Loading...
12/11/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 11, 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 December 11, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman PLEDGE: 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 Lighting District Survey. January 2, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting cancelled. Next Planning Commission Meeting to be held January 16, 1990. Corrections to November, 20, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. OPublic Participation - No comments. 1 ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - NOVEMBER 20, 1989 MOTION PCM-89-111 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-111 Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion that the minutes of November 20, 1989 be approved with corrections noted during the workshop. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Chairman Hawkinson absent. ITEM #2, ITEM #3 Z-89-03 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18.12.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE CHANGING THE REQUIRED REAR -YARD SETBACKS IN THE R1-10 DISTRICT TFM-89-04 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CHURCHWELL 23081 Grand Terrace Rd Grand Terrace Commissioner Sims abstained. The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the conditions of approval and recommendations by the reviewing agencies, City Engineer and the Planning Department staff. Commissioner Hilkey requested clarification as to whether or not the setback requirement applied to all the lots or just the existing house. The Community Development Director stated that the item regarding the zoning change, which is dealing with the setbacks, will affect not only this property, but all the properties in the R1-10 zone. He stated that this change from 35 feet to 20 feet will affect all the properties in that zone, and that this applies to a rear yard setback only. He stated that the other item was that of the map and whether or not it would be approved. He stated that the zone change needed to be looked at, and if this was passed then the map could be approved; if not, then the map is not consistent with the zoning and needs to be revised for the rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she had trouble visualizing a 20 foot 2 setback in a rural atmosphere. The Community Development Director explained by stating that originally, his recommendations for the 35 foot setback were because this area was in question during the zoning change hearings. Staff had recommended for an R1-20 zone because of the rural atmosphere and the rural setting they wanted to try and preserve. He stated that the City Council was considering the concept of an R1-10 zone and, in doing that, directed staff to write the R1-10 zone to come back to the council with that. He stated that his thinking along those lines at that time was to create a zone that was in the area of the R1-20 rural atmosphere and that he wanted to preserved as much of that as possible, and that is why he had recommended the larger rear yard setbacks at that time. He stated that once a development has come in and because of the grading and topography of the property, he felt that the spaciousness that was the intent of the 35 foot rear yard setback was still going to be accomplished because of the distance that the slopes were taking up. He stated that if one looks at a map, nearly all of the lots, or a good percentage of them at least, have the 20 or the 25 foot rear yard setback, but they then combine it with the slopes, and with those slopes, we've got large lots; we've got lots that are far greater in size than the 10,000 square foot minimum lot sizes, 14,000 square feet, almost 15,000 square feet and that combining these issues, he felt the rural atmosphere was still being achieved and can be achieved because of the distance of the slopes incorporated. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned if he was recommending that the fences be placed at the top of the slope. The Community Development Director stated that recommendation was for the property along Barton Road only, where the issue of maintenance is on to Barton Road, and where he referenced the R1-7.2 20 foot rear yard setback was simply to show that this reduction is not going to be any less than what the R1-7.2 setback is, and that he feels it is accomplishing the goals of the rural atmosphere and it is not going below the minimum standard for the R1-7.2 zone either. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned as to whether or not the other lots would have the fences including the slopes. The Community Development Director stated that the standard procedure was for the fences to go on the property line, but that they hadn't looked at the entire fencing plan for the rest of the subidivision yet. He stated that he normally tries to have the property owner looking at the slope that they are going to maintain and is on their property. The Community Development Director stated that it is beneficial for the public to comment first prior to any further discussion on zone changes. 3 Commissioner Van Gelder questioned as to how many other large parcels we have in Grand Terrace that would fall under the R1-10. The Community Development Director stated we have one, perhaps, two, and that they are adjacent to this property and have the same topography. Commissioner Buchanan questioned the measuring of the setbacks from the top or bottom of the slope and suggested, in the R1-10 districts, using a combination of the 20 foot rear yard setback is measured as is usually done with an additional requirement that there also be a minimum of 35 feet including the distance that may be consumed by a slope. He stated are other developments where that might not be the way it looks, and we might have homes being backed up, right to 20 feet from the rear property lines, where there may not be slopes at the rear. He suggested requiring the 35 foot depth, but not measuring that in the same way we measure the 20 foot. The Community Development Director stated there was no problem with this suggestion from staffs point of view. He stated that a footnote would simply be put on the table for that setback area and have it dealt with in that manner. Commissioner Hargrave questioned if there was any lot that wouldn't be 35 feet minimum setback, that from the map it doesn't look like that would be a problem if the slope was included with the standard setback. The Community Development Director stated that an indepth analysis hadn't been done yet, and that perhaps the developer might be able to give more input. He stated that Lot 6 and Lot 4 might have a problem, and that Lots 7 and 8 might have a problem also. He stated that with the 25 foot setback in Lot 3, the slope is angled, so at one end they would have the 35 feet and at the other end they would not, and that type of wording in the code would prevent that from happening. He stated that, on the other hand, we may want to have that flexibility. He stated that, if we just make it down to 20 feet they don't have to have this flexibility, so ignoring this application for this map, this is probably a good idea if the intent is to keep that open space. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:25 P.M. Bill Addington Civil Engineer of J.F. Davidson and Associates Mr. Addington stated that the map speaks for itself. The problems they tried to address and the things they were dealing with are shown on this map. The change from the zoning ordinance that went from 20,000 square 4 foot to 10,000 square foot provided a window that allowed this development to go forward. He stated that unfortunately, and that it may have been an oversight, when those sizes were reduced from 20 to 10, remembering that 7,200 is the regular R1 lot, he thinks that those setbacks should have been reduced at that time. The idea of the 10,000 square foot lot is a super single-family, one that allows you to have a large pad but still have slope areas, differences in elevation, and things like that. He states that if you take the map on the pads that are shown, and you impose the original setbacks, then the envelope in which a house can be built and which structures can be used by the occupant, is reduced, and they lose the flexibility of design and we lose an opportunity to create fine residential housing in Grand Terrace. He believes that this 10,000 foot zone probably should have a lesser setback in general, but what he is addressing today is this map as it should go on its own. Regarding the tract, Mr. Addington stated that they have the conditions that are shown after the resolution and on the second page of Attachment B, Item # 1, it addresses architectural review. He requested that the architectural review condition be imposed at the time of building permit, and the purpose of that is that these lots are intended to be custom home lots, and the format for custom homes is subdivide the property, provide the building pad, allow builders or private individuals to buy the lot and then design their homes and place them on, so, prior to recording this map, he stated they wouldn't come up with building plans, they would leave that to the individual who is going to develop the lot. He stated he thinks it is appropriate and is as no risk to the city because the city still has the opportunity for architectural review completely, but by not requiring that at the record map, it allows us to go forward. Mr. Addington stated that Item #3 deals with the slope areas, and that he is not unfamiliar with landscape easements and landscape districts, that they're common in newer communities like Moreno Valley, and this particular condition, which he states he rewrote himself as follows: The area contained in the proposed slope along Barton Road in Lots 7 and 8 shall be offered for dedication to the city as a landscape easement. He stated that he spoke to the Community Development Director, who was not sure how the City Attorney would address this, whether we would be talking about an easement or a fee dedication. He stated that the purpose of this whole exercise is to provide a district so that they can be maintained uniformly so that the monies will be available to maintain the landscaping so the vehicle should be an easement to the landscape district to support the landscaping and irrigation. He stated that he is not calling for a decision but did want to read it into the record and would appreciate a comment from the City Engineer, City Attorney, or others. Commissioner Hilkey stated he understood the point on the architectural review but that he didn't see the item read that way. He stated that it just W1 doesn't say at what point that condition would be applied, and that he would hope that condition would be applied when someone comes in for a building permit so that we wouldn't go through an exercise of trying to get building plans before the map reports. The Community Development Director stated that the last few tracts that have come in have been builders who are subdividing and then plan on building the homes. He stated that the wording for that condition was intended to require Site and Architectural Review prior to the recredition of the map so that we know the homes are going to be built in a cohesive design manner. He stated that if the intent of this developer is to sell out the lots independently to custom homes, he has no problem because of the size of this map to simply add on prior to issuance of building permits to this condition. The Community Development Director then stated, regarding the condition regarding the landscaping district and how it should be dedicated, the correction for the slopes on Barton Road is fine, the Lot numbers should be 7 and 8 on the issue of identifying it for landscape easement purposes he would like to leave off as this wording was written by the City Attorney for a previous map and was actually his suggested wording. Commissioner Buchanan stated, with respect to Lots 7 and 8, he noticed that basically the one spot where the distance between the building setback line and Barton Road was being measured across a slope. He stated that he thought we were measuring things from the tops and bottoms of slopes. He asked how the building setback line gets identified where it is, especially on 7 and 8, and if that slope area is offered for dedication, whether by easement of by fee or if there is a difference between the two, how that affects that setback line. He stated that he assumed if it were offered as a fee dedication, the setback line would have to start from the new property line. He stated that if it was for an easement, he supposed it was possible that the easement area be included. The Community Development Director stated as far as the easement goes, if it does go as an easement that would be included in the setback area and more than likely an easement is how it would go. He stated that if it is dedicated, then the setback normally would be measured back from the property line, and perhaps that is a determination the City Attorney could make prior to the City Council Meeting. He stated that Lot 7, front yard, will be on Grand Terrace Road, so the slopes where the access is onto Grand Terrace Road is the front yard setback. He stated that measurements are from the top or bottom of the slope for rear and side yard setbacks, not for front yard slopes and setbacks. He stated regarding the setbacks for number 8, the access is on the extension of Arliss which would be there front yard under normal circumstances, but the code states that when a lot is a through lot or has street frontage on both its front and its rear yard, then the Planning Commission and the City Council may determine which is the front and which is the rear yard, so its flexible. He stated that they are proposing for for them with these setbacks as they are stated to identify Barton Road as the front yard, because they want to have the yard in the building setback toward Barton Road. He stated that Arliss can be determined as the front yard, which would shove that building pad area toward Arliss, and that 20 feet you would see on the north side of the pad would simply be pushed to the south side. Mr. Addington identified intended access for each lot as follows: 1 and 2, off of Arliss, which runs east and west; Lot 3, off of Lot C; Lot 4 and 5, off of Lot C; Lot 6, Barton road; Lot 7, Barton Road; Lot 8, Lot C; Lot 9, Lot C. He stated that Lot 6 has a regular type of frontage and driveway could be taken off of either side on Grand Terrace Road, and that the driveway was intended on Grand Terrace Road somewhere along the 96 foot frontage. Commissioner Buchanan stated with respect to Lot 2 that the access point is almost right to the corner of the curb. He asked if there was some requirement for a driveway to be set back so many feet from an intersection. Mr. Addington stated that by the time they get to the curb, that driveway would have a fairly comfortable 50 foot distance from the comer. He stated that the reason that the driveway is set in that manner is so that a garage or drive area could be located more to the center of Lot 2. Commissioner Van Gelder asked the distance from the entrance of the drive to Lot 8 and questioned if this would be a private driveway. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he understood that one of the City Engineer's conditions is that Lot C at the southern end, rather than being squared off as it is presently shown, has to be improved with a standard cul- de-sac radius. The City Engineer stated that, with respect to Lot C, there should be a Condition C, which would read, "Construct standard curb, gutter and roadway improvements within that lot". He stated that the B portion of the requires a standard cul-de-sac which would allow emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks, etc., to turn around, and that cul-de-sac is to improved to the city standard. He suggested, with concurrence of the applicant, a condition for C be added to construct standard curb, gutter and roadway within that lot. Mr. Addington stated he would like to clarify Lot C, and he understood the reason for writing the condition as we have a road that is going along the California aqueduct as other property develops to the south. He stated 7 that the imposition of that condition puts them into a position that they have to prove that and have to get concurrence from that property owner or build the cul-de-sac according to the condition. He stated that designing a cul-de-sac would be counterproductive and probably not in the best interest of the adjacent property owner. Commissioner Buchanan asked if Mr. Addington would know whether or not Lot C would be improved beyond the boundary line of this tract before actually contructing the roadway, to which Mr. Addington responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Buchanan asked if what Mr. Addington is asking for is an alternative to that condition to construct the cul-de-sac that if the roadway is extended beyond that, the cul-de-sac will be some place else. Mr. Addington stated that the road pattern to develop the property to the south would logically be along the California Aqueduct because they can't build on it, and that alignment connects to Victoria, which goes back to Preston, which would be a loop in the property. He stated that the City Engineer rightly questions whether or not Lot C will continue, and if its not going to connect, then the cul-de-sac should be done. The Community Development Director in response to a cul-de-sac, there is a condition for a turn -around. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if, going back to the private road and leading up to number 8, would the road meet the fire specifications. The Community Development Director stated that the fire department has reviewed it and they haven't brought it out as a negative point, so he assumes it meets their standards. Referring to the improvement of the driveway, he stated that it would have to provide the surface that would be adequate for the fire department. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if you also have to provide enough t turn- around. The Community Development Director stated that, if that is in Lot 8, that is normally one of the conditions, but that wouldn't be addressed until Site and Architectural. Vice Chairman Buchanan opened up the public hearing for anyone to speak in favor of or opposition to the project. Aaron Martinez 22950 Arliss G.T. Mr. Martinez questioned why a portion of his property was drawn on the map. Commissioner Buchanan questioned why the tract incorporates what looks like half of Arliss, the south half or extension of Arliss, and the tract doesn't seem to include the north half of Arliss. The City Engineer, referring to Condition 3, Exhibit C of the Staff Report, states that Arliss Drive dedicate to provide for 30 feet of right of way on the southerly side of center line and a minimum of 10 feet northerly of center line. That condition is standard for any development within a city or any other jurisdiction. The map indicates that the future alignment of Arliss will be as shown and the map does not indicate that there will be a widening on the north side of that, our condition does require that. Commissioner Buchanan states that with respect to this portion and the California Aqueduct portion, he didn't see any language discussing the need for clearance by the City Attorney, for example, of some sort of proof of right of use of right of access. He stated he assumes that whoever holds the easement for the California Aqueduct was contacted and questioned whether we received any response from them. The City Engineer stated that normally we do, but he did not know whether the Community Development Director had forwarded the map or not, but the normal procedure is, our Condition # 12 states: Obtain approvals and permits from Department of Water Resources for any facilities to be constructed within DWR right of way. He stated that Lot C is, as it heads south, totally within that right of way, and that DWR will not commit themselves to any permits or any rights of entry within an easement. He stated that the fee title to most of the aqueduct belongs to the adjacent property owners, but they will not commit themselves to any approvals prior to seeing and reviewing the plans. He stated that when you get the approvals from DWR, you will have a right to construct that roadway. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the same would be true for the northerly 10 feet of Arliss before building permits or before recordation of final map that they have to come in satisfying somebody that they have legal access to the northerly 10 feet of Arliss. The City Engineer stated, as far as the northerly 10 feet, based on the conditions as they are proposed right now, they would have to provide us with a separate document showing that the portion northerly of the tract boundary is available to the city in the form of an easement to construct standard roadways required. He stated that would be a grant deed of easement or grant deed noting on the bottom that it is for street purposes only, and when that was delivered to the City properly notarized, it would presented to the City Council for acceptance. Commissioner Buchanan asked if that was a condition to the recordation of the final map. 0 The City Engineer stated that it has to be done prior to the recordation of the final map, otherwise the conditions have not been met. Romayne Chinnock 22935 Arliss Drive G.T. Mr. Chinnock expressed concern for the traffic hazard that may be unposed and that we are really only having half a street although we're talking about ten feet northerly of the property line. He stated that at the present time there is only half a street, half of Arliss Drive, that would be available to go into this tract. He stated that his property is just to the west of that tract where you see the residence on the map. He stated that seven dwellings would be using that as access and he feels there is not room there for a safe street. He stated he has discussed this with the City Council at the time of the proposed zone change when it was changed to R1-20 to R1- 10. He stated that he and a number of the neighbors are still very concerned about the traffic hazard although he has noticed that the environmental impact report notes that this would not increase the traffic hazard to traffic, pedestrians or bicycles. He feels it would increase the hazard and doesn't feel Mr. Martinez' question was not answered in relationship to his property and would like to say for the record that following the objection to the City Council regarding this property, Mr. Martinez was informed by the developer that there was no objection to the development of that property and stated, once again for the record, that there was an objection, they are very concerned about the traffic hazard there and about the inadequate width of the street at that point. Commissioner Hilkey questioned if, up to the property line of the property in question, the street is existing 60 feet wide. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the property line in front of the house next door to Mr. Martinez and to the edge of Mr. Martinez' property is the one we have a question about. He asked if, from that point around the curve, there is a dedication in place. The City Engineer stated that, according to the county map, it is dedicated to before the curve. Commissioner Buchanan stated that this is not something we are in a position to resolve here tonight, and that if it is not dedicated, then the developer would have to provide for the additional 10 feet across that area as well. Commissioner Buchanan stated there is nothing they are going to do here 10 tonight that would take the resident's property away if it's not already dedicated. The City Engineer stated that he would be concerned that, if that is not dedicated, then there is no public access to that parcel. He stated that the records would need to be checked, but based upon what they know, that area is dedicated to Mr. Martinez' easterly property line. Mr. Chinnock had a question regarding the 30 feet on the south and the 10 feet on the north. He requested the City Engineer to show him the 10 feet on the north of which line. The City Engineer defined the parcel while referencing the site plan. He stated that the dark line is now the property that is being proposed for development and that, from this property, they are asking them to dedicate 30 feet for public roadway purposes, and that would be the continuation of the south half of Arliss as it comes to the post and pipes. He stated that this would all be within the dark line. He stated that, in addition, their requirement says that within that same area, they shall obtain the necessary right of way plus improve 10 additional feet on the north side of this line, which means that the total right of way from this line to the 10 feet north would be 40 feet and within that right of way, there would be 28 feet of traveled way, in other words, paved area on which the cars could travel. He stated that there would be a narrowing for the traffic traveling north and west between Lots 1 and 2, and then it would actually widen for the traffic traveling west, but going easterly and southerly, there would be a full 18 feet of paved area. Mr. Chinnock asked if the curbline would or would not extend from Arliss Drive on both sides as it is right now. The City Engineer stated that it would not, and that the only thing they can require is 10 feet northerly of center line. Mr. Chinnock asked if they were requiring only a 30 foot rather than a 36 foot right of way. The City Engineer stated that, actually, the traveled way would be 28 feet. Mr Chinnock stated what may be confusing is that the strip in question is paved and when Mr. Westmoreland lived there, he privately paved that area rather than the city, and it may look like a public right of way, but stated it is their understanding it is not. The City Engineer suggested that if the records indicated it is private property, it will be this developer's responsibility to obtain the necessary easements as a condition of approval of this map for any property that he 11 requires to provide for 28 feet from the curbline to the northerly edge of paving. No further comments. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 8:10 P.M. Commissioner Hargrave questioned the 400 foot driveway from Lot 8. The City Engineer stated that we have some in the Griffin subdivision going up at the end of cul-de-sacs. He stated that they have had no complaints or problems with any of those to date, but he feels this would be more of a concern to the Fire Marshall, however, he hasn't seen the Fire Marshall's report of his opinions on that particular driveway. Commissioner Hargrave requested comment on Lot C, Condition 4, as to whether not the cul-de-sac is to be outside of the property line or within. The City Engineer stated that this is strictly up to the developer, but he suggests that it might be in the best interest to construct the cul-de-sac south of the property line of the tract. Commissioner Hargrave expressed concern over Pad #8, stating that from a planning standpoint and from a lot placement standpoint, it seems like probably one of the more difficult pads in this development. He stated that the entry onto Pads #6 and #7 will come off of Grand Terrace Road. He asked if there were any concerns about traffic patterns as relating to entrance and exit to Grand Terrace Road for those two lots. The City Engineer stated that, from the standpoint of sight distance with respect to exitting, he has no problem with it, as they have good sight distance both ways, whether right or left turn movement. He stated that the left turn into the property could cause some problems, especially if to knoll on the northeast corner of Grand Terrace Road and Barton Road. He stated that this sight distance may cause some problem as far as seeing a car by someone that is turning right on Grand Terrace Road, and a car making a left turn into either of those driveways. He stated that if that roadway remains as is, that traffic moment off of Barton Road should be fairly slow and should provide adequate stopping and sight distance for anyone making that right turn. Commissioner Hargrave asked if entry into Pad #7 was the northerly most direction of the pad we could probably do that safely. The City Engineer stated that we would probably have major problems with 12 the comer. Commissioner Hargrave asked, referring to the 10 foot street widening, why they cannot ask for more than 10 feet. The City Engineer stated that our ordinance per the county requires street widening by any developer of one-half street plus 10 feet on the other side, which is the minimum standard. He stated that we can ask for anything, but first, the burden on a developer is more than usual if you request for full improvements in view of the fact we have seven lots that might be coming on to Lot C. He stated that traffic volumes will be less than 40 cars a day approximately, and he feels he would be hard-pressed to justify full improvements other than 28 feet of paving for 40 or 50 vehicle trips per day. Second, he stated there is a vacant parcel to the north and to the east, and if someone were to install improvements along that frontage of the parcel, when that parcel develops, he would feel that the developer could feel someone owes him something. Commissioner Hargrave asked for a recommendation as far as storm drains on this particular development. The City Engineer based on a proposed development as had no major concerns about the drainage, feeling that all that will be generated within the development can be handled within the existing streets. He stated that run-off, all the pads, ultimately will be graded to drain into the street, for example, Lot 9 would be going down to Lot C. He stated he does not know which way Lot 8 is going to drain right now, but they will not allow Lot 8 to drain over the side -slope into Barton Road. He stated that Lot 7 could have problems, but regardless, all the drainage and run-off that will be generated is considerably less than the capacity of the street and he does not foresee a need for any underground conduits for conveying drainage. He stated that 4, 5, 9, 3, 2 and 1 will drain to Arliss. Commissioner Hargrave inquired as to the closest storm drain entry on Arliss. The City Engineer stated that actually, all we have are cross -gutters, and the closest storm drain facility that would accommodate this particular development is on Mt. Vernon and Minona, and that everything else is carried in the streets. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Condition 15, the grading condition, all are conformed to the requirements of Chapter 7 of the Uniform Building Code, if this is doing what they wanted to do when talking about grading plans being submitted to engineering for approval. The City Engineer agreed that this is a standard that would meet that 13 requirement. Commissioner Hargrave inquired as to Item #18, street lighting. The City Engineer stated that Condition 18, which he was referring to in his recommendations to the Planning Department was that developments shall be required to conform to 1970 landscaping and lighting requirements. He stated that his intent was that this particular development will be responsible for the cost of the street lighting, and the installation of the street lighting is a separate item, which is Condition #7. He stated that it wasn't his intent to provide for the landscaping and lighting district along the slope that was discussed earlier. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he has a problem with Pad #8, and because of the location, he is not in favor of the long driveway, that it is a planning disaster, and that sometime downstream when the property itself is developed, he thinks it makes the planning for the southerly property that much more difficult for them when they are looking at that. He felt the landscape requirements for this driveway would be very difficult for the property owner. He stated he has a problem with the drainage and would probably like to see 7 and 8 consolidated and have more greenbelt in that area and have one pad consolidated between 7 and 8 so that there is just one pad in some configuration and end up with more greenbelt and maybe a much larger sized lot, or extend Pad 9 and give that property owner more of what is now Pad 8 on the map. He also had a problem from the aesthetic standpoint, that when you look at the property from Barton Road, which is now Pad 8, he feels the aesthetics on the property are severly hampered, whereas the rest of the development can be done very nicely within the confines of aesthetics, at least from the viewpoint of Barton Road. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the 10 feet north of the property line were a paved strip, no curb, no gutter. The City Engineer stated that normally a berm is placed at the edge of the pavement, which protects the end of the pavement. Commissioner Hilkey inquired if they asked them to put that up to where it shows on the macros where it shows the property at the top of the round curve, if they would just pave an extra 10 or 15 feet of asphalt in. The City Engineer stated that they would actually only be putting in 6 or 6 1/2 feet of additional asphalt, which would get you to the future lip of the gutter. Commissioner Hilkey asked if they would be asking for that much more if they asked them to extend the width of the road to the future edge of the 14 gutter, which would be about 6 more feet. He asked what the size of the pad is on 8. He stated that if you take away the arm, the lot without the long driveway is about 13,000 square feet, which is slightly over the minimum, but he still can't figure out the size of the pad. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there was some rule of thumb as to what size house would go on that size pad. Mr. Addington stated that the size of the house would be a minimum of 2500. Commissioner Hilkey asked if 1/2 to 1/3 of the pad would be house. Mr. Addington stated that his intent would be to bring the driveway down, put the house prominently on the south of the lot, and then provide the garage and driveway at the north end, so that you would have the driveway and the garage and a large building area. He stated that he would lay out a custom house on the lot. Commissioner Hilkey asked if you could have a 10 foot setback for the garage where the 20 foot shows on the plan. The Community Development Director stated that it would depend on what was determined as the front and rear yard. He stated that the rear yard requirement, that would be considered the rear yard if they do it as has been proposed, and this would have to reflect the 20 foot setback. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the 25 foot front yard setback is property line to house or property line to pad. The Community Development Director stated that the normal 25 foot front yard setback is a measurement from the property line to any portion of the structure: garage or house. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the 22 feet shown is the property line to the edge of the pad along Barton Road and Grand Terrace Road. The Community Development Director stated that the code is written now to where it is 25 feet, but when you have a subdivision you can average those setbacks, so anywhere between 20 and 30 feet, they try to work some flexibility. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that Lot 8 is strangely shaped, but concerning the distance from Barton Road and how it would look, the height of this slope will be about 13 feet, and when you are driving past there, you don't really see a lot. She is more concerned about what will be done with the slope than about the pad itself. 15 Commissioner Buchanan had a concern about Lot 8 and the long driveway, and that it will create difficulties for good planning with respect to the southern vacant parcel. The Community Development Director stated that he has been against this type of lot, and also a lot where a shared easement is necessary. He stated that he doesn't like the lot, but it meets the code requirements. He stated that it would create a very nice, secluded lot, but the building pad is very squeezed back there, and as long as the fire requirements are met it is an acceptable lot. Commissioner Buchanan stated he hasn't really made a thorough evaluation, but just looking at the fire department requirements, then looking at this, he doesn't see how they would be met. PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED AT 8:30 P.M. PER CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Addington stated that the pad areas are roughly 10,000 square feet, and that is referring to only the pad, not the leg or the slope. He stated that there is a 40 foot width on the driveway, and that in Honey Hills, there are driveways that go 300 feet, 20 or 30 foot of right of way, 12 foot of paving. He stated that they plant the slopes from 18 feet high right down to the roadway with zincas and iceplant. He feels that Lot 8 is typical of Honey Hills. The Community Development Director stated that driveway has been indicated as being 40 feet, the street frontage is 40 feet, and going back and looking at the slope narrows it down. He asked if the width is wide enough to meet the fire department's requirements, and if not, how critically are the slopes and can it be widened if necessary. Mr. Addington stated that even though the slopes are indicated on the map, narrowing at that point, retaining walls or other things could be used on order to meet the fire code requirements for access. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED Commissioner Buchanan stated that one of the fire department's standard conditions, F9, was not circled. He questioned whether or not a 300 foot driveway qualifies as the same thing as a private road, but referring to the condition, he questioned if this would be considered a private fire -access road, but he feels there are some spots where it looks like it would be difficult to get 20 feet of paving. 16 The Community Development Director stated that the lot is acceptable and meets the code requirements. He stated that they are looking at Site and Architectural Review as a later review, that they will be looking at whether or not the turnaround space is there, they would look at the setbacks, and then they have space to custom design a home for that lot. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the distinction between front and back was made now or during Site and Architectural. He stated that he has a problem with the front yard facing Barton, especially in light of the fact that they are looking at putting a fence on the top of that slope facing west towards Lot C. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he sees that this particular alignment is going to potentially lend itself to more difficult planning requirements and more difficult grading and, depending upon how much dirt needs to be moved around, he stated he would see this driveway having to start high towards the house and move down in order to get the correct drainage, that the drainage factor is potentially a problem on Lot 8. He is still concerned with the aesthetics, that with the fences there will be some aesthetic impairment. He stated he would at least ask the commissioners to ask for a secondary drawing seeing Lots 7 and 8 somewhat consolidated and allowing the developer and the engineer to come up with something a little bit different. Commissioner Munson also had a problem with Lot 8. He stated that not much is being said about the 35 foot setback, which causes him concern, and that down the road, he feels the 20 foot will come to haunt us. He stated that he approves of Commissioner Hargrave's suggestion for an alternate plan for Lots 7 and 8, and he would also like to see a motion that the full 36 foot of road be built. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he agrees with the problems on 7 and 8. He stated that clarification is needed on the right of ways and easements. He stated that across the street, a couple of new homes had gone in, and the new owners had to put new, nice looking walls up, and maybe they could come back with some recommended cosmetic walls that would match the ones on the other side of Barton. He also stated that maybe these pads are bigger than they appear. He stated looking at that house, these pads aren't big enough to support a house, but this is a 3,500 square foot house. He stated that if there were a suggestion as to how a house would fit on there, maybe they'd be more receptive, but that its got to come back anyway because of the question on the easement. The Community Development Director stated that he doesn't believe it does have to come back, that the map can be conditioned. The City Engineer stated that, with respect to the requirements for public 17 MOTION PCM-89-112 works, that is, widening and obtaining dedication, there is no problem with that condition - it is a condition of approval. The Community Development Director asked if when stated that the map would be approved, is this referring to the final map. The City Engineer stated that the final map would be approved subject to the conditions that were set up. The Community Development Director stated that they would place the conditions as they are written, and if the point needed to be modified or clarified that whatever dedications and easements are necessary in order to provide required access to this lot be obtained prior to recordation of the map, then they would approve the tentative map conditioned as such; they then have to work something out to get the property easements that they need to get. Commissioner Hilkey stated that the same conditions could be applied to Lot 8 as far as the drainage and the fire approval and turn around. He stated that he hates to approve the tentative knowing that there is no drainage at the moment, and knowing that there is no turn around for a fire truck. Commissioner Hargrave stated that they are in the tentative tract map approval process, and basically what they are approving are the lot lines. He stated that if the lot lines are approved tonight, you can't change them. He stated he would like the developer to come back and show alternative prior to approval of the tentative tract map. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to approve Z-89-03. Commissioner Munson second for discussion. Commissioner Munson asked if there was any way the 20 foot condition could be put just to this tract, or do they have to open up to the whole city. The Community Development Director stated that they have to open it up to all the R1-10 district. Commissioner Munson asked if there was any merit to discussion about 35 foot including slope. The Community Development Director stated staff would support this, and the developer would have to redesign this project. 18 Commissioner Munson stated that he would be hard-pressed to vote for the 20 foot setback at this time. Commissioner Hargrave stated that what would probably be most desirable at this point would be for Mr. Addington and the developer to present a map showing the configuration based upon the present setback requirements. He stated that the crucial issue is Arliss, and if this development cannot be constructed so that there is adequate ingress and egress on Arliss Drive, this would be one of the concerns. Commissioner Van Gelder stated the existing house is not going to change, and therefore, she doesn't see how Lot 8 could be changed. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the lot on Pad 9 is not set, and that this is a single property currently, so Lot 9 is the whole property right now. He stated that there is some flexibility, but depending upon the setback requirements, certained types of things would be lost or gained, but there would be some flexibility with the outer perimeters of Pad 9. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that there has been a motion to approve Z-89-03, which reduces the rear -yard setback requirements in the R1-10 district from 35 feet to 20 feet and the motioned has been seconded. MOTION WITHDRAWN PCM-89-112 MOTION PCM-89-113 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-113 Commissioner Hargrave withdrew his motion in concurrence with the second. Commissioner Munson second. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to disapprove Z-89-03. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carried. 5-0-1-1. Chairman Hawkinson absent and Commissioner Sims abstaining. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if there was any other motion someone wished to make with respect to the zone change. 19 MOTION PCM-89-114 Commissioner Hargrave stated he was willing to continue so that they don't have to go back for filing fees on the zoning change based upon the developer coming in and presenting what the configuration would be based upon the 35 foot setback requirements from the lot configurations. The Community Development Director stated that he would refer this to the City Manager for something to be worked out. Commissioner Hilkey asked, if there is some merit to Mr. Addington's comment that, when the lot size was change the setback should have been changed, if could staff look into that. The Community Development stated that this was included in the presentation that was made to the council. He stated that for the overall zone, the 35 foot setback was recommended, and regarding the current situation with the rear -yard setback, he recommended that they go ahead with this change because of the topography on this property. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if this meeting had been sufficiently noticed for a motion to be made at this time to amend the zoning ordinance to provide for a 20 foot rear -yard setback measured in the traditional manner with the additional requirement of an overall, 35 foot setback, or since they denied Z-89-03, is that a substantial enough change. The Community Development Director stated that he would not see this as a substantial change and suggested that if he wished to do that, they go ahead and take those actions and confirm them with the City Attorney. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made the motion to amend zoning ordinance 18.12.020 requiring rear -yard setback in the R1-10 district as 20 feet measured from the top or bottom of the slope with an overall setback requirement of 35 feet to the property line. Commissioner Hargrave asked if an amendment could just be made to Z- 89-03. The Community Development Director stated that they would probably just interpret the original motion for denial as proposed, and if he'd like to make a second motion, they would just do it as Z-89-03 amended. MOTION Vice -Chairman Buchana stated that PCM-89-114 would be his motion. 20 Commissioner Hargrave second. Commissioner Hilkey stated that he would rather have staff take a look at it and come back with a recommendation at the next meeting. The Community Development Director suggested they continue the item so that everyone can gather forces and figure out what has been done and needs to be done, continuant in that at the point where the proposal as proposed, the amendment to the zoning amendment has been denied as proposed and be continued pending further amendment to the approval. MOTION WITHDRAWN PCM-89-114 MOTION PCM-89-115 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-115 MOTION PCM-89-116 Vice -Chairman Buchanan withdrew his motion. Commissioner Hargrave second. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to close the public hearing and continue consideration by the Planning Commission of Z-89-03 and moved that it be continued to January 16, 1990. Commissioner Hargrave second. Motion approved. 5-0-1-1. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Commissioner Sims abstaining. Commissioner Munson referred to Condition 3, regarding dedication vs. easement and if staff would contact the City Attorney for advisement. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made the motion to continue Planning Commission consideration of TTM-89-04 until Tuesday, January 16, 1990. Commissioner Hargrave second. The Community Development Director pointed out that state law requires that some type of report is made to the City Council within 50 days of the application, and this would be cutting it very close. He stated that he would like get the applicant's concurrence to waive the 50 day time limit. The applicant indicated concurrence. 21 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-116 Vice -Chairman Buchanan indicated that since the applicant had not reflected his indication on tape it was noted as concurrence. Motion carried. 5-0-1-1. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Commissioner Sims abstaining. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:05 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW MEETING CONVENED AT 9:10 P.M. ITEM #1 SA-89-10 GINA'S RESTAURANT 22400 Barton Road, Suite 23 G.T. The Assistant Planner presented this application for Site and Architectural Review approval of a 135 square foot addition to an existing 2,276 square foot restaurant. Applicant is Gina's Restaurant, owner is Woody Dunham, and property owner is Project Research Corporation, International, Incorporated. She stated that the subject property is general commercial C2 professional center, surrounded by the same zoning; to the east is a general commercial C2 travel agency and to the south is medium density residential R3 apartments. She stated on November 22, 1989, the Planning Department accepted the application for Site and Architectural Review of a 135 square foot addition to an existing 2,276 square foot restaurant, and present tenant of Town and County Professional Center. She stated that the proposed addition is to be an expansion of exterior walls which consist of windows and framing; the proposed extension will match the present physical exterior, which consists of brown, wood framing around the windows, walls surrounding the windows are tan -colored, wooden panels and brown, shake roofing materials. Color photographs of the existing restaurant were available. She stated that the proposed project to meet the conditions approved in the original Conditional Use Permit of CUP-83-1, which at that time was John Merriman, Chez Ole'. She stated that, in regard to parking, on April 4, 1983, the Planning Commission approved SA-83-3, applicant John Merriman, a dining area, patio attachment to the restaurant (Attachment B). She stated that the current proposal to enclose a portion of the outdoor dining area/patio to indoor seating, will not require additional parking. The following responses have been received from the City's reviewing agencies: The Engineering, Building and Safety Department's comments are included in their memorandum dated 12-4-89 (Attachment C); Riverside Highland's Water Company's comments are 22 included in their memorandum dated 12-1-89 (Attachment D); the Forestry and Fire Warden Department's comments are dated 12-4-89 (Attachment E); no comments were received from Environmental Health Services. She stated that the Planning Department recommendations are as follows: Recommends approval of SA-89-10 subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed project shall be constructed in accordance with the site and architectural design as approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board on April 4, 1983, SA-83-3, and on December 11, 1989, (Attachments A and B). Minor changes and/or clarification may be made by the Planning Department. 2. The patio area shall be improved as necessary and maintained in accordance with CUP-83-1. 3. All recommendations listed in the City Engineer's memorandum dated 12-4-89 (Attachment Q. 4. All recommendations as required by the Fire and Forestry Warden's office. S. All recommendations listed in the Riverside Highland Water Company's memorandum to the City dated 12-1-89 (Attachment D). 6. All standard school impaction fees as required by the Colton Unified School District. 7. All aspects of the proposed project, including landscaping, irrigation systems, and building maintenance shall be maintained in a clean and functional manner in accordance with this approval and the overall goals and objectives of the City of Grand Terrace. Commissioner Sims asked if the additional space is for the specific purpose of increasing the seating capacity, if it has any effect on the maximum allowable level in the dining room and how would this be handled. The Community Development Director stated that this is for increase of seating capacity, but this would be something the fire department would recertify once the plans were approved. He stated that the fire department did not respond with any comments, so when it comes to building department inspections, they would have just their normal inspections at that point. Commissioner Sims questioned the additional number of people the area would serve. OW The Community Development Director stated that this is a 135 square foot room and would anticipate maybe 2 or 3 tables. Commissioner Munson had a question regarding landscaping, and what was meant by site being cleared of miscellaneous materials. The Community Development Director stated that a portion of the patio area is being used for storage and collection of different equipment, and that area needs to be brought back to the standards that were approved in 1983 for the use of a patio as a dining area. He stated that occupancy would be according to the condition, and if it ever became a problem, the code enforcement officer would deal with it. Discussion on the guarantee that this project would be built according to conditions approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that condition #7 needs to include the clearing of miscellaneous materials and building maintenance needs to be maintained in a clear and functional manner. The Community Development Director indicated that was correct and it was so noted for the record. Discussion on whether or not to hold up this project until the Barton Road Specific Plan is approved regarding the parking. The Community Development Director recommended that not be done since he is working with the property owner on completing the parking revision in a phased manner. Discussion on whether or not to include a condition for additional landscaping in the patio area. The Community Development Director pointed out that this has already been approved prior as seating area. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked if anyone in the audience wished to addressed the Site and Architectural Review Board on this item. Woody Dunham and Jim Bais 121 N. Main Riverside, CA Co -Owner of Gina's Restaurant Mr. Dunham presented his proposed expansion of the patio area and its intent. 24 MOTION PCM-89-117 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-117 Discussion on the maximum seating quantity allowed in Gina's Restaurant. The expansion would not exceed the 120 count. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion to approve SA-89-10 with recommendations by the Planning Department and noted change to condition #7. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Chairman Hawkinson absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting to the next scheduled for January 16, 1990, Tuesday. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL BOARD REVIEW ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David . Sawyer, Community Development Director 12/11/89 Wi Approved by, .Oeelt� �� Dan Buchanan, Vice Chairman Planning Commission