Loading...
07/18/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 1988 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 JULY 18, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David Sawyer, Community Development Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. -Comments from Staff -Comments from Planning Commissioners -Introduction of new Planning Commissioners (Dan Buchanan and Herman Hilkey) and new City Attorney (John Harper). PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. ITEMS: Public Participation No input from the public. 1 1&3. CUP-88-9/SA-88-10 GOLDEN ALUMINUM RECYCLING 21506 MAIN STREET GRAND TERRACE, CA. The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions of approval submitted by staff, the City Engineer and reviewing agencies. Chairman Hargrave opened discussion from the Planning Commission. Discussion on the present condition of the fencing. Alternative type fencing discussed in lieu of blockwall pursuant to code. The Community Development Director explained his condition of a blockwall as entrance treatment to the property. Discussion regarding the easement and private road usage by the applicant. The Community Development Director explained that was not an issue so it was not referred to in the staff report. The Community Development Director explained that normally curb and gutter improvements are required but since it was a private road that was not the case. Discussion on the sales tax revenue from this project to the City. Discussion on the impact of new and different equipment on the noise emission level. The Community Development Director explained that it was state of the art equipment and it was designed to reduce the current noise level. Chairman Hargrave asked if the landscaping requirement in the Site and Architectural Review was also part of the Conditional Use Permit. The Community Development Director explained that it was a condition that the landscaping be upgraded and perhaps the Planning Commission could require that it be maintained by the applicant. 2 MOTION PCM-88-51 RESCINDED Chairman Hargrave moved that the landscaping be conditioned to include maintenance. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson suggested waiting to hear from the applicant in the public hearing before initiating a motion. Discussion on the pros and cons of the drip irrigation system planned for the project. The Community Development Director explained that the landscaping area needs to be replaced was due to lack of maintenance; both the plants and the irrigation system. The major portion of the landscaping area was in good condition and was being cleaned up. That would be covered under the Conditional Use Permit. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 7:17 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:17 P.M. Chairman Hargrave opened public discussion. TERRY RIFFLE GOLDEN ALUMINUM RECYCLING 2600 S. SANTA DUNE AURORA# COLORADO Mr. Riffle discussed the wall on the westside of the property. It was not visible to any residential properties and not abutted by a public street. There is a 7' chain link fence presently. There are trailers measuring 13 1/2' in height, and proposed renovation would be 161in height. Therefore, a 6' high wall on the western site would not be beneficial. It would be a needless expense. They would be more than willing to upgrade the landscaping to obscure the view. They would maintain the landscaping by a drip irrigation system. They would upgrade the shubbery and irrigation on the northwest side. He asked the Planning Commission to waive the block wall condition. He expressed his concern with the condition from the Fire Warden's office to install a fire hydrant. In response to Commissioner Hawkinson's question on sales tax, they do not pay sales tax. Their hours of operation would be 3 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and possibly during the summer months til 9:00 p.m. Discussion on the lighting requirement for the industrial zone according to Code. If the project is next to residential property it is stipulated that it be directed away from the residences; there are no residential properties around this site. Discussion on Commissioner Buchanan's suggestion adding additional landscaping behind the proposed new processing area, between the property line and the back of the proposed facility. Mr. Riffle explained that he did not feel it would serve any purpose because it was so close to the railroad tracks. Discussion on the reduction in the noise level with the new upgraded recycling system. Discussion on dismanteling of old facility and removal of non-reuseable equipment by the applicant. Discussion on location of closest residence to Golden Aluminum which is approximately 1 1/2 miles and located in Riverside County. Commissioner Buchanan expressed concern over the maintenance of the irrigation system. The Community Development Director explained to the Planning Commission the procedures taken by the City Engineer and the Planning Department in reviewing and finalizing the irrigation system. Discussion on present and future usage of the private road by Golden Aluminum and by the owner of the lot further north. The City Attorney stated that he understood the easement rights were prescriptive and there would be difficulty in improving the road. Commissioner Sims clarified that his concern was whether or not there would be more usage of the private road to force looking at the improvements along the frontage now. Commissioner Sims asked the Community Development Director why he conditioned a block wall concept. The Community Development Director explained that he was concerned with the entrance element on the project. The rest of the perimeter of the property would be an issue 4 between the developments that develop on each side of them. He explained that the block wall would be a visual improvement to the frontage. He suggested other alternatives such as 3' high block wall with rod iron, intermittent block wall with front entry way having 10' of block wall and then goes to rod iron treatment. Also, rod iron with chain link fence which could be color coordinated. He stated that part of the issue that the applicant was concerned with was security. Discussion on costs of the solid block wall compared to the costs of the alternative walls. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:42 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 7:42 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-51 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-51 Discussion of feasibility in conditioning a time frame for demolition and removal of existing facility. The Community Development Director stated that it had to be clarified if the applicant would ever need that portion of the facility in the future. The City Attorney explained that the Conditional Use Permit could be conditioned on the removal within some specified period of time of their equipment or facilities that are no longer in use. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant what would be a reasonable period of time for the removal of old equipment. Mr. Riffle responded that it would take approximately until January 1, 1990. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add a condition to the Conditional Use Permit that the existing processing facility be dismanteled and removed not later than January 1, 1990. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. MOTION PCM-88-52 Discussion on alternative type block walls. Chairman Hargrave discussed the possibility of graffiti problems on the block wall. Commissioner Munson stated that he was satisfied with the upgrading of the landscaping instead of the block wall and that the approval should be handled by the Planning Department. He also suggested that all of the fencing materials should be the same color. Commissioner Buchanan expressed his desire to see additional trees in the area between the road and the existing office. He suggested a chain link type fencing across the front with an entrance treatment; block framing of the entrance with the block wall extending certain footage along each side. Commissioner Sims made the motion to delete condition #3 and condition #4 augmented to include that the existing irrigation system be expanded and the landscaping and irrigation system be maintained by the property owner. Commissioner Munson second. The Community Development Director pointed out that he did not invision a 6' high block wall treatment more like a 3' type block wall and would only go 20' in each direction of the driveway. It would be more of an entrance statement integrated with the landscaping. The replacement of the wall treatment with landscaping is a valid way to handle the issue. Discussion on having a block wall treatment on the driveway only with intermittent landscaping and trees. Commissioner Van Gelder asked Commissioner Sims if he would make two motions instead of 1 regarding conditions #3 and #4. Commissioner Sims stated that he was trying to tie them both together by eliminating condition #3 from having the condition of having to build a blockwall to go into condition #4 to build an entrance type treatment that could include planter type walls. He stated he would agree to making two motions. N. AMEND MOTION PCM-88-52 Commissioner Sims amended the motion to eliminate condition #3 (referring to the block wall) of Conditional Use Permit 88-3. Commissioner Munson second. The Community Development Director explained that condition #3 could be eliminated completely and reword condition #4 to read "...a landscaping plan shall be submitted for the west perimeter of the site which shall provide for screening of the perimeter in lieu of a block wall and shall contain brick planter type treatment entryway. Further the landscaping on the west perimeter of the site shall be enhanced by replacing some of the existing landscaping, expanding the irrigation and covering the unplanted areas with redwood chips. The landscaping plans shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development and shall be accomplished before permits can be finaled for the proposed expansion. Said landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner. Discussion of the feasibility of landscaping instead of redwood chips. Discussion of the elimination of condition #3, and that the chain link fence or fencing requirement should continue to some extent. The City Attorney stated that he modified condition #3 to read that the site shall be closed on all sides by a chain link fence, a decorative plylaster or brick treatment on the north perimeter entrance to the project which will enhance the access to the site. The landscaping plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director before permits can be obtained. The Community Development Director summarized all of the conditions in the motion to read that the immediate area around the driveway shall have a planter type development and at the end of that immediate area that area would continue with the existing fencing and then have landscaping on the street side of that fencing. Discussion on the motion and that it pertained to the westside of the project. 7 MOTION AMENDED PCM-88-52 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-52 MOTION PCM-88-53 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-53 Commissioner Sims amended the motion that condition #3 shall be amended to read that the site shall be closed on all sides by a chain link fence. Also condition #4 be augmented to read that a landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval by the Community Development Director. Said plan shall be for the west perimeter of the site and shall provide for screening of the perimeter in lieu of a solid block wall. In addition, the existing landscaping of the site shall be enhanced by replacing some of the existing landscaping, expanding the irrigation and covering the unplanted areas with redwood chips. Said landscaping shall be maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. Chairman Hargrave entertained a motion on the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hawkinson made the motion to approve CUP- 88-9 as amended. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:10 9 MOTION PCM-88-54 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-54 Commissioner Munson made the motion that the Site and Architectural Review Board approve SA-88-10 subject to the same conditions of approval of CUP-88-9. Vice - Chairman Hawkinson second. Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. RECESS 8:10 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECONVENED AT 8:20 P.M. 4. SA-88-8 HAPPY HOME BUILDERS (Single Family Home) RUBEN AND SUSAN CONTRERAS 11870 BURNS STREET GRAND TERRACE, CA. 92324 The Associate Planner, Jeri Ram, presented the staff report with the conditions of approval and recommendations by the City Engineer, reviewing agencies and staff. Chairman Hargrave opened discussion of the Planning Commission. Discussion on the City Engineer's recommendation to dedicate 30' along frontage of Burns Avenue for public right of way. The City Attorney, John Harper, clarified the intent of the City Engineer was dedication of 30' feet from centerline to the extent that some or all of it may have already been dedicated. The Community Development Director referred to the plans and stated that the centerline for Burns Avenue was 15' feet from the existing curbway therefore it would be another 15' feet from that point. He also mentioned that according to the landscaping plans a 50' setback was indicated. Discussion on current public hearing notice procedures. 0 Discussion on existing setbacks and zoning of surrounding properties. The City Attorney, John Harper, clarified that the Planning Commission does not have the ability to waive ordinance application unless the ordinance itself provides the ability to do so. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:31 P.M. RUBEN CONTRERAS 11870 BURNS AVENUE GRAND TERRACE, CA. 92324 The Community Development Director asked the applicant if he owned the property to the rear with the vacant structures. He asked the applicant if he was in agreement with the requirement of dedicating 30' and measuring 25' setback from that point. Mr. Contreras explained that they owned the lot to the rear. They had plans to remove the vacant structures. Also, he was in full agreement with the dedication and setback requirements. Commissioner Sims asked the applicant if he was aware that he would be giving up 15' of land along the frontage. Mr. Contreras explained that he understood the requirement and was in full agreement. Discussion on location of future curb and sidewalk improvements. Discussion on the City Engineer's memo which indicated some type of agreement between the City and the applicant for the installation of the improvements. The City Attorney, John Harper, stated that he thought it would be at owner's cost. He recollected from previous Council actions that Grand Terrace would enter into some type of lien agreement. Discussion on current regulations dealing with widening the street and placing curb and gutter 18' from centerline. The City Attorney, John Harper, pointed out that the City ultimately would approve design and where they want curb and gutter if they decide to widen the street. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the City Engineer's 10 MOTION PCM-88-55 MOTION REWORDING PCM-88-55 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-55 memo as a recommended requirement that should be considered. He asked if that meant the Planning Commission should consider adding that as a condition. The Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission ould make that a condition but said the body does not have the ability to approve the agreement. Therefore, what needs to be done would be to write an agreement that would reflect the deferrment and then present it to the City Council. Discussion on landscaping and City approved street trees. Discussion on removal of the structures in the rear lot as a condition. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add a condition stating that the existing delapitated structures be removed, before the issuance of building permits. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Chairman Hargrave suggested a change in language from building permit to occupancy permit. Commissioners Buchanan and Van Gelder agreed to the change. Discussion on previous historical actions as they relate to backyards for single family residences when presented for Site and Architectural Review. The Community Development Director explained that there would be a hazard if the vacant structures were left on the property. Motion carried. 6-1-0-0. Chairman Hargrave opened discussion on SA-88-8. 11 MOTION PCM-88-56 The Community Development Director suggested a wrapup motion that would include all three recommendations from the reviewing agencies. Discussion on the side and rear yard 6' high fencing requirements. Mr. Contreras explained that they had not planned to complete the fencing until after the completion of the house. The Community Development Director explained that once the certificate of occupancy is given then enforcement is lost. Discussion on type of bond deposits available to insure that the fencing would be completed within a time frame. Commissioner Munson made the motion to add a condition that the fencing on the project be completed at a later date pursuant to the recommended requirement by the City Engineer. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Discussion on final landscaping procedures followed by the Community Development Director. Discussion on possible waiver of fencing requirement per City Code. The City Attorney interpreted the fencing requirement per Code and explained that completion of fencing was not necessarily required prior to the occcupany of the house. However, as the Community Development Director pointed out once occupancy is given apt a bond it is very difficult to require completion. Discussion on whether or not it would be a hardship for the applicant to complete the fencing in six months. Mr. Contreras explained that at the present time it would prove to be a hardship as far as funds go. Discussion on whether the Planning Commission had the authority to question the fencing code by including a condition. The City Attorney presented two options. First, do not 12 WITHDREW MOTION PCM-88-56 build the fence thus revoking the occupancy permit and secondly, seek judicial relief requiring the building of the fence. However, he did not advise using either option. Chairman Hargrave asked for status of current motion. Commissioners Munson and Van Gelder withdrew their motion. The Community Development Director stated that the applicant may wish to address the conditions. PUBLIC HEARING BILL MITCHELL CONTRACTOR RIVERSIDE, CA. He questioned the City Engineer's requirement, #1, dealing with a Certificate of Survey on the parcel. He explained that was another expense that the property owner would have to deal with. Also he asked for clarification of the requirement #4, submittal of grading plans. His next concern dealt with the street improvement plan for the frontage. The Community Development Director explained that the City Engineer wished to have the Certificate of Survey to establish the lot lines which have been in existence prior to the incorporation of the City. This would also indicate the boundary for the right of way between the street and the property. He explained that the City Engineer required some type of grading plan to indicate that the drainage would be handled correctly. He stated also that the street improvement plans, when improvements are necessary, are standard requirements. Discussion on standard practices by the City Engineer as requirements on all applications. Mr. Mitchell asked if there was any means of waiving the conditions. 13 MOTION PCM-88-56 Discussion stressing that the conditions are normal procedures that are required on similar projects. The Community Development Director clarified for the applicant that the curb and gutter in the street are not into the proposed width. He explained that the City Engineer has indicated that he was recommending the improvements be deferred to a later date. Discussion on the street improvements for the frontage whether they were for present or future uses. The Community Development Director explained that the proposed improvements were for the future. Chairman Hargrave suggested postponing a decision on SA- 88-11 until staff could obtain clarification of the City Engineer's conditions. The Community Development Director suggested expediting matters by requiring conditions for the surveying of the subject's parcel, dedication of the right of way and payment of the fees and amend #4 to read submitting of grading plans for subject parcel and indicate drainage and disposal of said drainage to the approval of the City Engineer. Last, revise condition #5 to include the deferment agreement. Chairman Hargrave asked if the applicant was satisfied with the suggested process. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Contreras responded in the affirmative. Discussion on the fencing requirement as conditioned by the Community Development Director. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve SA-88-11 with condition #3 as amended added to the Planning Department recommendations, and that the City Engineer's item #4 be amended to read submittal of grading plans for 14 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-56 subject parcel and indication of drainage and disposal of said drainage to the approval of the City Engineer and bring item #5 down to recommended changes of future installation. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carried. 6-1-0-0. Chairman Hargrave explained to the applicant the appeal process. 5. SA-88-9 T.J. AUSTYN INC. 17.8 ACRES N.W. OF INTERSECTION MAIN STREET AND ORIOLE AVENUE 71 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions of approval by the City Engineer, reviewing agencies and staff. The Community Development Director pointed out that the Planning Commission should address the site plan this evening. The density issues, the location of the lots, drainage and public improvements have all been handled under the tentative map and the specific plan. The park issue has been handled by the Parks and Recreation Department specifically Randy Anstine. Discussion on the setback requirements for similar projects. It was pointed out by the Planning Commission that lots 31, 22, 19 and lots west of the aqueduct easement did not meet the required setbacks. The Community Development Director explained that there was enough room on the lots to make the adjustment. Discussion on type and color of concrete roof tiles planned for the project. Discussion on any variances from the renderings submitted to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director explained that the 15 only changes would be the location of the individual homes on the individual lots. Discussion on plan 1400 and plan 1600's renderings. The Community Development Director explained that the applicant is presenting floor plans. Basically, the Planning Commission is setting the perameters for the customers to make their choices. Discussion on the project development. It will contain 71 homes, seven of which are 1 story and the remainder are 2 story homes. The Commissioner expressed concern over the large quantity of two story homes. PUBLIC HEARING MARIANNE ELLIOTT T.J. AUSTYN 500 N. EUCLID BLVD., SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92667 Ms. Elliott presented the Planning Commission a detailed presentation on their project. In response to inquiries on the roof tile, she explained that the tile will be a flat red tile. Discussion dealing with the tile rendering boards submitted and the color schemes for all models. Discussion on the availability market for two story homes and price ranges of same. Discussion on the four model types planned in the three phase development. Discussion dealing with slopes and elevation pads on particular lots. The Community Development Director stated the slopes and elevation levels would be indicated on the landscaping plans. The Community Development Director explained that one of the conditions of the tentative map was that it be approved by staff at the time the map went through for final. It met all of the minimum code requirements. T.J. Austyn will be providing the rear and side yard fencing. The material will be wooden lath similar to the Griffin Development. 16 Discussion on the 2000 model and the second story cantilever. DAN HOUK T.J. AUSTYN 500 N. EUCLID AVENUE NEWPORT BEACHr CA. 92667 MOTION PCM-88-57 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-57 MOTION PCM-88-58 Mr. Houk explained that the objective of the cantilever was additional spacing for the master bedroom. Commissioner Sims expressed concern over improper drainage in front of the homes. Discussion on maintaining same elevation designs on the sides as well as the front of the corner lot homes. Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to add condition that any corner lot homes be required to have similar elevation designs on the sides facing the streets as on the front, including window treatment. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. Discussion on the issue of adequate drainage in the front of the homes. The applicant stated that they have adequate overhangs (metal strippings) that come out beyond the entrance to divert the water. Discussion on requiring guttering systems on each home to prevent flooding. Commissioner Sims made the motion that a condition be added requiring a gutter downspout system at the front 17 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-58 MOTION PCM-88-59 entrances of each proposed model, to be tested and approved by the Community Development Director. Commissioner Hilkey second. The applicant stated that they felt the overhangs in front of the entrances were sufficient. Discussion by the Planning Commission expressing their concerns with improper drainage. Motion carries, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there were CC&Rs involved in the project. The City Attorney responded that there were no CC&Rs nor Home Owner's Association involved. The applicant stated that the slopes, trees and plantings are to be maintained by the individual home owners. The Community Development Director explained that the park issue is not restricted to the homeowners in this area. It will be a public park for the City and will be maintained by the City. Discussion on the water rights for the project. The applicant stated they have their will serve letter from Riverside Highland Water. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve SA-88-9 with the added conditions for approval. Commissioner Sims second. 18 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-59 Motion carries, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Developmeni Director 19 Approved by, Stanley H grave, Chairman Planning Commission