11/17/2005 i
I Community and Economic Development
[ALIfORNIA Department
22795 Barton Road
Grand Terrace
California 92313-5295 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
(909) 824-6621 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
November 17, 2005
The reqular meetinq of the Grand Terrace Planninq Commission was called to order
at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on
November 17. 2005, at 7:03 P.m., by Chairperson Douq Wilson.
PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson
Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson
Brian Whitley, Commissioner
Tom Comstock, Commissioner
Robert Bidney, Commissioner
Gary Koontz, Community Development Director
John Lampe, Associate Planner
Michelle Boustedt, Planning Secretary
ABSENT: None
7:03 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bidney
• Roll Call
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE
ITEMS:
1. CUP-05-06,
E-05-19: Applications filed for a 75-foot high "amateur radio antenna
structure" consisting of a tower-mast and "yagi" antenna.
APPLICANT: Hans Ehlert and Eleanor Keeling Ehlert
LOCATION: 22830 Lark Street (The subject site is located on the
northwesterly corner of the intersection of Lark Street and Crane
Street.)
1
l
RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, take testimony, close the Public
Hearing and approve the Resolution for Approval for CUP-05-06
and E-05-19 as recommended by Staff.
Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his staff report. The
matter has been continued from the Meeting of September the 15th of this year in order to
re-advertise the request. The Applicant modified his request to raise the tower to 75 feet.
This necessitated that we re-advertise the Public Hearing for the height of the antenna and
the tower mast to 75 feet.
During the discussion on the 15th of September, there was also a request on the part of the
Commission that Staff review other jurisdictions to see how amateur radio facilities are
regulated by other jurisdictions in the area. The Staff contacted several cities and one
County, by either searching via the internet or calling the Planning Departments of the
respective jurisdictions. We have prepared a table outlining some of the more salient
features of the Ordinance requirements of the eleven or so cities that we referenced.
Most of the ordinances that were referenced by the Applicant were from out of State.
Some were from New Jersey, Texas and Georgia. There was one ordinance from the City
of Newport Beach which was included in the table that was presented to the Commission.
The table was prepared to make some sense out of how various jurisdictions regulate
amateur radio operations. The City of Grand Terrace is not the only city that does not have
an ordinance that regulates amateur radio antenna operations. The City of Colton and
Loma Linda review on a case by case basis and requires some sort of discretionary review
process by their Planning Commissions.
The antenna is located on the easterly side of the corner lot on Crane Street and Lark
Street. The antenna was erected some time around the beginning of June of this year. A
stop work ordered was issued by the City's Building Department because a building permit
had not been issued for the structure. If the antenna were to be left at its present location,
the Applicant feels that there will be less impact to the neighbors to the north.
The tower mast does fall outside of the 15 foot required side yard that has been measured
from Crane Street. However, the antenna itself which has a 32 foot boom and 36 foot
antenna elements, when it is rotated to maximize the reception portions of the antenna
moves and goes out into the right of way of Crane Street.
The revised elevation shows the proposal for the 75 foot high tower mast. The tower
structure itself can be cranked up via a hand crank to a maximum of 55 feet. On top of the
mast is a whip antenna that can go up to a maximum height of 75 feet.
"The Staff feels that it would be beneficial to move the antenna to the back of the house in
the backyard so that the mass of the house would screen as much of the tower as possible.
In some ordinances that had been researched, it was suggested that towers be located
somewhere on the property where the visual impact to the neighborhood would be
minimized to the most extent possible. There were one or two ordinances that indicated
that one could not locate a tower on any yard that fronted on a street including the corner
side yard of a lot.
2
Staff is also recommending that the height of the tower be somewhat restricted. The
Applicant at that last hearing did point out a fact that he does have to crank the tower up a
bit to clear the chimney that is located at the west end of the house.
Should the antenna be moved to the backyard, it will come closer to the rear property line.
This will happen primarily when the antenna is rotated; it will come to within three to four
feet of the property line. When the antenna is at a resting position it will be within ten feet
of the property line. Although this recommendation is not the best, we feel that it is a fair
trade off in order to lessen the visual impact for the neighborhood.
As part of the application, the applicant did submit a paper that it would be better if the
tower be raised as much as possible to minimize the potential effect of interference with the
surrounding electronics in the neighborhood. Staff feels that the Applicant has not
submitted sufficient proof as to whether raising the tower will decrease any interference
with the neighbors electronic components such as televisions, radios, etc.
A recommendation was also made with regard to landscaping the rear yard that would be
designed to screen as much as possible the view of the tower.
Under the Environmental Quality Act, this project is classified as a Categorical Exemption
Class 3 accessory structure which is permitted for residential uses.
At the last meeting, there were questions with regard to the height of the existing mast
antenna. Upon field investigations, the Staff feels that the existing height has not changed.
Given the height of the house, the top of the roof is about twenty feet above the pad
elevation, the entire height at the top of the antenna mast is about 35 feet.
In conclusion, the Staff has recommended that the tower be moved to the rear of the houg
in the backyard along with sufficient landscaping to screen the antenna as much as
possible. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report.
Commissioner Bidney: Is the antenna a retractable antenna, and when not in use, what will
the height of the antenna will be?
Associate Planner Lampe: It would be retracted down to the minimum height which has
been shown on the elevation slide. Just above the roof line. It will be a little over 30 feet.
To my understanding, that's the retracted height.
Commissioner Whitley: The picture that was illustrated in the presentation shows the height
of 35 feet. Is the antenna in a partially raised position as illustrated?
Associate Planner Lampe: I am under the assumption that the antenna has been raised
five feet from its resting position.
Commissioner Comstock: In looking at the section of.the antenna where it says 30 feet,
does the antenna hang over the fence line into the sidewalk area.
Associate Planner Lampe: It's a little hard to tell in the photo, because of the perspective,
1' but looking at a different shot of it, it looks to me like its not over the fence line.
Vice Chair Addington: When the antenna is rotated will it pass over the public right of way.
3
Associate Planner Lampe: When the antenna is rotated, it will go over slightly into the
public right of way.
Vice Chair Addington: In the antenna's current location, when rotated, does the antenna
extend into any private property fences. And in the location that the Staff is proposing, will
the antenna extend into any private property fences.
Associate Planner Lampe: No.
Chair Wilson: At the current time there is no ordinance that governs the right of way
encroachment less than 15 feet. In other words, should the fire department come through
the area and the antenna should overhang into the public right of way, will there be an
ingress egress problem.
Planning Director Koontz: The antenna when rotated certain ways can encroach into the
public right of way but not the street right of way. So we have the parkway area and it does
look like it can encroach into the parkway.
Chair Wilson invited the Applicant to speak.
Eleanor Ehlert-Applicant
22830 Lark Street
wanted to start out, it seems like when we were here the last time, the members didn't
have the complete understanding of the process that we went through before we put the
antenna up, and so I have included with you a copy of the emails that our attorneys
assured us gave us the right to go up with the antenna.
If you look at the top it says, 'we have finished reviewing the City's Zoning Code, Section
1873.090 requires a Conditional Use Permit for among other things, radios other towers
exceeding the height limits of.the R1 Zone which is more than 35 feet.' And then it goes on,
it says, 'We propose the tower at 55; we needed to apply for a permit. We decided at that
point to stay at 35 feet. That's a decision we made, and we had contacted the City in
January. We didn't get a response in February, we sent an email, we got a response back,
they were looking, they still couldn't find anything that covered our particular problem, I
again sent another email and they said they still didn't have a response, but a couple of
days later they got back with this letter.
That's when we purchased the equipment, the tower, made the plans for the cement, and
you will notice I also included the analysis of the structure, pictures, the last page will have
pictures of the foundation, where the cement was poured where we followed the guidelines
for the State of California and I want you to know that we did crank up the antenna to show
a picture of the difference just strictly to take the pictures.
One of the other concerns at the last meeting was if there was interference, what the FCC
does. When there is interference, the FCC would send us a letter after a complaint with the
name, address and phone number of the person that's complaining, we would call them
and get in touch, and work out issues with them. As opposed to going through that, I sent a
letter to everyone that might be affected that 27 or 24 houses and gave them a copy with
our phone number, both numbers that they can call, obviously we're there, if we're using
the antenna, we have our cell phones available and our house phone, and would be more
than happy to accommodate any interference problems so that they don't have to wait for
4
the police to come or the FCC to contact us, they could just phone us, it's that easy. So
everyone did get a copy of this.
The last thing I would like to read into the minutes is that we looked at the recommendation
and we have a response to that, so I would like to read that.
Mrs. Ehlert read a copy of a letter that was addressed to the Planning Commissioners,and
the neighbors in the area.
Mark Cukota
22815 Kentfield Street
My property is located directly behind the property. My family and I have some serious
concerns about this antenna, especially if it is approved as Staff has recommended directly
behind the property because we are located to the point where it would be behind the
house. If the structural integrity of this tower was ever compromised, I have a four year old
son that plays in that back yard every day and if any part of that antenna was to fall, it could
cause catastrophic injuries. We have a major concern about this antenna behind that
particular property.
We also have concerns about the radio frequency power fields that this antenna may
radiate which could correspondingly cause negative health effects of those living in the
neighborhood. I spoke with a certified industrial hygienist who has informed me that the
negative health effects of this radiation really hasn't been determined by scientific study, but
there are some Scandinavians that have proven that some of these power fields could have
a negative health effect on those that live nearby.
I
Also, the structure is a visual nuisance and an eyesore in the neighborhood. The citizens in
our particular community are characterized by having a high pride of ownership in our
properties and so forth. The website for the City of Grand Terrace states that we have, and
counts our beautiful neighborhoods and so forth, and those of us that live in this community
try to keep it a nice place to live. I have spoken to several real estate professionals also
that deal with properties in this particular area, and they have said that this antenna will
probably have negative property value on the street of those of the street that are effected.
I know we have one home for sale right now directly across the street. I have a friend I work
with who lives in Corona, who I've told about the property, and he drove by last week and
he said that he would not consider making an offer as long as that tower is erected across
the street. So the only concern with maintaining and increasing-the property values here in
the City, these are the kind of issues that we will have to look at and turn down.
I have also talked to several ham radio operators who I work with, and they say that they
communicate with others around the world with a much smaller less intrusive antenna than
this, so I'm not saying not to accommodate ham radio licensed operators and so forth, I'm
just saying to accommodate their use, you might want to think about improving a smaller
antenna instead of one quite this large.
I'm really concerned about the construction of this antenna. The high winds that come
through this area, and if that tower was ever be compromised to fall, it would cause
catastrophic injury and it effects the health and safety of the neighborhood. Thank you.
5
Lindy Ward
22825 Kentfield Street
The house directly behind the Ehlert's is our home. If you look at the landscaping in the
tJ photo right there, all of those palm trees and the trees around there, those were
landscaped by us. We have put significant amount of money into our landscape in our back
yard and I have photos which I have brought last time and I brought some more also where
at the 35 foot height, you can see what it looks like from our back yard.
Mrs. Ward passed out photos to the Commission that illustrated the tower from the
vantage point of her back yard.
Like Mr. Cukota had mentioned, if that tower is moved behind the Ehlert's home, (I heard
the comment by Mr. Lampe that it would be a compromise,) I'm sorry that is not a
compromise, that is a worse case scenario for us. The property line that you spoke about
of putting within three feet, that's my property line, that is right over my swimming pool. I
have brought photos of our swimming pool is right on the other side of that wooden fence
that you see.
also have young children. My husband and I bought this home for the aesthetic quality of
the back yard. I have with me two different petitions, we only went to the most immediate
neighbors and I would like to say that I have 18 signatures here. Not one neighbor around
this home was not eager to jump out and sign this petition. We have two petitions, one that
basically says that we are asking. We realize that there are regulations that allow ham
radio operators to have antennas; however, we do have a statement from our legislation
that says a City or County which may not restrict antennas or support structures of amateur
radio operators of two heights of 70 feet or lower unless the restriction is necessary to
achieve a clearly defined health, safety or aesthetic objective of the City or County. We are
asking that this City because we do not have a proposal that limits any of these heights and
we've got petitions here singed and many more that are out that are not here this evening,
we have many more out from neighbors and if I need to I will get them from the citizens of
Grand Terrace, as well as every neighbor that I went to, and every that everyone else went
to said if you want me to I will take these out to get more_signatures asking the City Council
of this City to adopt an ordinance that will not allow this monstrosity in every back yard,
once you allow this one. Every back yard can now have one of those because you are
setting a precedent.
I have a double fold here, because I just recently purchased some more property in Grand
Terrace. My husband and I purchased an acre and a half and we would like to build, so
now we're looking at if you adopt this ordinance, we're not just looking at one home we
have invested in this City, we're looking at basically our savings are invested in this city and
what the ordinances are that you allow to go up with these towers and allow...I have lived
in Grand Terrace basically all of my life, and we have stayed here because of the aesthetic
quality. We've got one house up for sale, my understanding is that a gentleman came back
two or three times and finally, like Mr. Cukota said, a different person just sat there and
questioned what is that thing in that man's yard. We would like to again, build in this City,
which means that my house will have to go on the market or I have family will have to live
there. Regardless, we're talking young children in the back and your talking three feet from
my fence line is going to be a 75 foot structure that could, you could not guarantee me it will
never break, or a portion of it will not-break off.
6
The only thing I could liken it to is I drove down onto Cooley Ranch recently and I drove
around, and the only thing I could liken it to is the huge McDonalds sign or the huge
Denney's sign down on Cooley Ranch down off of Washington. I thought how would be
- people like that in their back yard. You're talking about three feet from my property line.
Gene La Rochelle
22820 Lark Street
The City of Poway, California had a ham radio antenna issue that went on for four years for
a fifty foot tower, now as far as I know; the property down there is acreage. They finally
settled with the guy for a 34 foot tower. Now we're talking acreage here, we're not talking
about a corner lot with an encroachment in a public right of way and if something happened
to that, it's liable to fall over and hurt a citizen or block the street.
This brings me to another subject that was talked about earlier. RF contamination or
radiation to the individuals that live around there. The University of Texas has a whole
formulary on their web site of the safe distance from a radio tower, and since Mr. Hans has
already admitted that the outbreak of outside federal law over 100 watts last meeting, which
that's all he is allowed to is 100 watts, I think he said 150 watts or 200 watts at the last
meeting, that says what he was operating at and his licensed is only to be 100 watts. Go to
the FCC and take a look, unless you have some special exemption. I was at the web site
today.
It brings me to the number three. It would be nice if he landscaped his lawn. , It would be a
civic improvement. I think we should take a bond on that also, and that it stays watered.
Thank you.
Bobbie Forbes
11850 Burns Avenue
I am the listing agent for the house on Crane Street. That homeowner is in the audience
tonight. One of the first people that came to the first open house that I did works for the
military in Corona and within about 60 seconds of being in the house, he asked about the
tower. He did look at that property three times that day; I took him out and showed him
other property, and this I will have to assume from his conversation that he was not
interested in their beautiful home because of the tower. He wanted to know what else was
allowed. if that would be allowed in the neighborhood. We have had two open houses there
and I have probably had three out of about 15 people come and make comments about the
tower. And most everyone else that has been to the open house does live in town, so
some people are somewhat aware of it because of the news.
She made a comment about having the power lines near her house. When you buy a
house, you see the power lines; they are already there, so you know what you're buying.
When someone ups a tower such as this, they didn't have any choice, they didn't buy the
house with it there, now when Tim and Lori's house sells and we do get to sell it, those
people will make the decision that the tower is there so they will know. I guess that's
basically all that I have to say, but I know that there is talk in town about this situation. I
have talked to some other ham radio antenna operators in town that have their house for
sale and they don't have such a big tower and her comment to me was even though she's a
ham radio operator, she would not be happy living near that particular tower because of it's
size. Thank you.
7
Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission.
Commissioner Comstock: Mr. Chairman, I will move that we deny CUP-06-06 and E-05-19
based upon aesthetics and health and safety issues.
Vice Chair Addington: I will second that but I would like to add to the denial regarding the
letter of September 11th written by Hans and Eleanor Ehlert where they are refusing to
accept six conditions of approval for this project.
Chair Wilson: Alright, we have a move for a denial and a second. I would like to open it up
for discussion and have a couple of questions of staff. Structural integrity, I do.not see as
an issue here as long we've got a building and safety department that reviews the
engineering involved in this particular structure. It is an accessory structure classed by Staff
and as long as it is structurally sound, it can be approved thus by a review of an engineer
qualified to do that, I believe that this could not be classified as an issue. I would like to
understand Staffs understanding.
Planning Director Koontz: You have the right make any findings that you see fit. In this
case, we did send the structural calculations over to Willdan for their review. We did
provide a copy and Mr. Addington has reviewed it. They had a lot of comments on it and in
their opinion, the way it looks, the existing foundation is not sound and does not meet the
standards, so other than that, we can run it through building and safety and they can plan
check things. Is anything 100% guaranteed to be structurally safe? No. So we cannot
guarantee that if it is approved that there's absolutely nothing that can possibly happen to it.
Chair Wilson: That's understandable, I do know that we have requirements for buildings,
accessory structures within the City, those items would have to be met, and would have to
reviewed by an engineer. If you elected to approve the project, there are definitely
conditions in there that will be going back to building and safety.
Chair Wilson: What is the height that is now being applied for now because I see what we
are looking at is a resolution and I do also note Vice Chair Addington's discussion about the
heights that were in the other letter, at a point, it was brought forth with the understanding
that 35 foot height, the discussion from the applicant was that they appeared to be settled
with a 35 foot height, but I am not still positive as to what height we are talking about.
Associate Planner Lampe: Mr. Chairman, if I may, remember at the last meeting of
September the 15th, we had to continue that because the Applicant came in with this
drawing showing the height of the tower mast and a whip antenna on top of 75 feet. So to
answer your question, it is my understanding what we're considering tonight is the
Applicant's request as relayed to the Planning Commission at the last meeting was to have
ability to raise the tower mast and whip antenna on top to a total height of 75 feet.
Chair Wilson: It is your understanding that the Applicant is not willing to accept the
Conditions the way they stand.
Associate Planner Lampe: Yes.
Chair Wilson: My understanding, and you can clarify this for us, is that an accessory
structure, although I see the legislation in relation to ham radio operation and so on, the
8
local agency does have some jurisdiction in relation to how the accessory structure is
placed.
- Planning Director Koontz: Yes. That's our understanding.
Chair Wilson: Does anyone else have anything that they would like to discuss.
Vice Chair Addington: One question, the review letter on the structural review of the tower,
has that been returned to the applicant or the applicant's engineer for review.
Associate Planner Lampe -This was not a formal plan check; we did not include that in the
package that went to the Planning Commission so we didn't return it to the Applicant.
Planning Director Koontz: At the last meeting, one of the issues was brought up was that
the foundation was engineered to standards. We just took what was given for those
standards and asked our plan checkers is this correct, do these meet the standards. They
came back and said that there were several things that don't meet the standards or things
that are not here that we still need.
Vice Chair Addington: And after reviewing it, I can understand why they have concerns.
Chair Wilson: Realistically though, we could actually condition any standards in relation to
this project.
Planning Director Koontz: Yes.
Chair Wilson: I think that there has been a discussion in relation to public works or basically
the antenna. I think the applicant mentioned something about overhead wires and things in
so far as power transformers nearby. And I would agree that there are unsightly overhead
lines by the way, most power companies that they would much rather have the overhead
lines rather than the underground lines although I am aware of the fact that most
jurisdictions carry an udnergrounding ordinance just because of that, because of the
unsightliness of overhead wiring and so that's because of the fact that the overhead
facilities exist, there's not really a justification for the unsightliness but rather that its
grandfathered in because it existed prior to those ordinances and now there are
undergrounding ordinances that are meant to take care of those kinds of circumstances.
My most serious question is did we get a chance to take a look at the CC&R's for this
development.
Planning Director Koontz: I don't believe that we could find those.
Chair Wilson: The reason why I asked that is because ordinarily in CC&R's or within the
community itself in so far as heights of buildings, they are usually specified within the
tentative tract conditions and ordinarily the reason why those heights are specified, say 25
to 28 feet maximum height because there is a concern about what a project is going to look
like if you had for an example three story buildings within a two story scenario. Those
height limitations are there for a reason. They apply to the housing and therefore, by
association apply to accessory structures as well. So one could easily determine that an
accessory structure should not be any higher or within a reasonable amount say 10% of the
height of the building itself. I would guess that standard heights for two story units do not
exceed at least in the time frame that these houses were built, 26 feet. What's being asked
tonight is for us to approve a use that is say 3 to 4 feet higher in this resolution, but on top
9
of that the Applicant is not in agreement with this height requirement, so I believe we have
a real disparity in relation to what can be allowed within this residential neighborhood
whether it's an antenna, which is classified as an accessory structure or a building unit. I
want to bring that forward because there are no other further comments, I would like to
request a vote.
Commissioner Whitley: One other question. There was a comment made about other ham
radio antennas in the community and relative to the size. Does Staff know what other
antennas there are and a sense of approximate size and why this one might be larger, if
that is in fact the case?
Associate Planner Lampe: We don't have a list of ham radio operators in town, but I do
know at least one person who came to the last meeting and identified herself as a ham
radio operator. I was looking at her property and I could not find anything that looked like
the subject matter that's before you this evening, so I think it depends somewhat on what
wave lengths you're transmitting on and receiving on what size of an antenna you have.
We called a couple of so called experts to get advice as the size of this Yagi antenna and
what could be approved that could be just as efficient as what is proposed this evening.
We were told that based on the wave length that Mr. Ehlert has chosen to transmit and
receive on, this would be the most efficient antenna. So to answer your question, we do
not have a list of the operators in town but we do know that within 1,500 to 1,800 feet there
is an existing tower antenna the individual has told us that he has put it up before the City
Incorporated and the antenna is a non conforming use. This individual has let his FCC
license lapse and he does not use it for ham radio purposes but it is a structure somewhat
similar to what's proposed this evening.
Chair Wilson: I would like to clarify one other item that was brought up by the Applicant
was that there was quite a bit of notice, and I do know that we are busy but there was quite
a bit of notice in relation to this particular project. However, a unilateral notice at that does
not constitute a permit to be able to construct. That is the reason why this item is before us
at this point.
Associate Planner Lampe: Are you talking about the original discussions we had with Mr.
Ehlert about the tower antenna?
Chair Wilson: Yes.
Associate Planner Lampe: It was my understanding that it was going to be 55 feet high and
that's what I said in the email to him. I don't recall him ever saying that it was going to be
35 feet or less. And the quotes clearly states that a structure over 35 feet is going to
require a Conditional Use Permit which requires a public hearing before the planning
Commission.
Chair Wilson: Well my understanding John, on top of that, is that it also requires a building
permit.
Associate Planner Lampe: Right. And in our discussions, I didn't repeat that in the email,
but in our discussions, I told him that we did not have current ordinance that regulated ham
radio and we were going to have to sit and think about it and figure it out, but under any
L= circumstances he was going to be required to have a building permit for this, I told him that
no matter what the Zoning entitlement was.
10
INAUDIBLE
Chair Wilson: Excuse me. We are done with the Public Hearing. Thank you.
Associate Planner Lampe: I told him he would have to have a building permit.
Chair Wilson: Okay. I thought that was clear to begin with. Any other further discussion.
Commissioner Bidney: I didn't get over to the building department to ask them, but in all of
the other cities that I have ever done any work in, they require a building permit for $50.0.0
Dollars worth of construction, and asking the Planning Commission those kinds of
questions is not proper really because you need a building permit if you do a flat sidewalk,
you need a building permit if it's over $50.00 dollars or $100.00 dollars, and that's usually
what happens in most cases, and here we've got a 5 X 5 foot square five foot tall structure
of concrete, we're talking about a pretty good size contract with at least five yards of
concrete in it, and anybody would know that if it is a structure that size that you should have
a permit or go to the building department and find out what you need. And the other thing
that I am asking staff is that they do not want to comply with any of the Conditions that we
have, is that correct?
Associate Planner Lampe: They have indicated that they are not happy with our
recommendation to put it in the back of the property and restrict the height to what is less
than what they are.requesting. The last hearing, they said they objected to the requirement
for the landscaping in the back for additional visual screening in the backyard, so it is my
understanding that they object to the preponderance of the conditions.
Chair Wilson: Thank you. I would like to clarify the motion.
Planning Secretary Boustedt: I have it written for aesthetics, health and safety, and Vice
Chair Addington added the letter dated 9/11, refusal to accept conditions of approval.
Chair Wilson: Do we have any further discussion.
MOTION PC-44-2005: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to deny CUP-06-06
and E-05-19 based upon aesthetics, health and safety issues.
Vice Chair Addington seconded the motion and wanted to
include his denial based upon the letter dated September 11,
2005, that was written by the Applicants refusing to accept six
conditions of approval for the project.
MOTION VOTE
PC-44-2005: Approved 4-0-0-1
Chair Wilson Abstained
ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING 7:55 om
11
CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION
• Information to Commissioners
Planning Director Koontz announced Richard Garcia; the new planning assistant has
been hired.
• Information from Commissioners
Vice Chair Addington asked what the status of Miguel's Restaurant was.
Planning Director Koontz replied that Miguel's is in final plan check status.
The house located on' the Miguel's property will be demolished within the next couple of
weeks. The vacant house has been used as squats for teenagers and has become a
problem.
Vice Chair Addington asked for the status of the office building next to City Hall.
Planning Director Koontz replied that the office building issues have been resolved, the
plans are done and everything for the building is in final plan check.
Vice Chair Addington asked what the status of the OAC was.
Planning Director Koontz replied that there were some interchange issues. Those issues
r
have been resolved. A development agreement is currently being worked on.
Vice Chair Addington asked what the status was of the Valero Gas station.
Planning Director Koontz replied that Staff has not heard anything from the Applicant.
Chair Wilson asked with regard to La Cadena where the improvements from the City of
Colton stop and the start within the Grand Terrace area. What is happening with regard to
the paving the in the area.
Planning Director Koontz replied that Steve Berry, the Assistant City Manager has been
working with Colton Public Works department to try to improve the area.
ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:05 PM
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 15, 2005
Respectfully Submitted, Approved By,
r' Gary Iontz, PIS Director Doug Wilson, Chairman
` - Planning Commission
12