Loading...
04/07/1986 12-1.1052 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 7, 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 April 7, 1986, at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Sanford Collins, Commissioner John McDowell, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary EXCUSED ABSENCE: Gerald Cole, Commissioner Vern Andress, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Collins I. MINUTES A. Minutes Of March 17, 1986. PCM 86-35 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-1 vote to approve the minutes of March 17, 1986, as submitted. Commissioner Collins abstained from the vote. II. ITEM II Site & Architectural Review 85-9 - Revisions Chairman Caouette moved to Site & Architectural Review SA 85-9 and asked for the Staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the staff report. He noted that Item #1, in the Staff Report, was an architectural revision to the previously approved Site & Architectural Plans, which showed a tower. The final submittal shows that tower excluded. Also, the plan view on the 1st and 2nd floor, the units were arranged and the areas were computed based on that arrangement. The final submittal for those areas indicate a split, although there was some indication of a split on the detailed floor plans. Staff considered that those units were individual units and with the final review were reduced considerably. The exterior is the major revision from the original design. Discussion took place between the Commissioners, Staff and the Architect regarding Type B units of 300 sq. ft. , in place of the previous Type A units of 312 sq. ft. , which will have a possibility of becoming 2 rooms combined for a total of 600 sq. ft. by taking 6' section of the wall out or by leaving as 2 separate rooms. Tony Inferrera, Project Architect, explained further that they had Units A, B, C, D, and F, and that on the working drawings, changed with numbering around, which now reads: the A units became B units, on the new working plan there are 32 B units. The C units for the end units, originally there were 8 total, each 370 sq. ft. There will be 4 as indicated on the new plans, at 350 sq. ft. The D unit will be handicapped. There were 4 originally and on the new plan, 4 in the same location within 12' . The big change came in the E unit, on the final plan, that E unit became an A unit, which is within 2 sq. ft. of the same square footage. Chairman Caouette asked the Architect if there were shared restrooms, or if it was a new approach. T. Inferrera, Architect, answered that all the rooms have one (1) bathroom. But, that each room could be designed for two people. Commissioner McDowell asked the Architect if they had reduced the overall square footage of the building. Mr. Inferrera, Architect, replied that the project was not reduced in size. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that the major difference between the original plan and the new working drawings was the tower design being excluded. Mr. Inferrera, Architect, noted that the tower was excluded due to a matter of dollars and to utilize that space as additional lounge space. Commissioner McDowell remarked that they reduced the size of the chapel from 16' x 42' to 12' x 20' and asked for comments from the architect. Mr. Inferrera, Architect, indicated that that was a misprint. The original chapel was 16' x 24' and the new chapel will be 12' x 24' a 48-50' sq. ft. difference. General discussion between Commissioner McDowell and the project Architect continued for each point of change listed on the staff report. It was noted, by the Architect, that the multipurpose room on the first floor was made larger and that there would be 4 smaller lounge areas on the second floor. It was generally agreed upon that the movement of one of the elevators to the southwest corner was an improvement and was recommended, by staff, that it be approved. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission regarding this item. Being none, returned it back to the Commission for discussion. Chairman Caouette asked Staff if their recommendation changed based on the information presented. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, replied that it would. Primarily, because in discussing this item with the Architect, he mentioned that he had no problem going to the exterior architectural design that was originally approved. Mr. Kicak felt that if the Planning Commission desired, that that should be a stipulation. And secondly, with respect to the explanation of the E Units on the north end, staff would have no problems. These were fairly small deviations. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further questions of Staff. He noted that they would be approving a revised SA 85-9 plan. Commissioner McDowell questioned the Architect about possible landscaping and trim. General discussion took place between the Commissioners and the Architect regarding landscaping . It was noted that the applicant was more than willing to landscape; when, and if, permission was received from Gage Canal Company. Further discussion took place between the City Attorney and the Commissioners regarding what can be done by the City to enable the Canal to be landscaped. The City Attorney noted that it would be the Gage Canal Company's requirements that would be imposed, and that we could inquire about the landscaping possibilities, for that area. PCM 86-36 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson, and passed by a 4-1 vote, to approve the changes to the interior as requested by the Developer, with the exception that the previously approved Site and Architectural Exterior Plan remain constant. Commissioner Collins voted against the motion. III. ITEM III - Off-Street Parking Ordinance Chairman Caouette moved to Item III and requested Staff presentation. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that the Planning Commission needed to consider this item, at this time, because if they did not consider this item, they would not have any future opportunity to do so. Chairman Caouette asked the Commission if there were any comments on the first section dealing with Single Family Unit Parking. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson supported Commissioner Collins' position mentioned in the earlier Public Workshop Session, that a safeguard needs to be provided for the people that already have existing construction. Discussion regarding the language of the ordinance for detached and attached garages continued; as well as, existing uses that would become non-conforming. It was established that the variance process could be utilized, by property owners with non-conforming existing construction, when appropriate. Discussion took place between the Commissioners and the City Attorney regarding garage conversions. It was noted by the City Attorney that garage conversions were a separate issue from the item being discussed tonight. Also noted that most garage conversions were not legal conversions. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, reviewed a point brought up by Councilwoman Pfennighausen, that if the Planning Commission felt there was an inconsistency in the feet measurements required for parking, that the Planning Commission should indicate that in a motion. A concensus was reached by the Planning Commission to accept the language of the Ordinance as presented. IV. ITEM IV - Request for Determination of Deviation for Tract 13050-5 and 6. Chairman Caouette moved to Item IV, a request for determination of deviation for Tract 13050-5 and 6, asked staff for presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report. With respect to minimum lot depth, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider this a minor deviation and to let the Planning Director handle this matter. The other item, the lot width, the code is quite specific on the procedures. The one parcel within tract 13050-3, has a less than minimum lot width. He noted that it is a corner lot and the requirement for lot width is 70' . This particular lot has a 67' lot width. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that there was an agreement reached between the past planner and the developer or his agent, and unless the Planning Commission felt there was a problem with the deviation, the Planning Commission should give the benefit of the doubt to the developer. Discussion between the Commissioners and the City Attorney regarding the tenor of the City Council's discussion of square footage at their previously held meeting. It was indicated by the City Attorney that the City Council felt homes should be larger. Chairman Caouette brought the issue back to the recommendation that both the depth and that particular lot width be considered a minor deviation. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, indicated that a vote would be required of the Planning Commission, in lieu of a consensus. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that the motion the Staff would like to see from the Planning Commission was the fact that lots with less than a minimum depth within Tract 13050-1 - 5 and one (1) lot #1 of 13050-3 with less than minimum width, be considered a minor deviation and subject to approval by the Planning Director. Chairman Caouette made the previous statement by staff a motion. It was seconded by Commissioner Munson. This motion failed upon Commissioner Munson's rescinding of his second in response to further discussion among the Planning Commissioners. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson had indicated that he would oppose the motion, because he felt that if the ordinance specifically calls out lot sizes, then they should stand by the ordinance. Commissioner Collins felt that 1/2' lot depth deviation was acceptable, but that the deviation for lot width on a corner lot was not. PCM 86-37 Motion by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner McDowell, and passed by a 4-1 vote, to approve the deviations, with the exception of the corner lot. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson voted against the motion. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other items the Commissioner's wished to bring up. Commissioner Collins, indicated that he would like the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee to look at modifying the Ordinance and consider hillside slopes overlay and using Observation Drive as a dividing point, that 7200 square feet be the level pad for building. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson raised one other issue. He noted a specific desire from the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee to create a 1350 minimum square footage for all R-1 construction. Also, create a hillside overlay area, suggested perhaps above Oriole as a 1/2 acre minimum. Commissioner Collins opposed setting a 1350 square footage minimum, felt 1200 sq. ft with a 3 car garage would be appropriate. With no further discussion, Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: OSEPH KICAK, PLANNING DIRECTOR Approved by: CH7P,MAN, PLANNTNGCOMMISSION