Loading...
06/21/2001 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 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 June 21, 2001, at 7:05 p.m., by Chairperson Fran Van Gelder. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Chairperson Doug Wilson, Vice-Chairperson Mary Trainor, Commissioner Brian Whitley, Commissioner Patrizia Materassi, Director of Community and Economic Development Michelle Boustedt, CEDD Secretary ABSENT: Matthew Addington, Commissioner 7:05 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Trainor • Roll Call • 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 the agenda for this meeting. ITEMS: 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 18, 2001. RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1 MOTION PC-14-2001 Chair Van Gelder made a motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated January 19, 2001. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-14-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington absent. 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-1 5-2001 Chair Van Gelder made a motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated April 19, 2001. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-1 5-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington absent. 3. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 17, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-1 6-2001 Chair Van Gelder made a motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes dated May 17, 2001. Commissioner Trainor seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-1 6-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington absent. 4. CUP-01-01-Al Application to modify the conditions imposed under CUP-01-01 for an automobile service station and mini-market in order to allow for the sale of beer and wine for off site consumption. The original project qualified for a negative declaration under E-01-02. 2 u APPLICANT: G & M Oil Company, Inc., d.b.a., Chevron LOCATION: 22483 Barton Road (Southwest corner of the intersection of Barton Road and Mount Vernon). RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing and approve the resolution calling for the approval of CUP-01-01-Al subject to the Conditions of Approval. John Lampe reported that on April 19 of this year, the Planning Commission approved a request by G & M Oil Company to construct a 1,348 square foot service station / mini-market, which involved a Conditional Use Permit, an Amendment to the Barton Road Specific Plan, a Site and Architectural Review, and four Variances in the Specifics Plan's standards and related Environment Review. The approval included the recommendation to the City Council that the Council adopt an Ordinance amending the Barton Road Specific Plan. On May 10t", the City Council approved the proposed Ordinance amending the Specific Plan and allowing for the service station to add to the Village Commercial category of the Barton Road Specific Plan. On May 24t", the second reading was approved, and becomes effective on June 25, 2001. When the Chevron project was presented to the Planning Commission in April, it was to Staffs understanding that no beer and wine would be sold in the new station / mini-mart. However, when the matter was brought to the City Council, the City Attorney asked whether the applicant had proposed to sell beer and wine. Staff was later informed by the applicant that they did intend to sell beer and wine at the site. The Barton Road Specific Plan does not require a Conditional Use Permit for beer and wine sales in Village Commercial unless a location is within 500 feet from a school district facility. However, the staff and the City Attorney did agree that the Conditions that apply to the service station should be modified to include the sale of beer and wine. Therefore, Staff felt it was appropriate to come back to the Commission with a modification of those original Conditions for the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the proposed auto service station. The State of California has relevant provisions that relate to the concurrent sale of beer and wine and motor vehicle fuels. State Code states that no local jurisdiction can legislatively prohibit the concurrent retailing of motor vehicle fuels and beer and wine at the same location for off site consumption, when both uses are allowed in the.zoning district. In analyzing the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed station, Staff has reviewed the number of existing licenses surrounding the applicant's proposed location. Located within 600 feet of the proposed site, is Grand Terrace Liquor and the Stater Brothers Market to the south of the site. Across the street on Barton Road is JB's Lounge, which is an on-site consumption / eating establishment. On the northeast corner is a pending general off sale type license at the Rite Aid site. 3 Two other fueling stations in town currently have the right to sell beer and wine at their locations. The Arco station has a general type of license, which allows them to have off-sale of not only beer and wine, but also distilled spirits. In speaking with the ABC or the Alcohol and Beverage Control for the State of California, the sale of beer and wine is a typical ancillary use for the mini-market and is very difficult for a mini-market to succeed when they do not have the sale of alcoholic beverages. Staff has found that there are no public or private schools within 500 feet of the site. The closest residence is Terrace Pines Condominiums, which is located about 300 feet south of the site. There are no hospitals, playgrounds, public parks, or other sensitive types of uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. Planning Associate Lampe concluded his report by recommending the Commission to approve and add conditions to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale of beer and wine at the proposed Chevron Station. Mr. Lampe included a list of Cities that have certain suggestive ordinances for the City of Grand Terrace. Chair Van Gelder asked Planning Associate Lampe if any tube lighting would be installed in the windows. Planning Associate Lampe replied that neon beer and wine window signing would be prohibited. It is a standard condition that has been applied by several of the ordinances. Director Materassi added that the signage condition would be limited to the advertisement of beer and wine. Other types of neon signage would be considered provided a sign review application is submitted. Commissioner Trainor asked a question with regard to the proposed operating hours of the gasoline station. Planning Associate Lampe replied that it was to his understanding that it would be a 24-hour service station. A condition has been added to limit the age of the clerk on duty with regard to the late evening hours. Commissioner Trainor asked what the operating hours of the other two gasoline stations were. Director Materassi replied that the Arco Station is also a 24-hour service station, but was unaware of the other gas station's operating hours. Commissioner Trainor asked a question with regard to the vicinity of schools. Did the Staff consider the Advocate School, which is behind Terrace Pines Condominiums? Director Materassi replied that the Advocate School was included and was considered to be further than Azure Hills School site using a radius measurement. 4 Planning Associate Lampe added that the Azure Hills School is located 700 feet from the proposed station. Chair Van Gelder asked if the required distance between a school and an establishment to sell beer and wine was 300 or 500 feet? Planning Associate Lampe replied that the Ordinance for the Barton Road Specific Plan calls for more than 500 feet in order to go through the CUP process. In this case, the closest school is over 700 feet. Commissioner Whitley had a question with regard to signs stating that on-site consumption of alcohol is prohibited. Has the Staff considered posting these around the exterior of the site? Planning Associate Lampe replied that it was a good suggestion. The Staff had consulted with the applicants with regard to interior signs, and if the Commission feels that exterior signs should also be posted, then it may be added into the conditions. Commissioner Trainor advised that she thought that the idea of exterior signs would be more enforceable, especially within the evening hours and where people may want to loiter near or around neighboring businesses parking lots. .Chair Van Gelder opened the public hearing,, and asked the applicant if she would like to come forward and make any comments. Andrea Fiscus G&M Oil Company Huntington Beach, CA Ms. Fiscus informed the Commission that the G & M facilities that do sell alcohol post exterior signs prohibiting loitering. Ms. Fiscus reported that the Alcohol and Beverage Control imposes a condition that no one is drinking within the immediate area, including surrounding businesses. Chair Van Gelder asked Ms. Fiscus if any more thought was given for a full service island. Ms. Fiscus replied that she had spoken with her supervisor and that initially, the station would have to open up as a self-service station. If sales volume should increase, then they may consider the station to add a full service island. However, there is only one attendant on duty and is under strict orders not to leave the customer service booth at any time. Chair Van Gelder asked how many attendants would be on duty at any given time? Ms. Fiscus confirmed that there would be only one attendant at one time. Ms. Fiscus advised that a Station Manager is present and sometimes one other attendant may be present for shift change purposes. A Regional Supervisor may come around on a daily basis to check on operations, but only one attendant may-be present at any regular shift. 5 Chair Van Gelder expressed her concern with the attendant being alone in the late evening hours. Ms. Fiscus replied that their service stations customer service booths are surrounded by bullet- proof glass for security measures and for the safety of the employees. Chair Van Gelder closed the public hearing and brought the CUP Application back to the Commission for discussion and action. MOTION PC-17-2001 Commissioner Whitley made a motion to add to the conditions the requirement for exterior signage prohibiting loitering on or around the premises. Chair Van Gelder seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-17-2001 Motion approved 4-0-0-1. Commissioner Addington absent Chair Van Gelder requested to review the Conditions of Approval for discussion. Commissioner Trainor made a comment that prior to voting on the Conditional Use Permit, she would like to make a statement in opposition to the concept of selling alcoholic beverages to people.in moving vehicles. It should not be considered personal to the applicant or the project. MOTION PC-18-2001 Chair Van Gelder moved to approve the resolution for CUP-01-01-Al, subject to the conditions that were listed. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-18-2001 Motion approved 2-1-1-1. Commissioner Trainor voting no, Commissioner Wilson abstaining, and Commissioner Addington absent. Chair Van Gelder congratulated the applicant and wished her well. 5. CONSOLIDATED CIP Consolidated CIP Discussion Presented by Community and Economic Developer Director Materassi PROGRAM for the Commission's review and approval. Director Materassi reported that the Consolidated CIP Program is the second step from the Circulation Fee Ordinance that was approved in February of last year. The second step of the ordinance is to adopt a Capital Improvement Program that prioritizes those projects that the fee t will fund. 6 4 Director Materassi reported that this portion of the Program is part of the umbrella of the Citywide T CIP Program that Assistant City Manager John Donlevy discussed during the last Planning Commission meeting. It should be noted that the Circulation Fee Ordinance does not cover 100% of the project cost, rather; it covers only a percentage of the project. If the traffic flow is regional, the developers cannot be charged for the cost of the improvements. The percentage of the fees covered has varied tremendously because of the way the formula was put together based on a fair share ratio. When Craig Neustaedter based his study on the land use categories and traffic impacts, he divided the City into two districts: District A was west of Michigan, and District B was the area east of Michigan. The fees were higher for District A due to the area being mostly undeveloped. Director Materassi reported that the criteria to prioritize each project were included in the second page of the Circulation Fee CIP Program report. The most important criteria was the Levels of Service or (LOS). Other criteria included projects that increase safety and meet Caltrans traffic warrants for traffic signals, projects that provide mitigation measures for our regional impacts, etc.- Director Materassi reported that other criteria that were less numerical but promote economic development, aesthetics/ City beautification_were also included. Director Materassi informed the Commission that one other criterion that was not added to the Circulation Fee CIP Program was "cash-flow estimate", which is considered to be very important. The CIP Projects will not only depend on how much in fees that can be collected, but the availability of funding from other sources to match the fully covered costs. The collection of fees just started and in a few years, we will be able to establish a cash-flow estimate. Director Materassi reported that in terms of prioritization, if there was a particular project that met all criteria, but the funding from additional sources would take longer than expected, top priority was not given to those projects. For example, Barton Road over-pass is a priority to widen the over-pass from two to four lanes. Developers have commented that the over-pass resembles Pasadena over-passes from fifty years ago and are in dire need of widening. Funds for the overpass will not be available until the 1-215 Project funds will be approved, which may not be available for another ten years. Director Materassi reported that there would be two areas that have been given priority in terms of traffic. The first is the Michigan / Commerce Wav area, which is based on economist, John Husing's analysis of Grand Terrace. Mr. Husing advised that this area might change the makeup of Grand Terrace depending on the businesses that would be brought into the area. Currently there is no access to those vacant properties. The second area is Mount Vernon, and it's adjacent neighborhoods, in which the Spring Mountain Ranch Specific Plan will have the most impact. In the short run, the project will be very good for the City of Grand Terrace. But in the long run, if there is no grade separation at Center Street or Main Street, Mount Vernon and the adjacent neighborhoods will be affected the most, and will be subject to a significant increase of traffic. 7 Director Materassi reported that the overall current priority for the Mount Vernon area is for traffic calming and traffic signals to protect the residential areas, but not capacity enhancing projects. Craig Neustaedter, our Traffic Engineer, has studied the potential need for traffic signals, and reports that only one traffic signal is needed per Caltrans warrants for traffic signals. This signal is located at the intersection of Mount Vernon and DeBerry. The signal at Palm and Barton Road may be very close to a warrant. The Capital Improvement Program is a good managerial tool and should be revised every year so that the City can review each project on an annual basis and decide what projects are considered to be a priority, and what funds may be available. The priorities on this .particular plan (the Circulation Fee CIP) are not necessarily the same priorities of the Capital Improvement Plan for the City as a whole. However, once this CIP project is approved, it will be the priority of allocation of revenues from the developer's fees. Commissioner Trainor expressed her concern with not understanding the significance of what the Commission is supposed to do with the Capital Improvement report as presented by Director Materassi. Commissioner Trainor asked Director Materassi what the cost was to the City of Grand Terrace for the whole project and over a period of how long? Director Materassi responded to Commissioner Trainor by giving her a brief background of the Capital Improvement Program report and referring to tables and attachments submitted: When the projects listed are completed, it will complete the mater plan of the streets and highways in the Circulation Element for the City. The total cost for these improvements will be $7.6 Million Dollars, not including the traffic signals, which will cost $1.5 Million Dollars. The Fee Ordinance is what will be utilized for developers to assist in paying for the improvements. However, the developers can only help pay for the traffic that they generate. The Capital Improvement Program Study was done to come up with a fair procedure on how to ask the developers to assist in paying for such improvements. All developers that will be located within the industrial area will pay a higher percentage than all of the developers that will be east of Michigan. Commissioner Trainor asked Director Materassi which district was which? Director Materassi replied that District A is the commercial area close to the 1-215 Freeway. District B is east of Michigan. For instance; a developer for a town square project would pay for District B types of fees. If a developer were to build at the CM Area, like La Mesa RV, then they will pay District A types of fees. The percentages to be paid in fees for each of the projects is shown in the attachments of the Staff Report in detail, and are based on a traffic model of each area of the project; and what portion of the traffic that is locally generated for the uses versus regional traffic. Commissioner Trainor asked a question with regard to the funding of each project. Would funding come from grants as provided by the State of California as well as City funds? 8 Director Materassi replied that the funding besides the developers fees could be from various sources, Measure I funding, or funding that has already been received such as Bikelane Grants, SANBAG, State Funds, etc. Commissioner Trainor asked if the Planning Commission was being asked to approve the Program? Director Materassi confirmed and further added that the main purpose of the Capital Improvement Program Report was to ask the Commission for recommendations on certain projects and what the projects priorities should be in the opinion of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Whitley asked a question with regard to funding of the various projects, and does it matter if the funds come for District A or District B or will the funds be available for expenditure in any area of the City? In response to Mr. Whitley's question, Director Materassi stated that fees can come from any District, but need to be applied according to the criteria of the Capital Improvement Plan set forth in this report. Commissioner Trainor asked if a District B developer east of Michigan would pay on the basis of traffic that they will generate? Director Materassi stated that is correct in concept. Fees are also different according to land uses: On a .retail basis, the fees would be calculated on a square footage of gross leasable space. On the industrial areas, it would be calculated per acre. On the residential areas, it would be calculated per unit built. Chair Van Gelder asked Director Materassi if she wanted a formal approval on the Capital Improvement Program? Director Materassi replied that she would like to have a motion made from the Commission to show that the Commission is comfortable with the philosophy behind the Capital Improvement Program. Chair Van Gelder asked if the Commission approves the Capital Improvement Program, and the Council doesn't, what would happen? Director Materassi replied that the position of the Commission is for recommendation. The State Law requires the Capital Improvement Program come to the Planning Commission for recommendation as an advisory body. The Council can thank the Commission for their recommendations and follow the recommendations or not. Commissioner Whitley asked if this was a step required by State Law for the recommendation process? Director Materassi replied that Commissioner Whitley was correct; otherwise the Capital Improvement Program would go straight to the City Council for approval. 9 Chair Van Gelder asked if anyone wanted to make a motion with regard to the Capital Improvement Program. Commissioner Trainor replied that she could make a motion to approve the program in concept, but she was uncomfortable in making a motion on the priorities because she felt that she was unqualified to make suggestions for the Capital Improvement Program. Director Materassi replied that if the Commission wished, she may bring a scoring type of criteria matrix for the Commission, to give them a better understanding how each project got prioritized. Commissioner Trainor felt that there would be a potential liability to the City if a project is not done within five years. For these reasons, she felt that she was not comfortable in voting on the priorities. Director Materassi replied that the only projects that the City may be liable for were the traffic signals. In case a traffic signal meets Caltrans standards included in the CIP, and the City spends funds on a different location first, then the City will not be deemed responsible. However, until budgeted, this program is only like a wish list. The Circulation Fees on its own do not pay for construction of these projects; additional funding authorized by the City Council is necessary. Commissioner Wilson wanted to point out that a traffic signal at Mount Vernon and DeBerry is already warranted and the district has put a bunch of temporary buildings where a green area used to exist. These buildings have created an increase of students, and is easily identifiable - during the weekdays that there is a higher percentage of traffic that runs through the area. Commissioner Wilson feels that the Traffic Engineer needs to put together a report with all of the projects and their priorities in a "layman's terms" type of a report, to help the Commission to better understand the Capital Improvement Program, and to present it at a special workshop. Chair Van Gelder asked if the Capital Improvement Program was going to go before the Planning Commission and the City Council once per year? Director Materassi replied that it would come before the City Council once per year, but was unsure what the requirements were for annual Planning Commission review. Commissioner Wilson felt that an exhibit of each project would be beneficial for identification and prioritization or projects. Director Materassi agreed with Commissioner Wilson that projects exhibits would clarify what is included in each project and help the Planning Commission. She added that in terms of the medians, they have been included as a recommendation of the Circulation Element, however, not in the fee program. A median was recommended on Barton Road, but became controversial and she was requested not to proceed with the project until property owners and businesses could support it. 10 Commissioner Wilson replied if special interests in the community had denied the project, he felt i that it was unfair because some of the business owners do not live in the City of Grand Terrace and were influenced from people in the Council or otherwise. Director Materassi replied that the situation became a problem when the median project was presented to the City Council. Several of the local businesses were apprehensive of the project due to their :fears of not receiving proper access to their businesses. The project was then reduced for funding for the area in front of Bank of America and the Towne and Country Shopping Center because there were five to six ingress and egress within one hundred yards of each other, and was thought to be dangerous. The businesses did not want the median in and called the Council Members, as well as drafted a petition and collected over one hundred signatures to keep the median from being installed. City Council Member Don Larkin believes we need to recruit more business, increase the level of customers and then install the median to compensate for any access restrictions. Commissioner Wilson asked a question with regard to the Barton Road Median project; did the Traffic Engineer suggest an improvement for traffic circulation? Director Materassi replied that the Traffic Engineer's median related suggestions were put into the Circulation Element, but it was not included into the Circulation Fee. The CIP Project was restricted to fees to complete the arterial circulation system. Commissioner Wilson replied that he was concerned with what was listed in the fee program. To implement the circulation of the overall City has nothing to do with anything other than satisfying broadening the roads and freeways in and around the City. Director Materassi replied that most of the roads located in the Capital Improvement Program are Arterials or Collector Roads, to be completed to ensure proper traffic flow at LOS "C". When the collector roads are widened and improved, we are protecting the neighborhood streets from excess traffic. Developers will help pay for traffic impacts they cause, and is difficult to justify further safety'or aesthetic improvements as part of the fee program. Chair Van Gelder asked a question with regard to the median project on Barton Road, did the project come before the City Council, and if so, did the Commission vote against it? Director Materassi replied that the City Council did say that they did not want it on the evening of the City Council Meeting when the report for the median was presented. The Council directed her to table the issue for a future meeting. The issue of the median on Barton Road was brought up once again and she was advised that the City Staff needed to meet with the property owners within the City and come up with an agreeable solution in a special workshop. Due to budget cuts, Director Materassi has not had a chance to start the process. Chair Van Gelder asked if the Traffic Engineer suggests a median, and it is also the recommendations of the Commission, could it not be included in the Commission report to the City Council? 11 Director Materassi replied that the suggestion submitted by the Traffic Engineer could be included in the Commission report, not as a part of the Capital Improvement Program report, but as a recommendation that can be included in the report for the City Council. Chair Van Gelder requested that Director Materassi bring back a revised report of the Capital Improvement Program, including requested project exhibits. Director Materassi called out a list of what the Commission would like included in the revised Capital Improvement Report: Detailed description of each project, and an exhibit map for each project. Commissioner Wilson responded to Director Materassi by suggesting an exhibit map for the description of projects, with a data sheet or spreadsheet rather than a written report. Director Materassi replied that Virgil Barham the former Building and Safety Director assisted the Traffic Engineer by providing him with a large project plan map and cost breakdowns. Engineer worksheets do not include exhibits at this time. However, it is a possibility to draw up exhibit maps through the GIS system and come up with data sheets from the exhibits. Director Materassi asked the Commission that when the Capital Improvement Project exhibit maps are completed, and in case we need to expedite review, would the Commission be open to holding a special workshop meeting? Chair Van Gelder agreed. After consideration of dates, Director Materassi suggested having the special workshop at the next Planning Commission meeting, unless otherwise required. 8:20 P.M. CONVENED PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Director Materassi reported the status of La Mesa RV. The City is prepared to write an offer to provide assistance to them, but all current discussions are confidential. Commissioner Trainor asked if there were any new developments with regard to the vacated Blue Mountain Coffee Shop and would it be a possibility to add a Starbuck's type of coffee shop, as she feels that a coffee shop would be advantageous for the City. Director Materassi replied that the only inquirer for new development for the entire area was a possible grocery market, but it never materialized. Starbuck's would not be interested in this type of space because they usually,co-tenant with "entertainment" type business in a busy shopping area. Developer Lisa Hjulberg tried to recruit Starbuck's Coffee to Grand Terrace last year to no avail. 12 Chair Van Gelder asked a question with regard to the rent costs for the building where Blue Mountain Coffee Shop was located, and what the rent comparison was with other buildings within the City. Director Materassi replied that she did not have the specific information, however, she had spoken with the Leasing Agent who is located in Orange County who informed her that this building was the only building the owner had in the Inland Empire, and that he does not have the time or interest to market the building. The Owner would like to find a buyer for the building. • Information from Commissioners None 8:30 P.M. ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON JULY 19, 2001. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, P'&frizia Materassi r Fran Van Gelder Director of Community Chairperson, Planning Commission and Economic Development 13