Loading...
11/17/198612-8.106(/-) GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1986 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324 on November 17, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman T. Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Daniel McHugh, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Randy Anstine, Community Services Director Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Hargrave I. MINUTES A. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 20, 1986. PCM 86-113 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Commissioner Hargrave and passed by a 7-0 vote, to approve the minutes of the October 20, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting, as submitted. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance request to allow Horses (Large animals) in an R-3 Zone. Chairman Caouette asked for staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Stated that prior to the owner's purchase of the property in July, 1983, animals were on that parcel. And, that the purchase was made with the understanding that the animals could be kept on that parcel. An Order to Comply was issued by the Community Services Director/Code Enforcement Officer, Randy Anstine, on September 17, c 1986, pursuant to Section 18.21.020. Mr. Kicak stated that a copy of this was attached in the Staff Report. Pointed out that prior to the Zone Change, several parcels in that area did maintain animals. And, as of this date, the parcel adjacent to the west does have animals which were grandfathered in after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1982. It was Mr. Kicak's understanding that the majority of the neighbors did not object to the keeping of the animals on the subject site. However, as of the date of this meeting, the Planning Department had received a written protest from a property owner immediately to the south of this parcel, on the northerly side of Van Buren, who does oppose the keeping of the animals on that parcel. This letter was given to the Planning Commission prior to the start of this meeting. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the variance as requested, subject to review prior to two (2) years from this date. Commissioner Cole asked if the City had granted some kind of variance, since the new owner had purchased the property in July, 1983, with the understanding that the animals could be kept on that parcel. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that there was no record of any variances issued by the City. It was his understanding that it was the understanding between the buyer and the seller. Commissioner Hargrave asked Mr. Anstine, Community Services Director/Code Enforcement Officer, if the Order to Comply issued on September 17, 1986, was because of a complaint made by somebody. Randy Anstine responded that he was asked to investigate this residence at the request of a City Council person. Chairman Caouette stated that as he mentioned in the Public Workshop Session, he did not think that Mr. McKinley's statement necessarily opposed the keeping of animals. Stated that the way it read, he suspected that possibly Mr. McKinley thought there was some sort of zone change activity on the property. Mr. Kicak, Planning Director, concurred with what Mr. Caouette had stated. Randy Anstine, Community Services Director, responded to Chairman Caouette's statement. Stated that Mr. McKinley's written statement confirms that which was given to him by a Council person when asked to look into this matter. Mr. McKinley was in opposition to the animals being kept there. Chairman Caouette thanked Mr. Anstine. Asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Being none, opened the public hearing for the proposed variance request. Asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor. P.C. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 2 Richard Douglas, 22443 Van Buren, Grand Terrace. Spoke in favor �{ of these people having animals on their property and that they J caused no problem in the neighborhood. Marlan Cotton, 22420 Van Buren, lived next door to applicant. Spoke in favor of approving the variance. Dennis Hadaway, applicant, 22432 Van Buren, Grand Terrace. Stated that he did not know that Mr. McKinley was opposed to the variance. Stated that Mr. McKinley's son, Rusty, lives at that residence and is not opposed to the animals. Stated that he had talked to all the neighbors that he could and that they had no problem with keeping the animals. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner Munson asked the applicant about the change in the location of the stable. Mr. Hadaway, applicant, stated that he had received a letter that said the stable had to be 75' from any dwelling. Stated that he moved them over to the westerly side of his property line. At present, it is now a minimum 85' to the closest dwelling. Commissioner Munson asked the applicant if this moving of the stable improved his neighbor's visibility of this property. The applicant stated that it had. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being none, asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this proposed variance. Being no one, closed the public hearing and returned the item back to the Planning Commission for discussion. The following is discussion that took place after a motion was made by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Cole to approve the variance as requested, subject to review prior to two (2) years from this date. Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification on the motion. Specifically, asked if the motion meant that any time from this evening forward to the two year period, that this varinace could be pulled back from approval, reviewed and if approval of the variance is changed, give the applicant enough time to change the situation. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson concurred that it could be reviewed and would be in enough time for the applicant to come in and state his case again. P.G. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 3 Commissioner Van Gelder felt that should be stated in the motion. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that if the motion maker and seconder agree to the amendment of the motion, the motion could be stated: With review at any time with a reasonable time to eliminate the large animals after such review, if so desired by the Planning Commission. Commissioner McHugh expressed his hesitancy with the variance as not being the proper mechanism for the applicant. Stated his concerns. One concern was that based on the findings that the Planning Commission is required to make, had trouble finding with regard to topography and land use for the variance. And second, if this item should come up again, in an R-3 or R-1 zone, that the Planning Commission may have a problem distinguishing just based on the fact that nobody objects to the use. Asked how the Planning Commission would say that a variance was good in one place for keeping animals and a variance not good in another place. Felt that the Planning Commission was running against the Title 18 and the findings that they need to make on the variance. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Planning Commission approved the variance now and can bring it up at any time to reconsider, what would be the given reasons for reconsidering it and how would the Planning Commission say no 6 months down the road when they are saying yes now. Commissioner Cole responded to Commissioner Van Gelder's question. Stated that if there was development that occurred in that area that made the keeping of animals a nuisance factor, then the Planning Commission should keep the option open so that they can review it. At which case, the variance could be denied if it became a problem. Stated that the Planning Commission typically approved variances on a case -by -case basis. Felt that neighbors either objecting or not objecting enters into each case. Chairman Caouette added that another aspect that makes this unusual and worthy of consideration is that immediately adjacent to the property, is property that has the keeping of animals grandfathered. Asked Mr. Anstine if there were any other situations in the City that were similar to this item, and if they had been cited as well. Randy Anstine, Community Services Director/Code Enforcement Officer, responded that there are some parcels west of the I-215 that have large animals within the R-3 Zone. Stated that those parcels had not been cited. And, that those animals were grandfathered. Stated that the only time they y P.G. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 4 go in and investigate is if there is a property change and the animals are removed. Then, they are automatically barred from bringing more animals onto the parcel. Stated that in this case, there was a change of ownership and animals. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he shared Commissioner McHugh's concern. However, was satisfied that Mr. Hadaway bought the property with the proper intentions and the information that was relayed to him by the previous owner. Stated that another item that is particular to this property is that the parcel is over one (1) acre. Stated that if the parcel had been smaller, he would have had a harder time with the variance. Commissioner Munson stated that there should be more clarification on the motion for this variance. Commissioner Munson did not think that if it is just a nuisance, that it qualifies as something to disturb the variance. Felt that it should be more than one person objecting to the use. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, clarified that the motion would read: That, at any time, and if there was a large number of complaints, two or more, that this matter is subject to review. PCM 86-114 Motion by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Cole and 0 passed by a 6-1 vote to approve the variance as requested, subject to review, at any time during a two year period. Review during the two year period will occur subject to two or more complaints from surrounding property owners that find this use a nuisance. And that there will be a reasonable time to eliminate the horses after such review, if so desired by the Planning Commission. Commissioner McHugh voted against the motion. II.B Variance to allow Minimum Lot Depth for Lot 4 in Tract 12966 and Less than Minimum Lot Width at Building Setback Line for Lots 6-11 within Tract 12966. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff Presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report. Stated that there have been some changes with respect to the type of footprints (the type of homes) that were proposed in P.C. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 5 the initial layout approved by the Planning Commission in March of last year; and subsequently, the City Council in May of last year. Stated that as per code, a variance expires within one year. Stated that enclosed for the Planning Commissioners' information was the following: The staff report which was submitted to the Planning Commission last year; The minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting; The report that went to the City Council, as well as the minutes of the City Council Meeting. Also, enclosed was a copy of the map which indicated the type of home, which was to be built, labelled Exhibit "A". Stated that Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this variance to the City Council. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Hargrave asked Staff if there was some problem meeting the minimum width on Lots 6 and 8 through 15, rather than just Lot 10, as per discussion during the Public Workshop Session. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that parcels 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 are the subject parcels. Pointed out that the original proposal had Lot 4 oriented towards Pascal and would not meet the minimum required for lot depth. However, if Lot 4 is oriented on Cardinal, per the recent submittal, then the minimum requirements are met by the 104.29 lot depth. Provided that the house is oriented towards Cardinal, then it would not need to be considered for a variance. Commissioner Hargrave confirmed with Staff that originally, the tract, as approved, included a variance for the minimum lot width at building setback as less than 60 ft. which has expired; and the Planning Commission must decide whether to review the variance or not. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director concurred with Commissioner Hargrave's statement. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further questions of staff. Being none, opened the public hearing. Asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this variance. Joe Palazzolo, 3101 Steeplechase, Diamond Bar, CA. Stated that he was the new owner of the property. Also, stated that he was not aware of this variance on this phase; otherwise, he would have taken care of it. Stated that Mr. Kicak had pretty much covered everything. Commissioner Hargrave asked the applicant if he knew that he had a one year time period on the variance. P.C. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 6 Mr. Palazzolo stated that he did not. Chairman Caouette asked if the was anyone who wished to speak in opposition to the variance. Mrs. Dryer, 12384 Pascal Avenue, Grand Terrace, CA. Spoke against the variance because of increased traffic and more houses being built. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed variance. Being no one else, closed the public hearing and returned the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he was not on the Planning Commission when this property was originally approved. Stated that he had several problems. Did not feel that the variance would be in the best interest of the Tract or property in outlying areas. Stated that he would vote against the motion. Commissioner McHugh concurred with Commissioner Hargrave's concerns. Stated that because of lack of testimony or evidence on the part of the applicant on why this property would merit a variance; did not see anything different to extend the variance. Felt that the result is to allow more houses. Stated that he would vote against the variance. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions or comments. Asked Staff what the sequence of events would be if the variance were not to be approved, considering that there is an approved Tentative Map. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the actions that were open to the applicant, should the Planning Commission deny the variance, is an appeal to the City Council. If the City Council denies the appeal, then the alternative that the applicant would have, would be to redesign the tract with the same general street pattern and doing whatever he can to meet the requirements of the zoning code. Stated that it would be his opinion that any redesign within the street pattern that has been proposed that the tentative tract may very well be in substantial conformance with what was originally approved. Also, as a matter of courtesy, staff would bring it back to the Planning Commission with such revised tentative map for their review and recommendations. Chairman Caouette asked Staff, if Phase I of this project had been recorded. Mr. Kicak, Planning Director, confirmed that it had been recorded. Chairman Caouette stated that the first time the Planning Commission went through the variance was because of the P.G. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 7 shape of the property. it required a variance none of the parcels were width and setback. In order for the Lots to be 7200 sq. ft. for odd shaped parcels. Stated that substandard in size, it was just the Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, concurred with Chairman Caouette. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson concurred with Commissioners Hargrave and McHugh that it would not be wise to grant the requested variance. Commissioner Munson asked Staff if the houses were going to be the same size as originally approved. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, referenced the original footprints, labeled Exhibit "A", which had been included with the original Staff Report. Stated that there had been some modifications on each lot that had a footprint on the original submittals. Stated that this would not have a great deal of bearing on the variance. Pointed out that Lot 14, shown on Exhibit "A", initially did not encroach into the proposed sewer easement. However, with the new modifications, it does propose encroachment into the sewer easement. Stated that Staff was pointing this out for the Planning Commission's information; and that it would not under any circumstances be granted a permit for any footprints that encroach into the sewer easement. PCM 86-115 Motion by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Hargrave and passed by a 6-1 vote to deny the variance as requested. Commissioner Munson voted against the motion. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposal for Installation of Bus Shelters as presented by Pedestal Post. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff Presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report. Stated that this proposal was before the City Council to consider an approval of Pedestal Post Bus Shelters. Stated that one of the questions staff had, was whether or not such a permit to install the bus shelters should be granted, subject to Planning P.C. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 8 Commission review. The City Council, at that time, decided to postpone the action. Mr. Kicak stated that Staff has reviewed the plans from a structural standpoint and felt ej comfortable with those plans. Stated that there was a map enclosed in the Staff Report which indicated the proposed locations of the bus shelters. Advised the Planning Commission that Mr. Randy Anstine, Community Services Director, was more closely associated with the proposal. Mr. Kicak turned this item over to Mr. Anstine for further discussion. Randy Anstine, Community Services Director, stated that he would be happy to answer any questions that the Planning Commission might have regarding the bus shelters. Pointed out that the City Council of the City of Colton recently adopted these bus shelters as the bus stops to be utilized in that City. Discussion took place between Chairman Caouette and Mr. Anstine regarding the proposed bus shelters. Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Anstine if he had any idea how much of the referenced 15% of revenue would go to the City. Mr. Anstine responded that, at this time, they did not have any idea what that would or could be. Chairman Caouette asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the proposed agreement. Mr. Anstine stated that the City Attorney had reviewed the agreement and had no problems with it. Further discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners and Randy Anstine regarding the proposed bus shelters. Commissioner McHugh asked if all of the proposed six stops were going to be constructed at the same time. Mr. Anstine responded that they will be erected as the Riverside Transit Agency authorized them to go up. Stated that, at this time, three (3) would be installed along Barton Road. Commissioner McHugh asked if these would be lighted 24 hours. Mr. Anstine stated that they would. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her concern with the adver- tising and how it would be handled. Asked if the Council approved these advertisements before the fact or how a decision was arrived at. Mr. Anstine, Community Services Director, stated that it was his understanding that Pedestal Post would sell the advertising spaces, erect the advertisement and if the City Council, Planning Commission, Staff and/or the general public found anything offensive, then the City would notify Pedestal Post and they in turn would appear before the City Council. If it was determined by the City Council to be offensive, they, Pedestal Post, would remove the advertisement within 24 hours. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anything that would not be in conformity with the current Sign Ordinance. Mr. P.G. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 9 Anstine responded that he had not discussed it with the City Attorney, but that there may have to be a modification made with regard to off -site advertising. In response to Commissioner McHugh's question, Mr. Anstine stated that they could provide telephones in a majority of the shelters. Further discussion took place between the Commission and Mr. Anstine regarding the proposed bus shelters. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned the size of the display windows and how many there were per shelter. Mr. Anstine responded that there are 4 panels. Chairman Caouette, with Mr. Anstine concurring, stated that that means that each shelter would have 4 advertisements, one on each side. Mr. Anstine stated that Pedestal Post would assume all responsibility for maintenance, as well as, all utility charges. Commissioner Hargrave pointed out, for Mr. Anstine to pass on to the City Attorney, to make sure, in the agreement where it references 15% of the advertisement revenue generated back to the City, to have the City Attorney insert or correct the agreement so that that revenue is based on a gross or net factor. Commissioner Van Gelder asked Mr. Anstine if Pedesal Post would consider smaller display windows. In response, Mr. Anstine stated that he felt they would be willing to consider making such a modification. Stated that Pedestal Post had made it clear that if the City had a problem with their design or plan, that they would be willing to make changes. PCM 86-116 Motion by Commissioner Hargrave and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 6-0 vote to recommend approval to the City Council, of the Bus Shelter proposal, with the amended suggestions, for consideration of smaller size display windows. Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: , Planning Director Approved By: CHAIRMAN, Planning Commission P.C. Minutes 11-17-86 Page 10