Loading...
10/16/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16, 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 October 16, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: Ray Munson, Commissioner PLEDGE: Commissioner Buchanan PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to the Planning Commissioners. Information from the Planning Commissioners to staff. Discussion of clarifying standard conditions for decorative walls. Chairman Hawkinson reminded everyone that the workshop begins at 6:30 P.M. and to please be on time. A formal motion will be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future to schedule the regular meetings for a night other than Monday. Discussed the October 19, 1989 joint B.R.S.P. meeting and the Fall Conference of the Planning Commissioners. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. CHAIRMAN HAWKINSON OPENED THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Public Participation - No comment from public. 1 ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 MOTION PCM-89-96 Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to approve the September 18, 1989 minutes with noted revisions. Commissioner Sims seconded the motion. MOTION PCM-89-96 VOTE Motion carries, 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Munson absent. ITEM #2 NUISANCE ABATEMENT APPEAL HEARING JERRY KOESTER 11868 CANAL STREET G.T. The Community Development Director presented the staff report, including slides of the property as a visual aid. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned the legal aspect of payment of fines\liens since Mr. Koester is the legal owner of the property and Mr. Fontainelle is the resident. The Code Enforcement Officer, Randall Anstine, explained that any actions initiated by the city would be imposed upon the property owner. Commissioner Buchanan asked if any of the vehicles are operative. The Code Enforcement Officer stated that the tenant had not been required to start up the engines. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the concern basically was that the vehicles are not parked on a permitted driveway or paved approach, and are being parked in front or side yard setbacks. The Code Enforcement Officer said yes, and the non motorized trailers are not technically motor vehicles, and are registered as trailers. In addition, there is some construction equipment on site. 2 Commissioner Hilkey asked City Attorney John Harper if serving Mr. Koester rather than the tenant was the correct way of handling the notices of violation. Attorney Harper stated that Mr. Koester, as property owner, is ultimately responsible. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Mr. Koester replied in any way to the notices. The Code Enforcement Officer replied that Mr. Koester phoned once, but no other contact since. MIKE FONTAINELLE 779 JACKSON COLTON, CA Mr. Fontainelle explained that he lost his house, and his personal property is inside the trailers. It costs him approximately $85.00 per month to rent a space for a vehicle, and most places accept only 21 foot vehicles and his are 23 feet long. He has found a place that will accept his 23 foot long vehicles and is requesting 90 days in order to make preparations. Chairman Hawkinson asked the extent of preparations. Mr. Fontainelle explained that he needs to put air in the tires, get a vehicle to pull them, and take time off from work to do all this. There are 45 trailers at the place he has found for his vehicles and they have to be moved before Mr. Fontainelle can move in his vehicles. Community Development Director clarified that the house at 11868 Canal is being rented by a family. Mr. Fontainelle only uses the backyard portion for storing vehicles and trailers. Commission Buchanan asked staff if it would be possible to grant 30 or 45 days, with an extension of 15 days if staff determines a demonstration of good faith compliance. The Community Development Director agreed that would be feasible. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what type of vehicles are on the lot. The Community Development Director stated there is a camper, 2 large panel trucks, a pick-up, a small sedan, a trailer with construction equipment (which belongs to Mr. Fontainelle) and loose debris around the vehicles. Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. Fontainelle if the reason for the 90 day extension request is due to the trailers only and not the other vehicles. M Mr. Fontainelle explained that the other individual with the 45 trailers ships the trailers 1 or 2 at a time all around the United States. As soon as they are moved, Mr. Fontainelle can move his vehicles on. The site could be ready to receive his vehicles in about 30 days. However he requests 90 days but will accept 60 days. Chairman Hawkinson asked City Attorney Harper what the city would have to do if forced to move the vehicles. Attorney Harper stated that the city would probably go to a yard specializing in moving those types of vehicles. MOTION PCM-89-97 Commissioner Hargrave moved to disapprove the appeal and declare the outstanding violations at 11868 Canal to be a public nuisance and establish a schedule for abatement. The schedule for abatement to be 30 days with two 15 day extensions at staffs discretion. Commissioner Hilkey seconded. MOTION PCM-89-97 VOTE Motion carries, 6-0-1-0, Commissioner Munson absent. ITEM #3 V-89-1 JIMMY W. SIMS 22907 FINCH STREET Commissioner Sims excused himself from participation due to conflict of interests. The Community Development Director presented the staff report. Overhead transparencies were presented. JIMMY W. SIMS APPLICANT Mr. Sims explained that there is an existing patio. He proposed that his lot is unique due to the 15 foot tall slope, 23 feet across the top of the slope. His neighbor to the east has an elongated lot with a lot of flat space and the lot to the west is much lower so Mr. Sims room addition would not affect anyone. Mr. Sims presented pictures of the neighbors to the south. There will be a very marginal affect. One option would be to construct an 8 to 10 feet tall retaining wall, but the wall would not be as nice aesthetically as the yard is now. 4 Commissioner Hargrave asked if the proposed addition will go out any further than the existing footing. Mr. Sims explained he has to remove the entire slab and replace it, but it won't go any further than the existing slab does now. Commissioner Buchanan discussed the 30 foot long family room and the alternative of making it 12 by 26 feet. Unsure if it qualifies for minor variance. The Community Development Director stated that the code has a minor deviation which allows the Planning Director to give a variance when he feels that it is of minor consequence. There is a department policy that it needs to be around 10%, but can go up to approximately 20% and still call it a minor deviation. Minor deviation does not mean that state findings don't have to be made. It just means that the applicant doesn't have to go through the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director has looked at the property in question and doesn't see the findings. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there would still be a problem if the room were only 21 foot in length. The Community Development Director answered that it wouldn't if it would pick up the 9 feet. As long as there is 20 feet between the slope and the beginning of the structure, measured at the outside wall. Commissioner Van Gelder raised the question of drainage. Mr. Sims explained that there is a high point at the lower southeast corner and the water drains north along that area and exits out the driveway and also runs behind the house and drains along the west side going north and across the yard to the driveway. The drainage will remain the same. Commissioner Hargrave asked staff if there would be any engineering or construction problem if the patio is placed 11 feet from the crest of the hill. Community Development Director stated that the Building and Safety Department will analyze that. MOTION PCM-89-98 Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to approve Variance 89-1 with changes to findings # 1 and #4. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded the motion. 5 MOTION PCM-89-98 VOTE Motion carries, 4-1-1-1, Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioners Hargrave, Hilkey and Van Gelder voting yes, Commissioner Buchanan voting no, Commissioner Munson absent, and Commissioner Sims abstaining. ITEM #4 TTM-89-03 EMBLEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION JERRY AND SUSAN IRBY (OWNERS) 22738 PICO STREET G.T. Community Development Director presented the staff report. Then followed a discussion of slopes. Commissioner Buchanan referred to lot # 17. The minimum setback is 10 feet, this lot is short on both sides. The Community Development Director responded that was correct under the old requirements. The new requirements are 5 feet. Homeowner's Associations were discussed. Discussed the possibility of Street, light, and landscaping districts. Commissioner Hilkey expressed a concern over traffic. He stated that traffic should go to Pico. JERRY IRBY ENGINEER\PROPERTY OWNER Mr. Irby stated that there is little traffic on Oriole. Discussed the Edison easement, and that Edison objects to cul-de-sacs. Discussed 30 foot difference in elevations, and that the project is limited due to surrounding subdivisions. The property to the north is T.J. Austyn development. Oriole comes to a dead end, and jogs to the left. The property to the east belongs to Barney Karger. The slopes along Oriole should be dedicated to the city if they will accept them. Commissioner Sims asked if the street pattern is locked in. Commissioner Hargrave said the houses could front on "A' Street. Mr. Irby said they wouldn't be a good design. Further discussion on the area's topography. 6 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there is to be a wall or fence around the project. The Community Development Director answered that there will be no perimeter wall. Commissioner Hilkey referred to the fencing on lots 13 and 14. Mr. Irby explained that the fencing would enclose the power company easement. It was discussed that the power company will respond in writing and the conditions of their letter be satisfied. They would have recourse to City Council. Commissioner Sims questioned the impact of the easement on the lots. Mr. Irby said they will meet the minimum lot size. PAT BROWNING ATTORNEY/ VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF OPERATIONS EMBLEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Mr. Browning discussed the Edison situation on lot #17. The map can be revised, a fence can be placed at the top of the slope. A homeowner's association could maintain slopes 14 through 17, or a landscaping and lighting district could be formed. There could possibly be problems with homeowners of other lots continuing to maintain slopes on just 4 lots. Mr. Browning indicated they would like to have a variance for the side yard on lot # 17. At this point, the Community Development Director advised that a variance was not advertised so there should be no discussion. If variance is desired, the item should be continued to another meeting. Mr. Browning stated that they want the map approved. Attorney Harper said that a variance can be submitted any time by the developer. The map can be decided at this time, and variance applied for later. Mr. Browning said they could submit the original map or revised with variances. 7 Attorney Harper advised that findings have to be made. Alternatives were then discussed. One suggestion was that house and garage sizes could be reduced. Mr. Browning said there are extra feet on the lots. Commissioner Sims asked about the existing home. The Community Development Director explained that it is on a separate lot. The existing lot will be discussed at the Site and Architectural review. He would also like to add one other condition that the tract be annexed to the existing light and maintenance district. City Attorney Harper said the slope could be dedicated, and conditions can't be added after the map is approved. Mr. Irby gave the Community Development Director 3 copies of the revised map which corrected lot # 17. City Attorney Harper said the commission, under the circumstances, could approve this revised map and eliminate the condition of approval regarding lot 17. Commissioner Hargrave asked if a garage could be eliminated. Mr. Irby stated that they reduced the garages from 3 to 2 cars already. Chairman Hawkinson opened up the public hearing for anyone to speak in favor of or against Tentative Tract Map #89-03. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 9:30 P.M. MARYANNE ELLIOTT 22700 MAIN STREET G.T. Ms. Elliott opposed the slope on Oriole. The block wall on the left is an eyesore. She asked why a 7,200 density would be acceptable. She also objected to lot #4 sitting on Pico Blvd. DAN HOWE 22745 ROBIN WAY Mr. Howe said that there is no vegetation on the parkway, and the slope on Oriole will look more like an alleyway. The density is also a concern. No further comments. 8 PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED 9:38 P.M. Commissioner Buchanan expressed concern over lot #4. Would like to hear specific recommendations. He asked what the distance between lot #4 driveway and Pico is. The Community Development Director answered that there is 50 feet with an additional 12 feet from street's curb. Commissioner Sims said that the 20 foot elevation difference would be a problem. Could there be a requirement to minimize the slope? The Community Development Director stated that the City Engineer could address the alternatives. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that if there are alternatives to slopes, she would like to hear them. Commissioner Sims would like a rationalization of 20 foot wall to 15 foot slope. Commissioner Buchanan stated that there is a 30 foot difference between front and back, a 4 foot retaining wall can't replace slopes. He felt there was no need for a continuance. The Community Development Director offered alternatives. Condition #1 to remain the same. Condition #2 to read "The subject property shall be annexed to the City's existing Lighting and Landscaping District." Condition #3 to be re -written to read "The area containing the proposed rear yard slope in lots 14 through 17 shall be offered for dedication to the city for the purpose of inclusion in the city's Lighting and Landscaping District." The new Condition #4 should read "If the area identified in condition #3 is not included in the Lighting and Landscaping District a homeowner's association shall be established and at a minimum shall be responsible for the maintenance of the rear yard slopes of lots 14 through 17 in accordance with the property maintenance standards of the City of Grand Terrace. Old Condition #4 should then become Condition #5. Old Condition #5 should become Condition #6. 9 MOTION PCM-89-99 MOTION PCM-89-99 VOTE Old Condition #6 should become Condition #7 and be amended to read "The final tract map shall be consistent with the existing Southern California Edison easement." Old Condition #7 should become Condition #8. Old Condition #8 should become Condition #9. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Condition #4 includes the developer's comment about making the deed subject to the slope being taken care of under an homeowner's association or individual ownership. Attorney Harper answered that the other alternative proposed by the developer was drafting Covenants, Codes and Restrictions to cover slopings for those lots. The Planning Commission should keep in mind that the city trying to enforce Covenants, Codes and Restrictions is extremely difficult and the alternatives that work realistically are homeowner's associations or inclusion in the Streetlight and Landscaping District. A homeowner's association would be required to have city consent for dissolution. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to adopt the resolution submitted as attachment A with the notation that the Planning Commission is acting on the tentative tract map submitted here at the time of the hearing and not the one submitted with the packet and further that the conditions of approval reflect the changes articulated by staff, and that the City Engineer submit to the City Council a study on mitigating the slopes. Commissioner Hargrave seconded the motion. Motion carries, 4-2-1-0. Commissioners Buchanan, Hargrave, Sims and Van Gelder voting yes, Commissioner Hilkey and Chairman Hawkinson voting no, Commissioner Munson absent. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED 10:21 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director 11 Approved by, Planning Commission