Loading...
02/17/1986 12-8.1050 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 1986 The adjourned 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 February 17, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner John McDowell, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary EXCUSED ABSENCE: Norman Caouette, Chairman Sanford Collins, Commissioner Vern Andress, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Gerald Cole. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of January 20, 1986. PCM 86-15 Motion by Commissioner Munson seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 4-0 vote, to approve the minutes of January 20, 1986, as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS IIa. Determination of Use for an Insulation Business located at 22172 Barton Road. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson moved to Item IIa, and asked Staff to make the presentation. Mr. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report as submitted in the agenda packet. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if the applicant could step up to the microphone and identify himself. Mr. Charles MacLoane, Owner of the Company, told the Planning Commission that he would answer any of their questions. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson said: I am very curious as to why you feel that your business would be better served on Barton Road than it would be at the Michigan Street address. Mr. MacLoane said: It just happens to be my preference for owning that piece of property. We rent now, and I am not the type of person that rents too much. I own a lot of property and I would like to own that one. Commissioner Munson - I have a question, how would you change the property. Mr. MacLoane - Well, we had planned on putting some carports or a garage type structure on the land; the way it stands now, I believe we can do that. But, I want to settle the subject of using that for my business. Building the garage is no problem anywhere; but, an insulation business is not always the most favored kind of business; so, I want to get that settled before I spend any money in this City. Commissioner Munson - Personally, I think it looks like heck, and it's the main entrance to the City. That corner is what you see coming into the City, I think I would like to see a better quality type of construction than those insulation trucks that I see parked there. Mr. MacLoane - I can tell you something about those insulation trucks, in the last four years, we insulated 40,000 homes for the Gas Company. The Gas Company program has ended and we don't use those trucks. Being in the insulation business is a paper business, we don't conduct any of our business at that location. Commissioner Cole - Where do you store the insulation that you install. Mr. MacLoane - Well, we have several locations. I have other locations besides this, where we do our business. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, Grand Terrace - Spoke against this type of business, if it were to be located on Barton Road. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Being no further discussion among the Commission, entertained a motion. P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 2 PCM 86-16 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 4-0 vote, to determine that the insulation business shall remain in a C-2 and M-R Zones as stated in Title 18. ITEM IIb. Site & Architectural Review SA 85-16, Four-Plex located at 22325 Barton Road, Grand Terrace. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson proceeded with Agenda Item IIb and asked Staff to make the presentation. Planning Director, Mr. Kicak, presented the Staff Report. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if the applicant and/or representa- tive was in the audience to answer any questions. Mr. Curt Caldwell, Custom Construction, Inc. , Riverside, CA - Represented Messrs. Chinn and Tsang. The City of Grand Terrace approved an 88 senior citizen housing project last year and part of the conditions of approval was to remove the four older bungalows that are going to be in the way of a new roadway and replace them with a four-plex. These four units will all have off-street parking and there will be two parking spaces per unit, plus a guest parking space. Four parking spaces will be enclosed on three sides and four parking spaces will be uncovered with an open guest parking space. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. Caldwell if enclosed garages that would be attached to the main building would have an impact on the proposed four-plex. Mr. Caldwell - No, because as it stands now, the garages would sit at the back of the building with a 4' walkway in between. It would be no problem to extend the roof over to the building. Commissioner McDowell - Well, is this the meeting for which we can require garages? Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney - This evening is the first public hearing on the amendment of the Zoning Code. Commissioner McDowell - We missed completely a whole bunch of apartments, in which we asked for garages and we asked for them at the wrong meeting. Now I am asking, is this the meeting that we can or cannot ask for them? Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney- Before you is the Site & Architectural P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 PAGE 3 Review, that would be a requirement that would be imposed by the Ordinance Amendment, if it passes through you and through the City Council. If you are to require it in any project, you most certainly have to require it at this stage. PCM 86-17 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and seconded by Commissioner Munson and failed by a 3-1 vote, to require garages with doors for the proposed four-plex project. Commissioner Cole voted against the motion. Motion failed because it needed a unanimous 4-0 vote. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson brought up the minimum square footage issue for all residential buildings. He asked Mr. Caldwell if the Planning Commission imposed a 900 minimum square footage would that cause any significant problems. Mr. Caldwell - Myself as the Builder, it wouldn't make any difference to me. But, in all the meetings I have had with John Shone and Alex Estrada, we were told to try and stay with the conformity of the area. You are talking about small 680 foot two bedroom apartments. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - I don't doubt for a second that that's the advice you were given. But, this is kind of a what if type question. And, that is, if it was the desire that we imposed the restriction of 900 sq. ft. , would that cause you significant problems with your project. Mr. Caldwell - I can't speak for Mr. Chinn and Mr. Tsang, but, I can say that we have increased the square footage from what we originally set out from 730 to 780. We endeavored to upgrade these to show a larger unit than what was on-site. If this 900 square foot proposal is not approved, do we have to sit and wait to build our units until you get done with all your public hearings and things like that, because, 900 square foot is quite a large apartment. Many small houses, most of the small houses, are not bigger than that and that's an R-1, detached residential unit. Mr. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney - There could be a couple of different answers to his question. One, if the Commission decides to apply that requirement, then of course, that would be a requirement for his project until such time as he were to bring it back to the Commission assuming the requirement did not get approved by the City Council. In order to change the 900 sq. ft. requirement on his development on those 4 units, he would have to get your approval for a change of requirements after advertised hearing. Secondly, if the Commission decided to apply that, but make it conditional only if the movement were approved by the City P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 4 Council, then it would only be a requirement if it were approved by the City Council. In that incidence, yes he would be required to wait and see what happened to the amendment. Finally, of course you could put the requirement that, if it was in a given time, if the building permit is taken out, it would have to be a given size. There are many variations to that, you could condition it in many ways. It would really be the language you use to condition it that would determine when and if he could build the less than 900 sq. ft. unit. Commissioner McDowell - It seems to me that we have a number of options, and yet we only have one. I would be happy to make a motion of some kind where it says, providing the Council goes through with that and passes it on. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Before the motion, are there any further questions of the applicant? Commissioner Munson - How many square feet are the current units down there? Mr. Caldwell - The largest ones are about 650-680 square feet and that's the two bedroom units. Commissioner Munson - To your knowledge, are there any plans to upgrade that existing complex that is sitting there today. Are you going to do any maintenance on it. Mr. Caldwell - I will also be the builder on the senior housing project, the 88 units . One thing I do know, a landscape architect has been hired to redo the whole project. The whole complex will be landscaped. Mr. Caldwell asked if he could approach the dias, to review the plans with the Commissioners. He discussed the traffic flow for Reed Avenue and La Paix. He indicated that all the utilities would be underground. And also, that the trash bin would be enclosed. He proposes to extend the roof line to attach to the back of the building to meet requirements for attached garages, this would allow the walkway to be covered. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being no further questions, he opened the public hearing asking if there was anyone that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to this project. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, Grand Terrace - Wanted a clarification about a possible two-tiered school impaction fee, which is listed as Number 9 of the Conditions of Approval. And a clarification on Number 8, the provision for receptacles for refuse. He felt that most refuse containers are about 3' x 6' to 3 1/2' x 6' maybe 4 x 6, and the 6' x 8' concrete P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 5 block structure conditioned will carry a refuse container that is probably maximum 4' x 6' . There is no reason for it. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- As far as the impaction fees, he was not aware of any two tiered school impaction fees. Relative to the refuse area, that must be some sort of staff recommendation. Joe Kicak, Planning Director- To clarify, Condition #9, School Impaction Fees, let's just call it "fees shall be paid in accordance with the Resolution and/or Ordinance as provided." With respect to the referenced trash enclosures, there is some possibility that that particular enclosure is going to serve more than just those 4 units. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson closed the public hearing and returned the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner McDowell - Indicated he was still concerned about the size of the buildings, but did not want to impose anything unfair on the builder. He suggested putting a condition that if it is passed by the City Council, that their condition for 900 square feet minimum be imposed. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney - Added that the Commission could put a time expiration upon the condition. If that time limitation expired, then the developer would be allowed to put in the 780 square feet or whatever without the Council having approved the amendment. Commissioner McDowell - Inquired what is a reasonable time. City Attorney Hopkins - Assuming you actually make a recommendation on it this evening, it would go back to the Council. Assumingly it would come back to them in approximately 30 days. So, we are talking probably 45-60 days, in which they could approve the amended ordinance. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Asked if 90 days would be appropriate. City Attorney Hopkins - Yes, definitely. Ninety days would not be a problem for the City. Commissioner McDowell - Of course, he can appeal this action. City Attorney Hopkins - He can appeal it, if he files a written appeal within 10 days from the date of your action. PCM 86-18 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and seconded by Commissioner Munson, and passed by a 4-0 vote to add a condition of 900 square feet minimum to these buildings. The condition is dependent P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 PAGE 6 upon City Council passing the Ordinance regarding minimum square footage for residential districts, and is limited to 90 days. If it has not been passed by Council at that time, then it can go back to the square footage originally proposed. Commissioner Munson asked if garages were to be a separate issue. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Indicated yes, they would be a separate motion. PCM 86-19 Motion by Commissioner Munson, and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 4-0 vote, to add the condition that attached garages with a door be part of this project. Commissioner Cole - Asked if the Commission needed to see the Site Plan again, if he redesigns to 900 sq. ft. , indicated that he didn't think it was necessary assuming it was to be redesigned with the same plan. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director - stated that if the Site and Architectural Review as it is right now, was approved by Planning Commission as proposed, recommended that the Planning Commission allow Staff to enforce the 900 sq. ft. requirement as well as the requirement for garage doors. PCM 86-20 Motion by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Munson, and passed by a 4-0 vote, to approve SA 85-16 with the condition amended earlier on Condition of Approval #9 - "The School Impaction Fees shall be paid in accordance with the Resolution and/or Ordinance as provided" and Condition of Approval #8 to remain, and with additional conditions as earlier passed. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS IIIa. Amendment to Title 18 - Parking Requirements and minimum square footage for apartments. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - The first item is an amendment proposed to Title 18, Parking Requirements and Minimum Square Footage for P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 7 apartments. City Attorney Hopkins - Presented the Staff Report. The City Council at their January 9, 1986, Council meeting directed that the Title 18 be presented to the Planning Commission for your consideration and for amendment of the Zoning Code. The items that were included needed to have more clarification and have more specificity, to avoid interpretation conflicts. On January 20, 1986, the Commission made some minor revisions and set a public hearing for this evening to discuss these amendments. The recommendation of staff, after the public hearing is conducted, approve by resolution the above changes to the City of Grand Terrace Title 18 Zoning Ordinance and recommend that these changes be approved by the City Council. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Are there any questions of staff? I've got one. The way this item reads on the residential structures, it's on all residential structures regardless of whether it's multi-family or single family is that correct? City Attorney Hopkins answered yes. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - There being no further questions of staff, opened the public hearing portion. Asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item, and if so, to step forward, give name and address. Mr. Ed O'Neill, 22608 Minona Drive, Grand Terrace said: Speaking in opposition against changing Title 18. I will address three (3) different things. Number One, the welcome to developers Number two, the concept of revising Title 18, and Number three I will get into detail on those specific changes. I have seen two examples of the way we open our arms to developers. I brought this up to the City Council Thursday evening. I think we should do something in a responsible non-political way, when somebody is looking to come into our community. We have a conflict against keeping things the way they are and the way they are going to be. Title 18 Revisions, now what's the hurry, City Council by their action, put together an Ad Hoc Review Committee to look at Title 18 and make recommendations. Why do we appoint a Committee one day and then say you guys aren't moving fast enough. Let's look at the proposed change, why 900 sq. ft. I hear that we are concerned about traffic; but, we are telling the builders don't build anything that the single non-family person can use. We are saying come on, build nothing except for families. Now, we are talking about enclosed garages. I would say that in general, the single carport, 10 ft. wide is a mess. If I were so inclined to be a burglar, I couldn't think of a better set up than that. the more enclosures we have, the more we are going to have to be concerned about the crime. I am against an ordinance that draws nothing but families with children in the community. I am against an ordinance that provides an ideal hiding spot for the P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 8 criminal element. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak in opposition to this item. Barney Karger, 11608 Bernardo Way, I am not against the item perse. I am against it in that, 900 square feet is a very nice size 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment. It is a small 3 bedroom 2 bath apartment, and it is an enormous one bedroom apartment. It is fit for a king if it is a bachelor apartment. So, I find that the Ordinance as drafted, if I was an Attorney, I would love it. If you were to mention that it was a certain amount of square footage for one bedroom, certain square footage for a 2 bedroom, a certain amount for 2 bedroom 2 bath and so on, then I am with you all the way. But, when you say a flat 900 sq. ft. , I think it's illogical. The City Council and the Planning Commission have not considered the fact that we have changing demographics. You don't need a 10 x 20 parking spot of a 10 x 20 garage for compact cars. You need a smaller spot. I think that's up to your Planning Director and your planners to consider, depending upon the apartment building, a certain amount of compact car spaces at a smaller size, a certain amount of larger sizes for regular size cars and naturally a couple for handicapped. We have different measurements for different garages, depending on what the project is. I think you should have an established one size garage, whether it's interior or exterior measurement, regardless of whether it's an apartment, manufactured house or a regular house. I am against a 900 square foot 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment. I think there should be a mix. I think that you should be considering a lot of facets on this that we aren't really taking into consideration. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Asked Mr. Karger if he made a recommendation in varying square footage based on the number of bedrooms, what would he have in mind as a recommendation. Mr. Karger replied: I would say that if you were to look at 900 square feet for a two bedroom, you could take off at least 200 square feet for a one bedroom. I think for a bachelor we are looking at 350 square feet, all you want is a living room and a kitchen. Three bedrooms, I would say that the smallest should be about a 1,000 square feet. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this proposed ordinance. City Attorney Hopkins, read verbatim into the record, a letter sent by Forest City Dillon dated 2-14-86, opposing the proposed changes in the parking requirements and the minimum square footage requirements for new residential construction in Grand Terrace. P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 PAGE 9 Vice-Chairman Hawkinson closed the public hearing and returned it back to the Commission for discussion. City Attorney Hopkins - Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kicak and I noticed that in the draft, trying to accomplish the intent and purpose that we were directed to do, it appeared that we did not fully do it. On the second page of the Staff Report that Mr. Estrada prepared, in the middle of the page where it says "Shall now read C." If you look at the 2nd sentence it says the minimum number of guest parking spaces either on the street or on common parking areas shall be provided at a ratio of one space per 4-dwelling units. I believe the intent of that is that the on-street be within the project or private street within the project. Otherwise you could just take adjoining City streets and declare that all space on those streets were meant to satisfy the guest parking requirements, I don't think that was anyone's intent. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Asked how it was to read. City Attorney Hopkins - It would now read: The minimum number of guest parking spaces, either on private streets within the development or in common parking areas shall be provided at a ratio of one space per 4-dwelling units. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - One question in regards to the letter that you just read to us, regarding the Forest City Dillon project. Is it safe to assume that what has already been passed, as far as Specific Plan and what have you, is not affected in any way, shape or form by this proposal that we have to change Title 18. City Attorney Hopkins - Yes sir. That has been my interpretation that any approvals has given a vested right to that particular developer to develope under those standards that have been existing. They would not apply. However, in those projects, there are certain small portions, and Mr. Kicak might be able to address that better than I, have not yet received approval. While I think the jist of the letter from Ms. Tanner would not be applicable to it, there are some portions that would be, because there are some small parcels that did not receive approval. I guess depending on what their land assembly, they intend to acquire all and there would be some larger parcels in the future, because they have not yet been approved. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked - If this body were to approve what was proposed before us tonight, and it would go onto City Council, would there be some sort of legal exposure that the City would run. City Attorney Hopkins - The answer is very easy, no, any approvals P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 10 you give to amending the Zone Ordinance has absolutely no affect until such time as the City Council has acted on it. So, there is no legal affect by your recommendation for approval. Commissioner McDowell asked - If the group has already been granted, and one group, USA Properties, has been ordered to put in garages, a right has now been given to ask for a waiver and they would probably get it, because they can't compete from one side of the street to the other. Do we have any affect on anything that happens in the so-called "Villas". City Attorney Hopkins responded - Someone can always ask for a variance assuming that they meet the requirements for a variance. That right is granted to them under the Ordinance. Maybe that may be a fact, in order for them to compete, they need the variance. If, however, that is the guideline to be used, then it will be an unending one, because each adjoining developer would be able to consequently say that it's unfair to him to compete on that basis. I would hope that is not the basis for the waiver. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there were any further comments. Commissioner Munson - I had the same idea that there was a condition on USA Properties for single car garages. I don't know if they had to be attached. I think they agreed to it. Now assuming that is correct, these two projects are in conflict because one doesn't want it and one does. The pre-approved Conditional Use Permit would prevail in any case, is that correct? City Attorney Hopkins - Yes. Each project has to stand on it's own merit and different factors are considered in each one and different considerations are given to each of them. Of course, we can always give to the developer and give him better conditions. We can't once the rights have vested in the developer and require sterner requirements on him of things that are more costly, unless of course he agrees to the change in conditions. They invest monies in reliance, good faith reliance upon those actions and therefore, they will work to their detriment. It could well have a cause of action against us where we can do otherwise. Commissioner McDowell - I think it's pretty well agreed that we are only talking about future things. Commissioner Munson - I would like to go back to the letter momentarily. In the bottom paragraph of the 2nd page, it says "The Project is already completely designed." The last time anything was heard about this project, there were some small, according to them, adjustments that were going to be made to the building location and what not. Did they ever come back to Staff with their final Site and Architectural? P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 11 Joseph Kicak, Planning Director - I haven't seen any final plans other than the original layout. There is a Parcel Map that is still to go to the City Council at their next meeting that would affect that project. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Suggested that they separate this item into two issues, one being parking and the other being the number of square feet in each residential dwelling unit. Suggested they begin by addressing the parking issue first and said he would entertain a motion. City Attorney Hopkins - We will include it within one resolution. PCM 86-21 Motion made by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-0 vote, to amend Section 18.60.040a to read as follows: " At least one parking space shall be a single car enclosed garage attached to the main building in which the residential unit is located." Amend Section 18.60.040b to read as follows: "Any parking space not enclosed shall be a minimum of 9 feet in width 19 feet in length and shall be permanently maintained for the required parking." Amend Section 18.60.040c to read as follows: "Guest parking shall be required, and shall be in addition to the 2 parking spaces required per dwelling unit. It need not be enclosed and shall be identified as guest parking. The minimum number of guest parking spaces either on the street or in common parking areas shall be provided at a ratio of one (1) space per four (4) dwelling units. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson opened discussion for the issue of minimum size residential structures. Commissioner Munson - Could we state that individual living units be an appropriate size per that style living unit, in lieu of stipulating a minimum square footage. City Attorney Hopkins - An Ordinance or statute can be declared unenforceable by a court, if it is rendered too vague or if too much is left to the interpretation of a staff member. I suggest that you need some sort of minimum, this minimum can P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 PAGE 12 then be applied by you at the Site & Architectural Review process as it is now. You may want to apply a minimum depending upon the size of a 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom or whatever. I think that would be a better standard. We can pass a resolution on as to the parking and garage processes that you have just approved, and you can continue this hearing until the next meeting and ask that Staff come up with a recommendation on those specific sizes for you. Commissioner Munson - We are talking about the minimum size of residential structures, I have always felt that we are really talking about multiple dwellings, more so than single family structures. Can we direct this for multiple dwellings rather than or separate the two. City Attorney Hopkins - It would seem to be discreminating, you would discreminate against those people, who choose by their own lifestyle to live in multiple family dwellings. If you imposed a minimum that was not imposed upon those, who lived in detached single family residences, I think the concern and the exercise of the police power by the City would be at least as applicable to the single family residences as it is to multiple dwelling units. Typically, the minimum size would apply to all residences. Commissioner McDowell - I feel that we should have a different grading for multiple housing than we do for single family houses. I think we are in for something that we are maybe a little over our head on until we get some more advice. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Asked Planning Director, Joe Kicak, if he could, in addition, to giving the Planning Commission guidance as to minimum square footages, separate the single family residential vs. multifamily residential. Planning Director, Joseph Kicak- Indicated that that would be no problem. Commissioner McDowell - Maybe you could ask other cities to see what they do, Redlands for example. PCM 86-22 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 4-0 voted, to return to staff for recommendations with regards to minimum size of living structures, to be brought back for action in 2 weeks. Commissioner Munson asked what would happen to the Resolution. P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 13 City Attorney Hopkins replied that the Resolution would be forwarded to the City Council. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson called a recess at 8:50 p.m. The Planning Commission was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. III.b T.J. Austyn, Inc. - Terrace View Tentative Tract Map No. 13205/ Specific Plan 85-12, located at the northeast corner of Main Street and Oriole Avenue at the base of Blue Mountain. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Our next item of business is the T.J. Austyn, Inc. Terrace View Tentative Tract Map 13205, Specific Plan 85-12. Asked for staff report. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director - Presented Staff Report as written. In addition to the staff report, pointed out that an existing residence just to the north has a corral that could be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The corral is 17' from the northerly line of the tract. The requirement is that the corral be 35' from the closest property line to the next residential unit. There is 70' from the closest resident. It would be awfully difficult to meet that require- ment as the project is now designed. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Asked Commissioners if there were any questions of staff. Being none, asked if the representative for the project was here, and if so, would like to address the Commission. Bill Storm, T.J. Austyn, Inc. , Newport Beach, CA - Said they were in agreement with all of the conditions of approval and he would answer any questions that the Commission might have. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Commissioner McDowell - Before the meeting started in our study session, we were talking about the net acreage you have there, which is 17.5 units minus the Canal right-of-way, which would leave you 16 acres. Staff has advised us that a part of the Canal does not apply. In which case, you would only be talking about 64 houses instead of 71. What is your reply. Bill Storm replied - My understanding is that the calculations are based on gross acres, the gross acreage surrounding the project. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Asked if staff could elaborate on an interpretation that was given earlier this evening on gross vs. P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 14 net acreage. Joe Kicak, Planning Director responded- Basically, it is the Staff's understanding that the gross acreage, is that acreage that goes to the deed or to the centerline in many cases of the street. If a legal description describes the property to the centerline of the street, or to a point other than centerline, but not to the ultimate required dedication, that is gross acreage. The net acreage would be the acreage, which would exclude any dedication of the perimeter required for the peri- meter streets. That is, in this particular case, if the dedication is required on Main Street, as well as, Oriole Street then that portion of the area would be subtracted from the gross acreage for the computation of gross density. We have not at all addressed the easements to that particular proposed subdivision. As it stands right now, the easements are included in what I would call quote "Net" acreage. Commissioner Cole stated - The 17.8 acres or whatever it is that is gross acres, but that is basically net, because we are not asking for any additional dedication. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director replied - That is correct. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked of the applicant - You have an aquaduct area that runs through the middle of the project, indicated as a recreation park. It would appear that adjacent to Lot 36, there is an area that looks like that's also additional recreational park. And, there is an area also, next to Lot 26 that looks like that's the same. Bill Storm - They could have been larger private lots, but we thought a park area would look better aesthetically. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson said - I am just rather curious as to why the area next to Lot 36 didn't become part of Lot 36 and the area next to Lot 26 become part of Lot 26. Bill Storm - It could have. Aesthetically, I thought it would be nicer to see a little larger opening into the park. It added a little extra space to put in a swing or tot lot. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked - Was it your intent that this area as designated as recreation park be dedicated over to the City. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director said - I might mention, and Randy Anstine, Community Services Director, pointed out to me, in a specific plan it states that in lieu of the park fees, this dedication would be made to the City. It is my under- standing that the conditions of the City Council in accepting this park, was that the .park fees would be paid in addition P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 PAGE 15 thereto. Bill Storm replied - We have agreed to pay the fees. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked staff - Has the City already accepted this land. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director- They agreed in principle to accept it at such time, if and when, the map records. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there were any other questions of this applicant. Commissioner Munson mentioned - On page 3, you say you are going to have 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units the size of 950 - 1250 sq. ft. Do you have any idea of how many of each of these units you are going to have at the present time. Bill Storm replied - Probably not more than 10% of the units would be the smallest unit. The marketing strategy typically is to have some lower price housing units that, hopefully, when you get the people in the door, you can move them to a more expensive house. We think there is a market for some senior citizen types, as well as, young families who don't expect to have children, or maybe one child. We are trying to develope a project here that will not be in competition with the higher end project up on Van Buren. Commissioner Munson - Your 10% would be one bedroom homes. Bill Storm- Two bedroom, one bedroom and a den that could be converted, essentially would be a 2 bedroom 2 bath house. Commissioner Munson - It is also stated that the applicant will screen the area using a combination of landscaping and fencing. What area will you screen. Bill Storm - We are concerned about the area northerly of our project, where there exists a couple of horses and a horse corral. Or basically, a little above that area, we thought with additional landscaping and fencing we could screen the horse area from the backyards of our homes. Commissioner Munson asked how they would landscape. Bill Storm - We would expect right now, that the fence would go at the top of the slope with some sort of drought resistant landscaping on the outside of the slope. It's going to be thick and bushy, maybe Oleanders or some type of low maintenance material, that's thick that would block any view that you might have of the horse area. The whole project will have fencing, product type fencing surrounding all the backyards of the project. P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 16 Commissioner Munson - It was discussed earlier that in the grading of the lots, stipulation requiring a ground cover on the slopes to prevent erosion or washoff from runoff, would you be prepared to do that on all the lots. Bill Storm - That's part of the conditions of approval. And we are in agreement with those conditions. The slopes are not great, they aren't nearly as steep as you will find in the Griffin project. Typically, most of the slopes below the Canal are 4' in height. Our biggest sideyard slopes are maybe 5 feet in height. Commissioner McDowell stated that most of the recent developers developing "so-called" affordable housing have gone bankrupt, and asked Mr. Storm if he anticipated paying that off. Bill Storm - No one really considers it an affordable housing project, but we are trying to react to the market, interest rates and other things. Our preference would be to continue with the product we are going to be developing up in our Terrace Hills project and build that down here. But, we are trying to also plan ahead. We always prefer to build larger more expensive homes, because that's where the greater profit is, but we also know that we can't sell a lot of the same house. We have to segment the market and pick out different areas of the market to go after, because there aren't enough people in either one particular market to sell this many houses. I think there is something in the General Plan Element that refers to affordable housing. Commissioner McDowell - Asked the City Attorney, if the City Council specifically asked for more affordable housing. City Attorney Hopkins replied: Of course, affordable housing is not subsidized housing. The General Plan speaks to the accommodating the construction of affordable housing within the Community. So, while I am certain that the City Council hasn't specifically asked Mr. Storm to construct affordable housing, they have specifically, by approving and this body as well, the General Plan to the creation of additional affordable housing within the Community. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - It was brought to our attention in the Staff Report that there is a problem as far as compatibility with the existing structure that is there and some livestock. Have you given any consideration as to how that problem might be addressed. It's not just landscaping. Bill Storm - That's why we have proposed the fencing and landscap- ing. There is one corral, I don't see it as a major problem. If I had thought that I had, we would notify all of our buyers, P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 17 indicate to them the situation. I don't have a tremendous solution. Further discussion took place among the developer and the Planning Commissioners regarding the potential problem with the project and the existing corral. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked Staff for clarification. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director- Probably at the time when the existing use was permitted, it may have been in conformance with the ordinance at that time. What happened, was that when we adopted our ordinance, we increased the distance for the animal keeping from the property line to 35' . That condition on the existing use is not met. The 2nd thing, as a result of that, the second condition is that the closest location for where animals are kept, I mean that is the corral where animals would encroach into that property, would be 70' from the closest residences. What is now non-conforming use, does exist and it does not meet our standards. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being none, opened the public hearing. Asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this project. There being none, he asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition to this project. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way - Spoke in opposition to the project based on lack of compatibility with the existing area. Also, he objected to the small houses and small lots. Recommended the Planning Commission require 1200 sq. ft. houses be the minimum size house and specify as 3 bedroom. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Asked if there was anyone else in opposition. Dr. Ramone Gonzales - Oriole Avenue - Spoke in opposition to the project. Mentioned the houses should be compatible with the larger estates. Expressed concern over potential inadequate law enforcement protection. In addition, was concerned that the new owners would be speculators and that they would eventually rent out those homes. Nicki Gonzales - 12844 Oriole Avenue - Objected to the project. Thought it was reasonable to see how the first development went. Felt that the size of the lots were not going to be compatible with the area. Concerned about access roads, particularly Main Street and Raven, because they are not full size roads. Objected to the cheaper and smaller houses with small lots. Bill McKeever - 12714 Blue Mountain Court - Indicated that he has the property directly north, which contained the notorious corrals. P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 PAGE 18 At the time he built in 1980, the City was still working under the County Ordinance. It was prior to adoption of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Under the previous County Zoning Ordinance, the larger animals were permitted in an R-1 zone, as long as you had enough area for them. When the City adopted their R-1 Zone, they didn't make provisions for the large animals. But, the City was kind enough to grant us a rezoning to A-1, which is where the 35' setback requirement on the corrals came in. Mr. McKeever went on to say: At that time, we already had the property developed. The corrals are 13' from the south property line, which is the north property line of the tract in question. In that 131 , I have iceplant and olive tres. I knew that some day that property was going to develope to the south of me, and I was trying to develope a screen to buffer the impact of the larger animals. To bring me into conformance now, with the set- back from the residences, would require a 57' rear yard in the lots in this tract. The lots along that boundary are only 103' in depth. There is no way with that depth of lot that they can provide a 57' setback. If I was required to move those corrals to conform, I have the same problem with my house. They would be within 70' of the house. If those setback require- ments are imposed on me now, it means that I have to change the whole layout of what I have already developed and committed myself to. Those corrals, there are 3-24 square foot pipe corrals, with roofs on them with water plumbed into them. They are fairly permanent. Besides the fact that I don't have any other place to put them, to provide that type of facility for the horses. We've always been involved in the Community. Our children went through the school system here. That was the basis for our decision to stay in Grand Terrace. We made a sizeable committment and investment here. I would request that we get some kind of consideration for that now. Speaking in opposition to the project, I don't think the lots are compatible with the existing land use. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in opposition to this project. Dr. Gonzales, Oriole Avenue - Brought up the fact that this meeting was held on a holiday, and that many other people would have been there to speak if they had known it would be held on a holiday. Susan Crawford, 22721 Minona Drive - Spoke in opposition to the project. She objected to the smaller homes and lots. Felt they were not compatible with the surrounding, valuable, real estate; and felt the development would bring down the value of those surrounding homes. Nicki Gonzales, Oriole Avenue- Asked when the grove would be torn down and when grading would begin. Was concerned about P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 19 erosion and problems down the street. Bill Storm, T.J. Austyn, Inc. - replied that typically grading would start shortly after the rainy season. Their property on Van Buren would being after the rainy season, probably latter part of March or early April. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in opposition to this project. Bill Storm - Mentioned that while the houses may be small in terms of square footage, there are lots of things that you can do to small houses to make them attractive and useable. In addition, this would also be going through Site & Architectural Review. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson noted the absence of a plan indicating the mix and types of houses, in their Specific Plan. Bill Storm - When we come in with the Site Plan review package, at that point, we would know the precise mix and those types of things. You get into that detail when you start getting into final approval plans and closer to actually developing the houses and you have a good understanding of the market. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Asked if anyone else would like to speak in opposition, being no one, he closed the public hearing and returned this matter back to the Commission. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson said: What I've heard here tonight, tends to conform with what I have thought all the way along. This is the wrong proposal for this particular land. Some problems for the other land owners around there will be created. And, certainly, I do not think the size of homes that are proposed for this particular area are the right size. I personally intend to vote against this project. Commissioner Munson - Would it be permissible to put as a condition of this project that should it be overruled on an appeal, that this body would then have a right to review the conditions of the building of such. Can we make 3 car garages a condition of this project. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney- You can make those conditions that are reasonably applicable to the policy or to the project and would serve a valid purpose. You cannot, however, make a conditional denial. You can't deny it and put conditions on the denial. You either deny it or approve it. You can approve it conditionally, but you cannot deny it conditionally. So, on the Specific Plan, you could, in fact, make the recommended conditions even though you deny the specific plan, so that the Council has before them your recommended conditions P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 20 rather than simply a complete denial. And, you might add, just as an opinion, one of the things that you do not want to put there is, while I have empathy for them, the requirements of the zoning for the adjoining property are specifically that, they are for the adjoining properties. The burden for the setback on people who keep animals, is a burden on their property. It is not a burden you impose on adjoining properties. When one uses their property, they use it as they wish; but, they cannot use it to the detriment of other persons. You can include those considerations in your conditions, but you can't put the burden on the adjoining property to provide the setbacks for the other person's uses for their property. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Expressed thanks to the City Attorney for clarification. And, expressed that he intended to vote against this project, because it does not mesh with the land use there. Commissioner Munson expressed the same sentiment. City Attorney Hopkins - Actually if one of you votes against it, it won't be approved because it's going to require four affirmative votes to get approved. I might also recommend to the Commission, if I may, that such things as economics, you can't as a matter of course establish a value or a size a value beyond which you will not allow in a given acre, certain properties. There are other measures that lie within the police powers to protect the community and the various aspects of the community, that you may exercise. And, those you may do within your condition, however, you would not want to simply determine and make a finding that you don't agree with the economics of this particular division or subdivision. The economics and whether the developer makes money is something that he must determine. You then, look at the various things, obviously, there are conditions that you can apply such as, a 3-car garage and those sort of things, which will increase the value and property and possibly have the same effect. But, I would not do it for that, at least not for that stated purpose. You want to make it as immune from attack as you can. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson thanked the City Attorney for the even further clarification. Noted the following: We have heard testimony this evening that the police protection up there, some feel falls a little short. And, as we discussed earlier tonight, I am not sure if it was in public workshop or whether it was actually when we began, I personally think that this particular project would add to the already aggrevated problem with water drainage into the area down on Michigan Avenue. I think all of those, even one by themselves, is reason for me not to support this project. P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 PAGE 21 Commissioner McDowell - I don't think anybody in this town has worked harder than I have for maintenance of property values. I would vote against it. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson called for a motion. PCM 86-23 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 4-0 vote to recommend to the City Council denial of the Specific Plan 85-12 and Tentative Tract Map 13205 for Terrace View. And, that if the denial is overruled by the City Council that all conditions of approval, as set forth, will be a part of that approval. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson recognized Mr. Karger to address the Commission. Barney Karger,11668 Bernardo Way - Recommended that the Planning Commission put the conditions they wanted on the project now, so if the Council reverses the denial, they will consider those conditions. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney - Noted that the way the motion is, is that if the City Council would reverse the recommended conditions would be imposed. Commissioner Munson asked if City Council could also put conditions on the project. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney - Yes, they can certainly impose conditions or they can refer it back to you, if they overrule you for consideration beyond what you have recommended. Susan Crawford - Thanked the Planning Commission and said she appreciated the opportunity to address this group. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:10 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 4f EPCAK, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVED BY: CAAI n61r_,LAVTfrNG COMMISSION P.C. Minutes 2-17-86 Page 22