Loading...
09/19/1988 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 19, 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 September 19 , 1988 at 7 : 00 p.m. by Chairman, Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner David Sawyer, Community Development Director John Harper, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. * Information from staff to Commissioners. * Discussion on CC&Rs in the Terrace Pines Development. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7 :00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7 :00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - No public comment. Item #1 June 20, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes 1 MOTION PCM-88-71 Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve the June 20, 1988 Planning Commission minutes. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson second. 4-0-3-0. Commissioners Buchanan, Sims and Hilkey absent. Item #2 DU-88-2 J. and R. Bennett 21496 Main Street APN# 277-061-59 The Community Development Director presented the staff report with conditions of approval and recommendations from staff, the City Engineer and Reviewing Agencies. Discussion and presentation of M-2 zones in the City and the allowable uses. Chairman Hargrave inquired whether the applicant would be moving equipment in and out of this location. The Community Development Director explained that indications have shown this site would be used for storage of equipment. He explained that a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review application would be required later for the offices and impact study of nearby residential areas. Discussion on possible zoning adjustments in that area, either M-2 or M-R, upon completed revision of the General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 7 : 10 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7 : 10 p.m. 1. J. Bennett Property Owner 16475 Mc Allister Riverside, CA. Mr. Bennett gave the location and history of the property. Commissioner Munson asked about the frequency of equipment traffic in and out of the City. 2 Mr. Bennett explained that there would be 4-5 pieces of equipment going in and out everyday. The route travelled would be Main Street and Iowa Avenue. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7 : 15 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 7 : 15 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-72 Vice-Chairman Hawkinson made the motion to make the determination that the equipment storage is a use permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review to follow in a M-2 Zone. Commissioner Van Gelder second. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-72 Motion carried, all ayes. 4-0-3-0. Commissioners Buchanan, Hilkey and Sims absent. Item #3 SP-86-4 Terrace Pines Apartments CC&Rs Northeast corner of Canal Street and Barton Road APN# 275-251-30 The Community Development Director presented the staff report as follows. "On December 4 , 1986, the City Council approved SP-86-4 , a Specific Plan for the development of a 96 unit apartment project. Included with this approval was the following condition No. 45; "That CC&Rs shall address the rights and responsibilities of the individual parcel owners with respect to maintenance, landscaping and shall cover all of the covenants with respect to the various facilities that are jointly used. Also, that said CC&Rs are to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and shall be completed prior to approval of the final tract map. " On November 4 , 1987 , the attached CC&Rs were 3 recorded at the County Recorder' s Office. However, these CC&Rs do not address all of the issues that the City feels need to be addressed. The three issues staff is working with the applicant on for inclusion in the CC&Rs are; (1) the landscaping and maintenance of the Gage Canal property, (2) a reciprocal parking agreement for the visitor parking located on Lot 20, and (3) the development of a Property Owners Association. For this reason, staff is now working with the applicant on amending the CC&Rs. The existing CC&Rs are being presented to your Commission at this time for discussion purposes, your comments will then be considered in staff' s review and amendment of the CC&Rs. " Discussion on the three issues raised in regards to the CC&Rs. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson explained that at the earlier Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission' s main concerns were the maintenance of the landscaping at Gage Canal property, as well as the parking between the present commercial structure and this new structure and the Home Owner' s Association used as enforcement and those same concerns were still present. Discussion on the Gage Canal wanting to deal with the City of Grand Terrace and not the property owners. The City Attorney explained, after reviewing the minutes, that this issue was addressed in two ways. Either it was to be maintained by the City and the City charge back to the owners of the property or alternatively the owners of the property maintain it themselves. He further explained that the attorney for the applicant has provided him with draft language addressing all of the issues to accept Gage Canal . Vice-Chairman Hawkinson referred to the earlier Planning Commission meetings and it seemed to him that it was the advice of the past City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins, that it be done through the City. The Community Development Director explained the minutes reflected the previous City Attorney' s suggestion, Ivan Hopkins, that it be worked through the home owner' s association and then have the City direct the home owner' s association to contact the Planning Commission if there are any problems. 4 Chairman Hargrave explained that the City has not agreed to maintain the property with City personnel. One of the conditions the City has with the Gage Canal is to release the ingress/egress for development. The City has agreed to ultimately be responsible but are looking towards this development to eventually take over the responsibility from the City. The Community Development Director clarified that the City Council has approved the landscaping concept and has discussed the issue with the City being responsible. The City Attorney stated this issue is on the agenda for the City Council Meeting, September 22 , 1988 . He felt that the developer and himself would have reached an agreement which addresses all of the concerns prior to the City Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7 :23 P.M. 1. Bill Mauerhan (Developer) Terrace Pines Apartments 1601 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA. Mr. Mauerhan presented the project' s history of the CC&Rs dealing with Gage Canal and the City. He explained that his company was willing to landscape and irrigate if they were given the right of way by Gage Canal. However, Gage Canal did not want any private individual to do any work on the right of way. He explained the the other alternatives submitted to the previous City Attorney and the course of action he hopes to take with the new City Attorney. Chairman Hargrave asked Mr. Mauerhan if he had anything to add in regards to the three issues being proposed by the City. Mr. Mauerhan explained that lot 20 had numerous parking stalls. It has been requested by the Planning Department that guest parking be provided for the remaining units. He stated that he had no problem with that but did not want tenants to use as a storage area for R.V' s or boats. He stated that the maintenance of Gage Canal can be a problem for the developer in the extent that they would be trying to form an association on every one of the lots. He could not form a property owner' s association because they do not own anything. He stated that he would need to tie it into one of the other pieces of 5 property he owns. Discussion by the Planning Commission and the City Attorney relating to the concerns of the City to establish enforcement for the CC&Rs. The City would need to have input on the issue. Chairman Hargrave asked what would occur if the property was sold. Mr. Mauerhan explained that the CC&Rs ,would follow with the restriction that the one lot owner would be responsible for the maintenance. The language could be amended as such. Commissioner Munson asked about the landscaping responsibility. Mr. Mauerhan answered it would be his responsibility at the tract line between them and the Gage Canal property. That was not a condition of approval but he came in and offered to landscape if the City would maintain it. Commissioner Munson asked about the pro rating issue. Mr. Mauerhan stated that they were talking about setting up some type of reimbursement agreement to share the costs of primarily the Edison poles. The curb, gutter and paving were never really an issue but they thought that if it all got done at the same time they could set up some type of shared costs. However, since that never occurred he personally paid for the moving of the relocation of the power poles for about $90, 000 dollars. The Community Development Director clarified condition #46 of the Conditional Use Permit stated that the applicant " . . . shall improve the easterly side of Canal Street adjacent to the property all the way down to Barton Road as recommended by staff and must meet to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. " Vice-Chairman Hawkinson stated that he was referring to the costs of moving the Edison poles because he thought that there was suppose to be participation by future developers. The Community Development Director explained that was correct. He referred to condition #48 , which read " . . .the developer is required to construct improvements as specific in the report and enter into a reimbursement agreement and have the City collect the pro rata share for future developments as they occur and reimburse the 6 developer. " He did not know what the status was as to how that reimbursement came about with any future developers. He mentioned that the costs are being worked out on a staff level and is not really an issue of the CC&Rs. Discussion on condition #46 for clarification but does not specifically callout Gage Canal. However, combined with " . . .prior to the issuance of a building permit a langscaping, irrigation and lighting plan conforming to the requirements of Title 18 shall be approved by the Planning Commission, " plus that related to the landscaping plan approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council on November 7 , 1988 . Mr. Mauerhan pointed out that condition from the City Council Meeting on December 6 dealt with the improvements and landscaping that dealt with the landscaping within the tract. The other condition dealt with the paving, curb, gutter and power poles on Canal Street. They came back to the Planning Commission and it became an issue whether the City would want to get involved to maintain it. Chairman Hargrave asked if the City Engineer could comment on whether the easterly side, as in condition #46, met with his consent or approval. The City Engineer mentioned that pertains to the street improvements on the easterly side of Canal Street. If those plans have been approved then they include the installation of curb and gutter and the relocation of the poles. Therefore he did not see a problem. Discussion by the Planning Commission as to what steps they should take in regards to recommendations of the CC&Rs to the City Council or legality issues for the City on previous submitted CC&Rs for this project. The City Attorney explained that this item is strictly an information issue for the Planning Commission due to lack of the CC&Rs being approved by the previous City Attorney. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked the City Attorney if perhaps a special assessment district would not be more appropriate than CC&Rs. The City Attorney stated that may be still an effective means of doing what they are doing now. It would not be something they could do within the next couple of days under the assumption that they agreed to some language 7 for example that one condition states that one particular lot is responsible for providing the maintenance. It might make sense if all of the property owners agreed to form a small street lighting landscaping district and have the City do the maintenance and levy it against the property owner. That is a much simpler approach than forming a home owners association for that kind of single purpose maintenance item: He continued to explain that the difficulty with this is that the only type of maintenance that could be done in that situation is of publically owned property. Mr. Mauerhan explained that the Gage Canal right of way is owned by the City of Riverside with an underlying agreement to Gage Canal to be able to operate it. The City Attorney replied that may be a potential approach even though the issues can be addressed in the CC&Rs in order to expedite this matter quickly. However, in the short long run a district could be formed without too much cost. Discussion on the previous CC&Rs voted upon by the Planning Commission and the intention of the Commission. Chairman Hargrave pointed out that the parking issue was at that time a concern and how the parking would be shared and Mr. Mauerhaun' s concern of housing boats and RVs. The issue at that time was access to the area through the existing commercial center. He stated that the Planning Commission preferred at that point to have the traffic go around the front entrance and come back up the southerly canal and get on Barton Road. The property owner' s association issue was also discussed and the City Engineer offered the street lighting and landscaping district as a potential solution to the dilemma. Chairman Hargrave stressed that it would be a monumental mistake to attach all the upcare and expenses for that area to one particular site or one owner. Chairman Hargrave clarified the concensus of the present Planning Commission that all three issues are of major concern. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 7 :55 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7 :55 P.M. Item #4 8 SA-88-14 Ronald P. Dobson Single Family Residence 12713 Blue Mountain Court Grand Terrace, CA. The staff report was presented by the Associate Planner, Jeri Ram, with recommendations and conditions of approval submitted by staff, the Reviewing Agencies and the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the applicant read and understood the conditions for approval. Staff stated the applicant had been informed about the conditions. Discussion of septic usage in the project area. The City Engineer stated that it was on septic tank. He explained that the City allowed 1/2 acres to go on septic earlier in the moratorium. Discussion on current sewer code requirements. Discussion on the need to look at the grading plans in reference to drainage. Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission dealing with the flag lot regarding frontage. The Community Development Director explained that the concerns of the Fire Warden could be addressed by the location of the home and the existing driveway would have to be altered. These concerns are addressed in the conditions. Discussion on the fencing code and any need to set guidelines on what exists out there already. Some alternatives were discussed by the Community Development Director such as chain link or split rail fence. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Lynn Climack 7600 Amagate Place Riverside, CA. Mr. Climack questioned the size of the turnaround requested by the Fire Department. 9 The Community Development Director stated that there are two different types of official turnaround areas and he could refer to those on file in the Planning Department. It would require moving the driveway over to the west slightly to insure adequate room. Mr. Climack stated that the grading had already been completed earlier. He asked if grading plans were still required. The City Engineer stated that what he wanted to be sure of if there is a topo map that indicates what the drainage pattern is with respect to the location of the site. Mr. Climack stated that they preferred the split rail since the other fences in the general area were the same. The Community Development Director suggested leaving that open and stating that the requirement for a minimum 6 ' high fence be altered to allow lower profile with design to be determined by staff. Deliberation by the Planning Commission on changing the code requirement of a 6 ' fence. Discussion of placing horses in the large rear yard lot and necessity for some type of fencing other than split rail in that case. Also, discussion on the existing pad to be used for the proposed house. The Community Development Director mentioned that the Planning Commission go along with the 6 ' high fence as it states in the code. The appeal process is open to the applicant if he so desires. Discussion on the roofing material submitted by the applicant in accordance with the existing wood chip, shake, tile or filberglass of the surrounding houses. Discussion of the design features of the house as proposed by the applicant. Discussion by the Planning Commission that they would prefer seeing an upgraded asphalt roof or concrete style shingle. Discussion between the Planning Commission and the applicant on different costs for a composition shingle, concrete shingle roof or architectural asphalt shingle. 10 MOTION PCM-88-73 Commissioner Munson made the motion to amend the condition that the roofing material be upgraded to a grey 30 year compositign type roof with architectural relief, other than common composition shingle or wood shake shingle, to be approved by the Planning Department. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson second. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-73 Motion carried, all ayes. 4-0-3-0. Commissioners Buchanan, Hilkey and Sims absent. MOTION PCM-88-74 Vice Chairman Hawkinson made the motion to approve SA- 88-14 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Department and including the additional 5th condition as it relates to the roofing material . Chairman Hargrave second. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-74 Motion carried, all ayes. 4-0-3-0. Commissioners Buchanan, Hilkey and Sims absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8: 45 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8: 45 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Approved by, C David R. Sawyer, ommunity Stanley Ha grave Development Dire or Chairman Planning Commission 11