran out. The Community Development Director explained that a Site and Architectural approval is valid for one year from the date of approval and it would be keyed with the issuance of building permits. The issue of the lease would be a private matter. Discussion on the Fire Warden's requirement, dated March 8, 1989, "interior turning radius shall be increased to accomodate fire apparatus." Commissioner Buchanan asked if the plans were sufficient to reflect this request and still meet parking and landscaping requirements. The Community Development Director responded that the requirements from the Fire Warden's Office were based on the plans that were submitted so they have not been adjusted to reflect the requirement. Discussion on the parking and landscaping requirements for this project under current or the proposed parking revisions. The Community Development Director explained that it met the current requirements and the proposed parking plan, which has not yet been approved by the City Council. This project is overparked by approximately 3-4 spaces thus has plenty of parking for this type of building. The only differences between the two codes are berming and a 3' high wall or screening material that would be along the perimeter landscaping. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:00 P.M. Jim Bolton Representative Michael Palmer and Associates (applicant) 1205 "J" Street, Suite F San Diego, CA. 92101 MS Partnership (owner) 1630 Adams Avenue Orange, CA. 92667 Mr. Bolton responded to the questions regarding the General Plan and the Barton Road Specific Plan. He referred to Sections 65450 and 65453 of the California Planning and Zoning Laws dealing with Specific Plans. He referred to the current General Plan, Section 6-9, " the use of the Specific Plan is required for large commercial developments of 10 acres or more." He stated that he understood the intent of the statement. Their project does not consist of ten (10) acres but the City does not have a Specific Plan either. He contacted Mr. Garcia, Office of Planning and Research, State of California, and understood Mr. Bolton's explanation of the project. Michael Palmer MS Partnership Developer Mr. Palmer addressed two items included in the staff report. He referred to the recommendation that the architecture treatment that is currently on the front and the side of the building facing Barton be extended to the other two sides of the Building. He stated that would be in violation of the .11 Uniform Building Code which requires a 30" parafoot extend above any point of the roof on any building wall within 25' of the property line. The only solution would be to reduce the building depth by 25' which would accomplish two things; creates a 24' x 25' retail building and would create a 20' dead end corridor between the existing dead end building to the north which would be an architectural disaster. Mr. Palmer responded to the Planning Department's recommendations. Item #1, architectural design location and configuration would not be visibly harmonious. He explained to the north of this particular site was a bicycle shop/converted residence, to the west a 5-10 year old retail commercial area which was almost identical to the character of this building, to the east is an abandoned food market and to the south is a retail commercial building with a service station. Item #2, architectural design location and configuration prohibits harmonious blending to the north and south. He stated that staff misread the Municipal Code, "promote harmonious transitions between different landuses," these were not adjacent landuses. He stated there was a significant difference with that slight change. The landuse designation of all adjoining parcels is identical to theirs therefore he did not feel this section of the Code was applicable. A smooth transition could easily be accomplished by relocating the loading zone to the north and share a mutual access between their proposed structure and the retail building to the north. This would not have a detrimental effect on their parking requirements. They could take 3 parking spaces which run along the northerly property line, rotate them 90 degrees and put them in line with the remainder of the spaces in front of the building. Regarding item #3, architectural design detrimental to public and private investments, section mentioned 18.48.030 (d) was not listed in the ordinance it only went to subsection (c). Mr. Palmer questioned why the investment of the property owner to the north was being protected and his client's investment was not being considered. Mr. Palmer stated that they have met every requirement that applies to this property therefore this property should be approved. In response to Commissioner Sim's question regarding the existing tenant, he has agreed to relocate at this center should it be approved. TONY FULLER MS PARTNERSHIP Mr. Fuller stated that he has worked with this project since its early conception in 1987. He stated that they worked closely with the Community Development Director to get the original project off the ground and approved by the Planning Commission. It seemed that one of the main concerns was the fact that the center was not large enough and the City Z wanted a larger center incorporating the pieces up on the comer now. Due to the lease term lasting 1990 because they could not come into any terms with the existing tenant. However, as mentioned by Mr. Palmer they have reached an agreement with the tenant. Now they are able to meet the earlier concerns and have returned with a new project. Commissioner Munson asked if it would be possible to start construction before the removal of existing building. Mr. Fuller explained that they would remove existing building and then develop the new building. The Community Development Director corrected item #3, typo error, it should read section 18.48.020 (d). He stand behinds all of the recommendations before the Planning Commission. He explained the differences between the original and current application. Previously the City was not taking any direction towards developing a Specific Plan on Barton Road. Now there is a large picture plan for the area and the City Council has authorized a specific plan to be developed. This project at this time would be a hinderance to the Specific Plan and the successful completion of that plan. Discussion on fencing requirements for the project. The Community Development Director anticipated fencing design to blend in with the surrounding areas. Discussion on the architectural design of this project and how it is detrimental to the surrounding areas. The Community Development Director explained that if this building is to go forward as it is designed currently, it would be be a detriment in that it basically turns its back to the surrounding properties. It would not allow any interaction between this shop or any future shops to be developed around it. The architectural features only deal with 180 degrees of architecture. He stressed that it is important to make requirements for 360 degrees architecture particularly on a comer lot and would be surrounded by other commercial development in the future. Discussion on the original project submitted in 1987 that contained more architectural relief to the backs of the buildings. There were two types of building shapes discussed at that time. Commissioner Sims stated that he recalled the applicant at that time asking for input from the Planning Commission regarding what this body would like to see. The comments then were the same as what are being stated now by the Community Development Director. 10 Commissioner Buchanan stated that denial of this project is difficult to do on the basis of a pending Specific Plan. He did not feel the Commission had a choice if they were to remain consistent. He referred to the California Spirits project on Michigan Avenue and Barton Road which was turned down for basically the same reasons; establishing development standards under the Specific Plan. It would make staffs and the Planning Commission's job easier if there would be a formal moratorium or delaying action implemented by the City Council in anticipation of the Specific Plan. n the meantime the burden falls on staff to recommend to this body to follow to maintain a consistency and wait for a Specific Plan to materialize. For those reasons he supports staffs recommendations at this time. Commissioner Munson asked if Mr. Barney Karger would still like to comment on this project. Since the Public Hearing had been adjourned, Chairman Hargrave asked if it would be the concensus of this Commission to allow Mr. Karger to give public testimony. Concensus given to allow Mr. Karger to give public testimony. PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED AT 8:30 P.M. BARNEY KARGER GRAND TERRACE, CA. Mr. Karger vigourously opposed denials to earlier projects and this project on Barton Road. This project is trapped because no one around the applicant wants to sell and therefore the project could not expand. He expressed his opposition to the Community Development Director requiring a wall on his project to facilitate parking. If parking is required then the building should be moved to the side for access. Developers need guidelines. The wait for the Specific Plan costs money for developers. Mr. Bolton applauded the decision to implement a General Plan and improve the City of Grand Terrace. However, request for proposals are not implementations and adoptions. Their project is now and is still before the Specific Plan. Mr. Fuller addressed the concern in reference to the neighboring properties. He reiterated the original project history involving the previous tenant and lease. It was impractical for them to buy out the existing tenants back then. 11 MOTION PCM-89-42 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-42 At the beginning of 1988, when the City Council denied their project, they incurred substantial damage even though they felt they had a legal parcel on the lot. At that time they were in escrow and today they are owners of the property. They have followed the recommendations and handled the lease issue and if the project is not approved this evening they will incur additional financial damages. Discussion between the City Attorney and the Planning Commission on the feasibility of continuing this item until the completion of the Specific Plan. The City Attorney presented two options for the Commission. One would be to deny the project based upon its lack of compliance with the goals and objectives of the General Plan. Second, the project could be continued to another date. Site and Architectural Reviews do not involve Notice Public Hearings. The threshold issue is the General Plan issue. Definition and purpose of a Specific Plan. Chairman Hargrave expressed his opposition to the project when it was originally presented in 1987 due to it being a strip center. He still had concerns with the architecture and since it was a major throughway that comer needed an upgraded architecture. Currently, the City is attempted to bring in Specific Plans for the Barton Road Corridor. The City should be allowed to do that so the long range planning of the City can be enhanced. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to deny SA-89-3 based on the findings and recommendations in the staff report. Commissioner Sims second. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the blueprint guideline requested by Mr. Karger is valid. He perceived that to be the intent of a Specific Plan. Motion carries. Commissioner Munson voting noe. 6-1-0-0. Chairman Hargrave asked for a concensus from the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to City Council that if this project, in a different 12 form, is brought back to the Planning Commission that they take into account the fees paid so far by the applicant and give consideration on behalf of those fees previously paid. Concensus of approval by the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director explained to the applicant that they have a ten day appeal period for this application. If they so choose to make contact with the City Clerk's Office. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director 4/3/89 P.C. Meeting mcm Approved by, ,�7" 4441� Stanley Har ave, Chayman Planning Commission 13