Loading...
01/18/2001 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR,MEETING - ) JANUARY 18, 2001 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 January 18, 2001, at 7:02 p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice-Chairperson Matthew Addington, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Director of Community and Economic Development Pat Groeneveld, CEDD Secretary ABSENT: Mary Trainor, Commissioner 7:012 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • 1 Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Addington • Roll Call • i Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Community Development Director. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE • This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item, which is not on i the agenda for this meeting. ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION { PC-01-2001 Motion was made by Chairperson Van Gelder to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson. MOTION VOTE PC-01-2001 Motion approved 3-0-0-1. Commissioner Trainor absent. 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 21, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION Motion made by Chairperson Van Gelder to approve the PC-02-2001 minutes of the December 21, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Van Gelder noted approving the minutes was confirmation by the Commissioners that the December 21, 2000, Planning r Commission Meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum. Commissioner Addington seconded motion. MOTION VOTE PC-02-2001 Motion approved 2-0-1-1. Commissioner Wilson abstaining and Commissioner Trainor absent. 3. CUP-99-01 Applications for a Conditional Use Permit, Site SA-99-05 and Architectural Review and Environmental E-99-06 Review to operate and expand the facilities for self un-loading trailer manufacturing, repair and sales. APPLICANT: Thatcher Engineering and Associates (Lee Swertfeger, Owner) LOCATION: 12438 Michigan Street Grand Terrace CA 92313 f RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions 2 S Director Materassi stated that it was a good idea to add a condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit a progress report related to the NPDES Regulations. The City has just adopted an ordinance that requires us to monitor and enforce NPDES regulations. Director Materassi reported the absence of John Lampe due to surgery. With that, Director Materassi gave a summary of Mr. Lampe's report. Director Materassi reported that the applicant is requesting approval to continue operating his truck repair facility and to operate a specialized manufacturing of self- unloading trailers. The business started in 1968 when the property was bought. The property was zoned as M-1 and all industrial uses were permitted. A few years later, the area was re-zoned, M-R, which is restricted manufacturing. After the city incorporated, the property was re-zoned to CM, which at the time was light manufacturing. Later, the CM was changed to become more commercial and all the C-2 (Commercial Retail Business) uses were incorporated into the CM to become a complete light manufacturing and commercial district. While this is a light industrial use located close to residential areas, it has the right to be there, provided it meets code. There are three phases to the project. The first phase includes bringing the area up to code with all of the necessary paved access and parking for the existing facilities and with repair of buildings that house the manufacturing aspect of the business. Phase two consists of a 6,000 square foot building. Phase three consists of an additional 6,000 square foot building. The first phase will also include a fifteen-foot wide landscape setback. The landscaping would incorporate an eight-foot high, wrought iron fence with pilasters and trees. Also included is landscaping along the north fence, which is adjacent to the residential area with vines and trees. Landscaping along the west and south sides of the property will also be included. The project would be bounded with landscaping as much-as possible to improve both the internal and external appearance of the project. Mr. Swertferger would like to request the Planning Commission to handle the design review of the proposed buildings from a staff level. Mr. Swertferger submitted photos of similar buildings that have already been approved by the Commission in the industrial areas. Additional improvements to the site will include compacted paved area for the parking, storage and display of trailers, which shall be completed within two years of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. A condition of approval requires that only new and reconditioned trailers can be displayed in the front of the site. Landscaping and an eight- foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters will be installed along the set back area along Michigan Street and additional landscaping on the boundaries of the site as shown on the preliminary landscaping plan. These improvements will need to be done within two years of the conditional use permit. 3 One of the major issues of this project was grading. Normally, the City requires the t' drainage to flow towards the street. The project is 4.5 acres with a slope that does not go into the direction of the street. The City Engineer and Public Works Director worked for a couple of years talking to all the adjacent property owners, none of which want any additional drainage on their properties. The resolution was to propose a detention basin. On the westerly side of the property, there is a triangular shaped detention basin where the water would stop there coming from sheet flow, so it would not impact the adjacent property. The grading plans were conceptually approved and accepted by the City Engineer and the Public Works Director. The project did come to the Planning Commission in 1998. The Planning Commission approved the project on a temporary basis, subject to several conditions at that time. The applicant did comply with all conditions and has become aware of the health and fire- codes. For instance, dirt should not drain into the street; therefore, the site will be paved with asphalt or slag. The applicant has therefore become very aware of, and has taken special attention to the environment. The applicant has also obtained all the needed permits from the health department and has cleaned up most of the property with significant improvements. The applicant has also obtained a business plan from the small business center in Riverside and was issued a temporary approval for a DMV license from staff. He is one of a few authorized dealers in Southern California for the unloading trailers and will be able to receive a permanent license in March, should he meet all of the conditions of the Planning Commission set forth tonight. Noise is one condition that needs to be noted for the project. If there are two or more complaints from adjacent residences, the applicant will be required to provide an acoustical noise study and mitigate for the excessive noise. The Commission may regulate paving, landscaping, and signage, but regulate the noise factor A noise study is required which the applicant is responsible for in case complaints are received. Commissioner Van Gelder asked a question with regard to a report submitted by the Riverside Highland Water Company. Would the project be impacted by the future widening of Michigan? Director Materassi replied that the Riverside Highland Water Company will install street improvements for the well site within a couple of years for which they were given a deferral. Mr. Swertferger also has a couple of years in which to finish his improvements. It is Director Materassi's hopes that both parties will each have the street improvements put in place at the same time. Commissioner Addington raised a question with regard to the acoustical study. Would the City have noise thresholds in place that would indicate what the applicant would have to do with the results of the study? Director Materassi replied that the City uses the County Noise Ordinance standards. i Noise Studies are conducted from adjacent residential back yards and cannot exceed 4 7 more than 55 dba's or the ambient noise level. Both the ambient noise level and noise of the site in operation are calculated. The ambient noise level is due to the freeways, train yards and other on-going noise. The same study was done for Inland Timber. Commissioner Addington asked a question with regard to a NPDES permit. Does it include the applicant's post construction, storm water pollution prevention plan or will the applicant need an additional Condition for it? Director Materassi replied that the State Water Quality Board has given the City the responsibility of issuing the NPDES Permits for sites up to five acres. This responsibility is mandated and with no assistance from the State. She suggested asking the applicant if they have prepared this plan. Commissioner Wilson suggested that if the City doesn't comply with NPDES' requirements, or if the project does not comply, then the City and the applicant can be fined and the City may turn around and sue the applicant who caused the City to be fined in the first place. Commissioner Wilson further stated that because he knew the nature of the business, the working on trailers would require some welding and manufacturing which would consist of solvents, paints and oils which would drain down to the detention basin. Commissioner Wilson wanted to know if the engineer had communicated how the issue would be handled and if these plans had been submitted to the Health Department? Commissioner Wilson raised a second question for the engineer with regard to the dangerous implications of storage of acetylene tanks and the like. Director Materassi commented that it was a good idea to find this information out, and inform Commissioner Wilson that it has been left up to the Hazardous Materials Division of the County Fire Department which has approved an emergency response plan for this site. Commissioner Wilson asked where another eight-foot wall exists within the City. He felt that a wall of this size would be magnificent. Director Materassi replied that the wall would actually be a fence of wrought iron with pilasters. This fence would also be lined with landscaping to provide a screen so that the residents could not see into the project from the other side of the street. Commissioner Wilson asked if the City had ever received complaints in relation to this project other than the early enforcement issues as far as noise. Director Materassi replied no complaints were filed within the last year. Commissioner Van Gelder invited the engineer and the applicant of the project to speak to the Commission. s Bud Thatcher Thatcher Engineering - 12438 Michigan Street Mr. Thatcher greeted the Commission and reported that the project's "Conditions of Approval" were read and agreed to by him and Mr. Swertferger. Mr. Thatcher stated that they recognize that there may be some solvents and oils that will be washed down to the detention basin. Efforts will be made to install a sand trap or a fossil filter at the entrance to the basin; the water would therefore be filtered before it reaches the basin; and this will be implemented into the final design. Mr. Swertferger has informed Mr. Thatcher that he is current with his emergency response plan as far as the welding supplies, gasoline and flammables with the Fire Department. Mr. Swertferger keeps the emergency response plan on file and will have to be upgraded as the project expands. Commissioner Addington asked Mr. Thatcher if he has done a preliminary analysis to see if the basin will sufficiently hold all the runoff from the site. Mr. Thatcher replied the preliminary studies were done and filed-with the City. The City Engineer reviewed the study and accepted it. Commissioner Addington asked Mr. Thatcher asked if the outlet is sufficient enough that it wouldn't cause downstream erosion. Mr. Thatcher replied yes it was. Mr. Lee Swertferger thanked the Commission for their assistance. MOTION PC-03-2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Wilson to approve the application with the amended condition: "The applicant is required to forward a copy of the report as written by the County Health Department, Hazardous Division for the file on a periodic basis." Motion was seconded by Commissioner Addington MOTION VOTE Motion approved 3-0-0-1. PC-03-2001 Commissioner Trainor absent. MOTION PC-04-2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Addington to approve CUP-99-0l/SA-99-05/E-99-06 with the amended conditions. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wilson 6 9 i MOTION VOTE Motion approved 3-0-0-1. PC-04-2001 Commissioner Trainor absent. 7:29 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING, COMMISSION MEETING 7:29 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION Is Information from Commissioners Commissioner Addington requested an update on the empty lot at the corner of Mt. Vernon and Barton Road. Director Materassi, reported the City Manager, the developer, the broker and she met in early January. The City offered a loan to improve the property — removal of the existing fence, installation of a block wall, regrading of the property and ground cover (mulch) for dust control. The broker accepted and will provide a bid by January 19th. The developer is open for the City to choose a contractor, complete the work and put a lien on the property. The lien would be paid at the time the property is developed. The developer, however, has _requested changes to the terms of the Site and Architectural review. Currently Rite Aid will not release him from the terms of their agreement. A lawsuit has been filed and he hopes to win/settle so that a new tenant can be secured. Until the matter is resolved, the developer is looking to decrease the cost of the site development. He has asked to be released from installing colored pavers in favor of brushed concrete, a $30,000, difference in price and to be released from building the staging area on the corner including a gazebo and the City sign, which will cost another $30,000. The developer noted tenants prefer colored, brushed concrete to pavers for ease of maintenance. Ms. Materassi, though understanding the developer's viewpoint, feels that the loss of texture and special project features may affect the overall package. If changes to the approved plans are significant, the matter will have to come before the Commission. The developer is very optimistic about his development in Grand Terrace because of additional traffic the Spring Mountain Ranch project will bring to the City. Commissioner Addington stated he personally would like to see the gazebo stay, but felt a colored, stamped concrete that matched the intersection would be a good compromise and also eliminate potential maintenance problems. Chairperson Van Gelder and Director Materassi feel that the intersection of Mt. Vernon and Barton Road is unattractive. Director Materassi advised the intersection was originally approved for pavers. Because of noise, cost and other considerations, pavers were substituted for colored concrete. Chairperson Van Gelder provided an update on group homes. The Chairperson noted that i group homes should be a place for the convenience and satisfaction of the needs of our County and not necessarily to satisfy the needs of other counties. A new application process is in development. All applicants will file with the County Probation Department. The County will approve or disapprove the application based on the overall needs of the county. After the County has approved the application, the State will evaluate the application for licensing, hopefully using the requested requirement of maintaining a distance of 300 feet between facilities. This will reduce or eliminate group homes being centered in specific areas or serving populations not related to the county. Chairperson Van Gelder asked on the status of the Planning Commissioner open position. Director Materassi stated the application deadline is January 19. Seven to eight applications were distributed, but at the beginning of the week no applications had been submitted to the City Clerk. However, interested parties were seen in City Hall and it is hoped there will be several individuals for the Council to evaluate for an appointment to the Planning Commission. Information to Commissioners Director Materassi referred the Commissioners to documentation provided in their packets and additional data provided at the start of the meeting regarding the Spring Mountain Ranch Project. A map was provided showing the location of the proposed 1500 unit project. The project opens up Pigeon Pass Road to Moreno Valley and aligns Pigeon Pass Road with Mount Vernon. This would allow all the traffic from Riverside — Moreno Valley, Riverside County —to access the l `J freeway through Grand Terrace! At the time the Circulation Element was studied and approved, it was known that by 2015 Mount Vernon would become deficient in terms of levels of service (LOS). Currently, Mount Vernon has about 14,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT's); in 2015, it's predicted to rise to 24,000 ADT's due to normal traffic increase in the general area. Craig Nuestaedter, the Traffic Engineer, did not consider the Spring Mountain Ranch project during the approval process for the Circulation Element. He predicted, at that time, that 9000 ADT's would be added to Mount Vernon in case Pigeon Pass Road is connected to Moreno Valley. A four lane (two lanes in each direction) undivided arterial has the capacity of 25,000 trips per day. However, at Level of Service "C", per the Grand Terrace General Plan's requirement, Mount Vernon would carry only 20,000 ADT's. If the Spring Mountain Ranch Project were approved, Mount Vernon would have to be six lanes wide to maintain Service Level "C". Mount Vernon is completely developed, not allowing additional traffic lanes. Staff has sent comments to the County of Riverside on a variety of project-related issues, but the opening of Pigeon Pass Road as a through way to Mount Vernon and 1-215 is a major issue. Staff suggested to the County that Main Street could be designated as the main arterial and a grade crossing separation for cars and trains be built as part of the project requirement. s _ Commissioner Addington asked if Center Street was considered. Director Materassi replied that Center Street, like Columbia and Palmyrita, would also require at grade crossings. The project designers have designated Mount Vernon, as they would not have to make an investment in grade crossing separations. Commissioner Addington responded that although he couldn't speak for other Commission members, upgrading Mount Vernon to a six lane highway to accommodate the_project's traffic would be difficult to get passed by the Planning Commission, much less City Council. Director Materassi expressed her concern that the County Planning Department was not responding in the usual manner to our concerns and comments. Four separate sets of comments have been sent, with no reply. The Director noted this behavior is unusual. Planners from separate jurisdictions normally work well together resolving concerns for any/all planning issues. The Spring Mountain Ranch Project appears to have significant political support and County planners appear to have been given a very specific direction. There is every indication this project would have a detrimental effect on the traffic in Grand Terrace. The Director stated . she feels compelled to lead a lobbying effort to alert the citizens about the impacts of this project on the City. Director Materassi noted that there were a number of adjustments that could be made to City streets to encourage traffic to bypass the City, like delay traffic signal lights; but those actions could lead to litigation and negate the positive economic impact of the project. While our commercial corridor can profit from additional 5 to 10,000 ADT's on non-peak hours, commuter traffic above said volumes will have a significant adverse effect in the long run. Director Materassi has asked SANBAG to help Staff in supporting comments to County planning staff and hopes to receive SANBAG's support. Commissioner Addington asked when the Specific Plan was scheduled to go to the Riverside County Planning Commission. As yet, the screen check environmental impact report is still being routed, so no date has been set. The Director reported that a Scoping Meeting was held on January 17. Staff did not understand the scheduling of a Scoping Meeting at this juncture in the environmental review. County staff advised John Lampe that this is a new method of expediting projects. Grand Terrace staff has not seen any reference to this process. Director Materassi again expressed her concern. All City department heads have participated in reviewing specific sections of the project, as this is a major undertaking. Planning acted as the coordinator and presented the comments to the County. However, no response has been received. Normally, planners acknowledge receipt of comments and commit to addressing concerns. Planners want to follow the code. It is a tradition of loyalty to predecessors and.to the Zoning Law. This ensures implementation of the real intent of the law and respects the citizens that participate in the formulation of local law. For planners to deviate from the norm suggests they may be receiving very strong direction. That is not necessarily good for the City of Grand Terrace. 9 l2 Commissioner Addington asked if tentative tract maps were being filed concurrently. Director i Materassi stated they were including six (6) maps relating to the project. Staffs response includes comments made to the County planners about habitat and preservation. The City Engineer reviewed the tract map that is the northeasterly portion of the project, which goes through the toe of Blue Mountain. Grading and building goes up to 1500-1600 feet. Staff commented that Grand Terrace is preserving Blue Mountain above 1300 feet in elevation, and requested that the developer, if not preserving the land, at least use lower densities with land form grading following the contours with no slopes over a given height. Staff sent very detailed comments, asking that this particular tract be redesigned. Commissioner Addington asked if preliminary conditions of approval were issued with the tract maps. Director Matarassi answered no. The Commissioner then remarked that then we have no idea what may be conditioned in Riverside County, nor do we know if they care. Director Materassi advised the Specific Plan sets out the development code for this project. The Specific Plan is a miniature Zoning Code for the particular project; therefore, the Specific Plan sets the standards for the tract maps. The problem is that the tract maps are not following the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan reads well; but when you compare it to the tract map, the maps do not follow the recommendations in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Addington remarked that the way he interpreted what staff provided is that the project planners are trying to upgrade Mount Vernon Road within San Bernardino County, outside their jurisdiction. Director Materassi responded that the County planners did not say that they want to enlarge Mount Vernon to six lanes. It is not included in their mitigation measures. However, they are planning for 37,000 cars on Mount Vernon, and Mount Vernon, at level "C", -� can handle only 20,000 cars, according to our Circulation Element Standards. Somewhere there is a plan for either making Mount Vernon very congested or increasing it to six lanes, but they have not assumed either in the Traffic Study - it doesn't say that. Staff asked Craig Neustaedter to review the Traffic Study. The letter from Director Materassi to the County incorporates Craig Nuedstaedter's review. Staffs letter clearly states all the details that were incorrect in the developer's traffic study and requires additional intersections to be analyzed and additional roads to be considered for at-grade crossings. The Director stated City staff did a thorough review. If the County planners do what they are supposed to, the City will be in good shape. If they don't, then it will become a lobbying and political issue. Commissioner Wilson noted that if the Specific Plan is approved and they can demonstrate some reasonable mitigation in relation to traffic, it would go through. Our concerns will be pretty much dead in relation to the way the property is used. The Commissioner also asked who the case planner was. Director Materassi replied that James Quirk is the case planner. Staff has not yet established direct contact with county management staff. Commissioner Wilson stated he honestly thought what would be best, speaking personally, was to plan on getting a "war chest" together in relation to a law suit, because this won't slow down. The Commissioner noted it sounded like whoever is behind this partnership has already greased the wheels, which is why they are getting an expedited plan check and not much else. The Commissioner remarked "We all know that the County doesn't work this fast". 1 i 10 Director Materassi advised that the Community of Highgrove is completely against the project. Commissioner Wilson responded that he believes the Community of Highgrove and a few other people should set up a war chest to be able to defend our position, or the project will be shoved down our throat. Again, the Commissioner stated he felt the only way we'll be able to doing anything would be to give public notice and take legal action. Director Materassi explained that just on the issue of mitigation, we have contended that an off- site mitigation plan is required so the property can be implemented without damaging other adjacent jurisdictions. The Director's request to Ty Schuiling, Director of Planning and Programming for SANBAG, is to determine if we can get support for requesting an off-site mitigation program. Ideally, the County of San Bernardino could say, "We have a Congestion Management Plan and our Congestion Management Plan states that if you create deficiencies you must mitigate the deficiency. How are you going to do it?" Unfortunately, congestion management plans don't work across the counties. Each county has it's own Congestion Management Plan which does not address the other counties. SCAG at the Regional level, doesn't want to get involved in disputes between county lines so it is very difficult if the planners don't do their job. The Director agreed that everything that could be done, should be done, since once the specific plan is approved it will be very difficult to change a tract map or anything else. Commissioner Wilson asked if the Director knew who the participants in the partnership were. The Director did not. However, she did raise another issue for the Commission's consideration: drainage. A couple of years ago a huge drainage pipe, perhaps 8-12 feet in diameter, was installed under the City at Center Street, crossing Main Street and ending at the Edison Company lake. From there, the water reaching the lake is supposed to go underneath the railroad. The drainage pipe from the lake is only a 54" inch pipe. The water goes underneath one of the sites close to Hood Communications and exits at Yum Yum Donuts. The 54" drainage pipe cannot take the project runoff. The Director believes that this particular drain installation along Center Street was done in anticipation of the Spring Mountain Ranch project. One of staffs concerns presented to the County is that the cumulative effect of drainage be mitigated. Appropriate pipes need to be installed. Virgil Barham, Director of Building and Safety/Public Works, did a study and determined the cost to mitigate this drainage issue would be in excess of$500,000. Drainage plans have been an ongoing issue with the Hood Communications and adjacent sites. This matter needs to be resolved to avoid flooding the area. Director Materassi invited the Commissioners to come to the Planning Department at any time to review the volumes of material sent and received on this project within the last two and one-half weeks. At one time, the City of Riverside was planning to incorporate the area. The project would have been subject to the City of Riverside's very high standards. Grand Terrace's Staff was pleased; knowing many of the issues would be resolved appropriately when subjected to Riverside codes. Now it appears the City of Riverside will not be incorporating the project any time soon. 11 Commissioner Addington asked if Michigan would be impacted. Director Materassi believes staffs proposal for an alternative route to the 1-215, via Main Street, would impact Michigan more than the current project's proposal. In summary, the Director noted there are three major issues associated with the Spring Mountain Ranch Project, all of which have been brought to the attention of the Riverside County Planning Department: 1) Traffic mitigation on Mount Vernon, 2) Grading of Blue Mountain, and 3) Drainage. There are multiple lesser issues, which have also been addressed. No active parks have been planned for the project. There are open space areas, but no active parks. Highgrove is already deficient in parks. In addition residents of Highgrove are concerned as their schools are not currently sufficient. The project plans for a new school but the new school will not sufficiently meet the needs of the project's residents. The project sewer treatment facility will be built in the Springbrook Wash, eliminating a third of a sensitive habitat area. Director Materassi shared some potential good news. The Director applied for a grant to improve the intersection of Iowa and Main Street together with the County of Riverside and the City of Colton. We proposed Grand Terrace pay $50,000, Colton $50,000, the County $50,000 and SANBAG grant $250,000, totaling $400,000. The project will relocate the billboards from the right-of-way at Iowa and clear the intersection. SANBAG Staff recommended the City's Grant Proposal for approval. The matter was scheduled for the Plans and Programs Review Committee today, January 18, and staff is hoping for full approval by the SANBAG Board at their meeting in early February. Director Materassi invited all the Commissioners to attend an Audio Conference scheduled for February 7, at 1 pm. The meeting will be held at City Hall and will address issues on Economic Development. The conference will last approximately 45 minutes and involve experts/professionals from all over the country. The Director asked the Commissioners to "RSVP" to the department secretary. Chairperson Van Gelder confirmed her attendance. 8:02 P.M. ADJOURNED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 15, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, P�n ,haw Patrizia Materassi ` ° Fran Van Gelder Community and Economic Development Director Chairperson, Planning Commission 12 /S