Loading...
08/04/1986N 12-8.1060 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 4, 1986 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324 on August 4, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Daniel McHugh, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Munson I. MINUTES A. Minutes of July 21, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. PCM 86-66 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-0 vote, to approve the minutes as amended. II. OATH OF AFFIRMATION IIA. Chairman Caouette asked Staff to administer the Oath of Office to the new Planning Commission members. Joseph Ricak, Planning Director, administered the Oath to new Commissioners: Fran Van Gelder, Stanley Hargrave, Daniel McHugh and re -appointed Gerald Cole. IIB. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, requested that the Planning Commission consider nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission. PCM 86-67 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 6-0-1 vote, to nominate Norman Caouette as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chairman Caouette abstained from the vote. PCM 86-68 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Chairman Caouette and passed by a 6-0-1 vote, to nominate Jerry Hawkinson as Vice -Chairman of the Planning Commission. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson abstained from the vote. IIC. REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE TITLE 18 AD HOC COMMITTEE. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff Report. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that as a result of appointments of 2 members of the Ad Hoc Committee to the Planning Commission, the composition of the Committee would be 4 members of the Planning Commission and 2 members of the City Council and one vacancy. It was determined that this would be a violation of the Brown Act should 4 members of the Planning Commission be on the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee. Therefore, the Planning Commission needed to select, out of the 4 members now on the Committee, 2 members to represent the Planning Commission. Currently serving on the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee are the following: Jerry Hawkinson, Gerald Cole, Daniel McHugh, and Stan Hargrave. Chairman Caouette asked the 4 members, if there was interest in continuing on that Committee. Commissioner Hargrave respectfully asked to be relieved of responsibility to membership on the Title 18 Committee to spend more time getting acquainted with his new responsibilities as Planning Commissioner. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson noted that Commissioner McHugh was currently serving as Chairman of that Committee and that it would be in the interest of the Committee to have him continue. Commissioner McHugh concurred with this statement. P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 2 PCM 86-69 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 6-0-1 vote, to recommend Commissioner McHugh to the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee. Commissioner McHugh abstained from the vote. PCM 86-70 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Gerald Cole and passed by a 6-0-1 vote, to appoint Vice - Chairman Hawkinson to the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson abstained from the vote. III. NEW BUSINESS IIIA. Time Extension for Mt. Vernon Villas Phase I, Specific Plan/ Conditional Use Permit #85-08. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff's presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of Staff. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, in response to Commissioner Munson regarding his vote on the original project, noted that a request for Time Extension is ministerial and not discretionary as the original plan was. PCM 86-71 Motion by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to grant a Time Extension for Mt. Vernon Villas Phase I Specific Plan/Conditional Use Permit 85-08 for one year. IIIB. Time Extension for USA Properties Specific Plan/Conditional Use Permit 85-11. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Chairman Caouette noted that this property, the subject of 0 P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 3 this previously approved Specific Plan, was also coming before the Planning Commission as one-half of a request for another Specific Plan. And, that they appear to be two different plans. Asked the City Attorney what implications might result. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that in this particular instance, he did not think has a right to submit two proposals on the same project before the Planning Commission. The applicant must decide whether they want the first proposal, which is the approved Specific Plan for which an extension of time is being requested. Or, whether in fact, they want a revised Specific Plan. Noted that the Planning Commission should ask the Applicant whether they want to extend the approved Specific Plan, or if they wish to modify that Specific Plan as part of another proposal. Chairman Caouette asked if the applicant and/or his representative was present. Asked if he would comment on what USA Properties intentions were relative to this parcel. Richard Edwards, USA Properties, Diamond Bar, CA. Stated that as the owner, they are requesting an extension of their approved Specific Plan in the event that Forest City does not proceed with the escrow. Noted that they will remain with their approved Specific Plan at this time. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, pointed out the owner has to be the applicant and give his permission for someone else to be the applicant. And, if the owner elects to be the applicant for this Specific Plan, that it seems inconsistent that they can also give someone else the authority to submit a Specific Plan on that same property. Commissioner Hargrave asked if USA Properties Specific Plan was in conformance with Mt. Vernon Villas Phase II, and if there are any major differences between the two. Chairman Caouette noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission found that they were not the same, based on approved apartment size, circulation, building footprints and overall project design. Asked if there were any other questions or comments. Noted his discomfort with regard to the consideration of another Specific Plan that includes this property. PCM 86-72 Motion by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 6-1 vote to recommend to the City Council an extension of time of one year for USA Properties Specific Plan/ P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 4 Conditional Use Permit 85-11. Chairman Caouette voted against the motion. IIIC. Request for Consideration of Waiver of Condition #2 of Conditions of Approval for Tract 13050, to terminate Observation Drive at Van Buren. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff Report. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the request from T. J. Austyn, Inc. is to have the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that a General Plan Amendment be considered in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, to eliminate Observation Drive between Van Buren and Main Street. As it is shown in the General Plan Circulation Element, it is somewhat different than what has been constructed to date. As it is constructed, the location of Observation Drive follows the California Aquaduct and is constructed almost to Van Buren Street. It would seem logical that if it does continue that it should continue along the California Aquaduct. Mr. Kicak noted that it is Staff's opinion that the location of Observation Drive in the location shown on the General Plan between Van Buren and Main Street would not really serve the purpose for which it was intended, to collect traffic from the east and carry it north and south to other collecting streets and westerly to the north and south arterials. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, if they consider retaining Observation Drive, that they continue Observation Drive southerly along the alignment of the California Aquaduct. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of staff. The following is discussion that took place after motion made by Commissioner Hargrave and seconded by Commissioner Cole recommending that the City Council grant the request for eliminating Condition #2 of Conditions of Approval for Tract 13050, requirement to construct Observation Drive south of Van Buren and that the General Plan Circulation Element be amended to terminate Observation Drive at Van Buren. Both the maker of the motion and the seconder agreed to the following discussion and testimony. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated his concern regarding the property over California Aquaduct. He saw another linear park, creating an ongoing maintenance problem to the City. Also, noted that a parcel might be affected by the construction of Observation Drive. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that it would impact P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 5 parcel north of Main Street in Tract 13205. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson requested that they hear from the applicant as to what he intends to do with either parcel. Bill Storm, T.J. Austyn, Inc., stated that if Observation Drive is to follow the California Aquaduct, it would go through some private backyards that already exist. Noted that in Tract 13205, they had 2 choices, either doing a park or leaving it bare dirt surrounded by a chain link fence. They offered to put in a park at their cost and pay park fees, this would include the landscaping and irrigation system. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson noted that he saw 3 alternatives, one that it stay as unimproved property. Second, a park be developed, as proposed by the developer, but then the City would inheret an ongoing maintenance problem. Noted that there seems to be merit to putting a street on top of the aquaduct. He considered this the best alternative for minimizing the maintenance. Agreed with the point that if Observation Drive is continued, as was proposed by current General Plan, it would not be used for it's intended purpose. Chairman Caouette asked if there was no objection that Councilwoman Pfennighausen might address this issue. Councilwoman Pfennighausen pointed that one of the things that the City Council is faced with on these linear parks is that they are now having to water with liquid gold, and that the general discussion has been that the City Council would not accept any more of those parks than they already have. Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Kicak if he had any comments. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that Observation Drive originally was not proposed over the aquaduct through their subdivision or the Tract 13205, north of Main Street. South of Van Buren, they were attempting to follow the General Plan alignment as much as possible. Mr. Kicak noted that he had no problem if Observation Drive continued along the aquaduct. In response to Commissioner Hargrave's question if there should be any condemnation required, he added that at the parcel on the southwest corner of Pico and Blue Mountain Court and a portion of the Sisters' of St. Benedict property, would require eminent domain, if Observation Drive is to continue to Main Street. Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if he had any comments. Bill Storm, stated that the problem with Obseration Drive was P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 6 the economics of it. It would be a very expensive street to try to build and that it creates major engineering problems. Stated that they were originally conditioned to improve Observation Drive 1/2 width adjacent to their parcel. Stated that they would solve all of the drainage problems in that area and not build the one-half of Observation Drive southerly of Van Buren. They foresaw that one-half of Observation Drive southerly of Van Buren being built, but never used. They are proposing to build drainage facilities to accept whatever water would come into the area. Commissioner Hargrave asked if they would or would not have drainage problems south of Van Buren if Observation Drive stops at Van Buren. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that there will still be some drainage problems from the area of Blue Mountain to the east. Chairman Caouette recognized Barney Karger, a property owner in that area, requesting to address the Commission. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, stated that he owned 10 acres directly to the south of that parcel being discussed, that southerly extension of Observation Drive would place many more constraints on his property, that many property owners in the Blue Mountain Court area do not want O it going through. Recommended that Observation Drive stop at Van Buren and no go any further. Further discussion took place among the Planning Commissioners and applicant regarding the development of a linear park. The developer noted that they reviewed their plan with the City Council prior to formal submission of plans. Commissioner Cole noted that the proposal is to terminate Observation Drive at Van Buren, and it does not address park development. Richard Haase, Van Dell & Associates, Engineering Consultants, for Tract 13050. Noted that there was a problem with separa- ting Tract 13205, which is northerly and adjacent to Main Street, and Tract 13050, which is centered upon Van Buren. Observation Drive in the portion of Tract 13050 is on the easterly side of that Tract. Currently, it is being utilized for an existing citrus operation, which will continue in that status. A park was not part of the Tentative Tract Map for 13050. They are essentially addressing Observation Drive as a roadway, and it's southerly point of termination. Noted that for a variety of reasons expressed in Staff Report and also in the letter from the developer, which indicates low density development easterly and southerly of Mr. Karger's property, there will probably be insufficient traffic generation to utilize a street of this nature. Mr. Haase felt that existing streets P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 7 and proposed streets in Tract 13050 are sufficient by design to accommodate any traffic there might be. Also, noted that a location of a property line to the south, will make the extension of Observation Drive southerly very clumsy in terms of creating undevelopable parcels, as well as possibly necessitating expensive rights -of -way acquisitions. Noted that relative to drainage concerns, Tract 13050 has accommodated the drainage with a variety of channels and structures to take water from Blue Mountain and that area to existing and proposed streets. Commissioner Hargrave stated his concern with drainage and asked if Staff was satisfied with Mr. Haases' comments. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that as a result or a major reason for the drainage structures that they are required to install is because of the proposal to terminate Observation Drive at Van Buren. That would solve one problem with respect to drainage. With respect to solving the drainage problem at that intersection, if Observation Drive terminates, he noted that yes, the problem would be solved by the proposal that has been reviewed by Staff and proposed by the Developer. PCM 86-73 Motion by Commissioner Hargrave and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 4-3 vote, to recommend that the City Council grant a request for waiving of Condition #2 of Conditions of Approval of Tract 13050 and to amend the General Plan Circulation Element that Observation Drive terminate at Van Buren. Chairman Caouette, Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Munson voted against the motion. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS IVA. Request for a Variance from Ordinance 100, Off -Street Parking and Ordinance 104, Minimum Square Footage for Residential Unit Size. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Stated that the applicant has requested a variance from both of these Ordinances. The public hearing has been properly advertised and all of the property owners required to be P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 8 notified, were notified by mail. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and make a determination. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of Staff. Being none, asked if the applicant and/or his representative were present. Carol Tanner, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1900, Los Angeles. Stated her presence and that she would be happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Hargrave asked the applicant to explain any hardships that she felt Ordinances 100 and 104 would place on the project. Carol Tanner stated that they added a tremendous amount of dollars to the construction budget. Thus, rendering the rents they would have to receive infeasible, in order to maintain the economic viability of the project. Commissioner Hargrave asked the applicant to specifically address the garages. Carol Tanner, stated that there were two issues. One, relating to costs of enclosing the garages and providing garage doors. The other is the difficulty on the particular site they are dealing with in generating a site plan that has the garages adjacent to the units. And, the long term management problem with no way to control what is in the garages. Discussion between Commissioner Munson and Mrs. Tanner regarding the size of units in the approved project for USA Properties and whether they were aware of those unit sizes. Mrs. Tanner stated that, they were aware of those sizes, but that they did not intend to proceed to build that plan. Discussion took place between the Planning Commissioners and Staff with regard to whether there were garages in the USA Properties Specific Plan. Staff stated that they would have to check that plan to confirm if there were garages. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Being none, opened the public hearing. Asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this request. Being none, asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against this request. Sandy Collins, 22697 Brentwood. Noted that the reason for some of the Ordinances was due to the Mt. Vernon Villas Phase I project. The result of which Ordinances having been passed by the City designating the size of units and including 01 P.C. Minutes 8- 4- 86 Page 9 enclosed garages. Felt the Planning Commission would be remiss if they start making variances for those Ordinances after they have just recently passed them. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else to speak against the request. Being no one, closed the public hearing and returned the matter back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Further discussion took place among the Planning Commission and Staff regarding USA Properties and whether or not garages were a part of the approved Specific Plan. Commissioner McHugh asked the City Attorney what findings would be required to make for a variance. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that the findings: 1. That the strict application that the provisions of this Title deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. 2. That the variance shall be conditioned, if necessary, to prevent the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications. 3. That the proposed variance will be consistent with the latest adopted General Plan. 4. That the proposed variance does not allow any land use, which is not in conformity with the regulations specified for the district, in which the land is located. 5. That conditions necessary to secure the purposes of this section, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions are made a part of the variance approval. Section 18.75.040 of the Title 18 of the Municipal Code. PCM 86-74 Motion by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to deny the variance request on this project. IVB. Continued Public Hearing for Specific Plan 86-1, Conditional Use Permit 86-3 and Site & Architectural Review 86-6. Chairman Caouette, asked for Staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Asked the City Attorney if it would be appropriate to consider the plans, since it is the same plan which was presented previously and does not reflect garages and minimum square footage that was required by Ordinances 100 and 104. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that he had two problems with the project now. One, because of earlier action that the actual owner of the property does not wish to amend his Specific P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 10 Plan. Mr. Hopkins, noted that he has to assume that this plan does not have the blessing of the owner, which is a requirement. Second, because of the Planning Commission's last action denying the variance, the plan is inconsistent with the Ordinances of the City. Chairman Caouette noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission found that Ordinances 100 and 104 would apply to the entire project with regard to the new land plan being considered. Commissioner Munson pointed out that the Planning Commission required that USA Properties Specific Plan share a pro-rata costs regarding traffic signals on Canal Street and Mt. Vernon. Asked if that would be assumed by the owner, if it was a condition of the Specific Plan. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that he would assume that the seller would protect and insulate themselves by passing that obligation onto the buyers. And, that in this case, the buyer has agreed to absorb any obligations on the development of the property. Suggested that the Planning Commission adopt conditions even if the Planning Commission intends to deny the project. Commissioner Munson felt that because of any additional development in that area, that the development will be a prime contributing factor for the need of signals. Felt that the developer should pay their pro-rata share of that particular cost. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further questions of staff. Being none, opened the public hearing for this project. Asked if the applicant and/or his representative would care to address the Planning Commission. Carol Tanner, Forest City Development, indicated she would be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the project. Being no one, asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against the project. Being no one, closed the public hearing and returned back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Hargrave asked Mr. Kicak if the 25' setback was not in compliance with this project. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that the problem was in both Phase I and Phase II and that the proposed carports were within the 25' setback. 0 1 P.C. Minutes f 8-4-86 Page 11 Joseph Kicak, noted that in subsequent discussions with the applicant and their representative, that they would comply with the 25' setback requirement. PCM 86-75 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to add a condition that the developer pay their pro-rata share of any traffic signals that become necessary because of traffic congestion on Mt. Vernon Avenue and Canal Street. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions or comments. Entertained a motion on the project. PCM 86-76 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote, recommending denial of Specific Plan 86-1, Conditional Use Permit 86-3 and Site & Architectural Review 86-6 inclusively. And, that should an appeal be brought forth, that the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commissin and Staff go with the project. Being no further business, Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:45 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted: P.C. Minutes 8-4-86 Page 12