Loading...
10/06/198612-8.1064 ' GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 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 October 6, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman T. Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Daniel McHugh, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Joseph Ricak, Planning Director Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Munson. I. MINUTES IA. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 1986. PCM 86-90 Motion by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to approve the minutes of the September 8, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting, as submitted. IB. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of September 15, 1986. PCM 86-91 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Chairman Caouette and passed by a 6-0-1 vote, to approve the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of September 15, 1986, as submitted. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson abstained. II. NEW BUSINESS A. Landscaping, Irrigation and Lighting Plan for Karger Office Building. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Stated that as far as the landscaping was concerned, it met all the requirements. Stated Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission consider trees to be planted in the parkway, one located on the southeast portion of the open parkway and the other in the northwest portion of the open parkway. Chairman Caouette asked if there were questions of staff. Commissioner Cole requested clarification that the trees would be on each side of the drive approach. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, concurred with Commissioner Cole. Discussion took place between Commissioner Hargrave and Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, regarding the proposed lighting. Mr. Kicak, in response to Commissioner Hargrave's question regarding the number of light fixtures stated that there are four. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there should be another light, to provide lighting in the rear. Mr. Kicak responded that that area would have adequate lighting with the lights proposed. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the lights would probably be floodlight type of fixtures. In response to Commissioner Hargrave's question whether the light would be manual or automatic on and off switch, Mr. Kicak stated that he did not know; but, would think that they would be on a timer. Chairman Caouette asked if the applicant and/or his repre- sentative was present. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the applicant was not present. Commissioner Hargrave questioned the Planning Commissioners regarding their feelings for any type of lighting in the front area by the drive, which fronts on Barton Road. Low profile ornamental type lighting was discussed. The Commission concurred that, that type of lighting would make for an attractive setting. P.C. Meeting Minutes 10-6-86 Page 2 Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, pointed out that the street lights on Barton Road would be removed by Edison during the proposed underground district. Stated that the City would have no street lighting until the City installs the street lights. Commissioner Hargrave felt that because of this underground district, that he would like to see some lighting as discussed previously, for this project. Commissioner Cole asked if the proposed meandering sidewalk and landscaping tied in with the Medical Center, located adjacent to this project. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director stated that the medical center has a sidewalk adjacent to the curb with a sloped parkway that is landscaped. Stated that there is no meandering sidewalk on that frontage. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the meandering sidewalk proposed would be inconsistent with all the parcels on Barton Road. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that the proposal for the widening of Barton Road, if it becomes a reality, would include the construction of sidewalk. Stated that the plan is to meander the sidewalks, and try to minimize the impact on the existing improvements and trees that are within that right of way now. Commissioner Van Gelder agreed with Commissioner Hargrave, that there should be some type of lighting along the frontage of this project. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that the Title 18 Ad Hoc Committee, at their last meeting, had discussed maximizing the amount of landscaping that abutts Barton Road. Stated that the recent requirements call for 5% landscaping and the Committee was discussing increasing that to 10% and then 15%. Stated that the Title 18 Committee had been in agreement that something more was needed, than what is presently being done. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson felt that the ornamental lighting proposed by Commissioner Hargrave was an excellent idea, and fit in with the Title 18 Committee's discussion. Commissioner Hargrave stated that in the future, he wanted to know what kind of lighting is being proposed. Would like to know what the fixtures would be, whether it's halogen, electric bulb, or floodlight. Also, what the area of illumination P.C. Meeting Minutes 10-6-86 Page 3 would be. Commissioner McHugh felt that the landscaping proposed was sparse and low profile. Felt that there was a lack of bushes or anything else along the perimeter of the building. Felt he would rather encourage the applicant to come back with more lush greenery and have it a little higher along the sides of the building. Chairman Caouette felt that the Commission was in agreement that there should be a request for additional information. Felt Mr. Kicak's idea regarding planting trees in the parkway was an excellent idea. PCM 86-92 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to continue this project for additional information regarding the landscaping and lighting plan. III. GENERAL DISCUSSION Chairman Caouette recognized Commissioner Van Gelder for general discussion. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she had two items for discussion. The first, asked staff if there was a provision, if an applicant does not give staff adequate information, that staff not bring it to the Planning Commission. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that Staff attempted to expedite applications as much as possible. Stated that he would have no problem in reviewing with the applicant when they come in, and at the time they have a complete package go to the Planning Commission. Stated that if the Planning Commission would like it that way, he would prefer it that way. Commissioner Hargrave stated he would prefer it that way. Chairman Caouette stated that if the Planning Commission are all of one mind, and that they unanimously agree that Mr. Kicak should have the ability to reject plans and that the Planning Commission expects him to reject applications that are not complete, felt that the Planning Commission should support Staff in that manner. P.C. Meeting Minutes 10-6-86 Page 4 Commissioner Van Gelder stated that her second item was that she received a phone call from Mr. Britton regarding a special meeting for the new Planning Commissioners, to review his project. Asked if they could have some background material on this project before that meeting. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that to be fair to all, felt that he should run through the project briefly to give the Planning Commissioners the concepts of the project. Asked if the Chairman felt that this review would be in order. Chairman Caouette indicated that it would be in order. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that his office would be happy to supply anyone who wished to see the plans. Stated that the project would be considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 20, 1986, and will include a Tentative Tract Map, Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit for multi -family residential uses. Stated that the original submittal was about 1983/84 and that the project, at that time, was a single development of R-3 apartments. It was approved subject to the conditions of staff and those added by the Planning Commission; however, it was denied by the City Council. Another project was submitted similar in nature and did not get approved. The most recent submittal is a proposed subdivision of 6.9 acres into 21 lots and will be R-3 multi -family residential. Mr. Kicak, Planning Director, went on to state staff's problems C'� with the most recent submittal. One, Britton Way has been a private street, which is 30 ft. wide, portion of which is an easement over someone elses property. Britton Way is not to City Standard. If the City were to accept it, there are two alternatives. One, it should be widened to it's ultimate or, if the City accepts it as it is, then at minimum, the City should restrict all parking on that street. Second, the applicant is to provide the City with a Gage Canal crossing, which should line up with McClarren. There are no amenities within the project. There are no provisions for guest parking on -site. There is a proposal to take the existing driveway from Barton Road, which goes into the Town and Country Professional Center, and construct it to City standard for a City street and accept it as such. The existing parking within the Town & Country Professional Center is inadequate at this time. The area behind the existing structures are used for additional parking. The applicant proposes that, on one of the parcels of the proposal subdivision, additional parking would be maintained in the form of an easement for the Town & Country Center. Mr. Kicak went on to state that there are other problems. P.C. Meeting Minutes 10-6-86 Page 5 Stated that the sewer line is running under a building, which is just a matter of dollars to relocate. Stated that those problems can be solved. In a previous submittal, the Planning Commission had recommended that a zone change occur. However, currently that parcel is zoned A-P and R-3 uses, in an A-P Zone, are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it would be appropriate for three Commissioners to meet with this individual. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that since it would not be a quorum, assumed that it would be appropriate. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other comments. Recognized Commissioner Hargrave for general discussion. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to bring an item back up for consideration by the Commissioners. 'Passed out information regarding Mt. Vernon Villas Phases I and II. Stated his thesis of his presentation was to ask for consideration to bring Mt. Vernon Villas Phase II back for public hearing. Stated on Sheet 1, the point was that Mt. Vernon Villas Phase I was approved, and to carry out the theme of a built -out community, it was important that Phase II coincide with Phase I. Pointed out on Sheet 2 that the applicant proposes, in Mt. Vernon Villas Phase II, to"retain as much landscaping and recreation area as possible. This area will consist of 40% of the land mass. The applicant wishes to take advantage of the natural slope of the site. Commissioner Hargrave pointed out that the overall orientation. of Phase II leans toward active adults rather than family members. Pointed out that the Bond offering of 30 million was meant from the beginning, and had concurrence from the Redevelopment Agency, to build out Phase I and Phse II. Pointed out that an important item would be the regulating agreement that Mt. Vernon Phase II will have 20% of the dwelling units to be occupied by families of low and moderate income. This would be defined as 80% of the median income for the particular counties involved. Stated that this was important because the City is under State mandate to provide certain types of housing and that this project will help meet that mandate. Regarding Bonds, stated that the last sheet, under redemption, these bonds are subject to mandatory redemption as of December 3, 1986. If the developer cannot meet and satisfy the conditions of the Redevelopment Agency for 542 residential units, some part of these funds will have to be redeemed by the developer. Commissioner Hargrave agreed that there are P.C. Meeting Minutes `. 10- 6- 86 Page 6 questions and things that need to be clarified such as, school impaction, traffic, Gage Canal crossings, garages, etc.; but that they can be answered to a standard that may be workable. Commissioner Hargrave felt that he would like to see this project brought back up for public hearing. Stated that the same problems would exist regardless of who developes this area. And, this would be a chance to have this entire area coordinated. Asked that the Planning Commissioners consider allowing this issue to come back for public hearing again. Chairman Caouette asked who would be the sponsor. Commissioner Hargrave responded possibly Forest City Dillon, the applicant. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that they, the applicant, could resubmit a project either in the same form that was initially submitted or a revised project. Commissioner Hargrave asked what mechanism would be required to get that started. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that someone from Forest City Dillon would have to come to the Planning Department and indicate that they would like to have the Planning Commission C) reconsider their project. Mr. Kicak felt that Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, could give better legal advice. Commissioner Hargrave indicated that he had discussed this with Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, and City Attorney advised him that any member of the public, or a member of the Planning Commission may request another public hearing. Commissioner Cole felt that the Planning Commission would need the applicant to make the request for reconsideration. Chairman Caouette stated that the Planning Commission had been through all the issues associated with the project at least twice. And, their action was followed by a similar action by the City Council. Commissioner Munson stated that if they wanted to reconsider garages and minimum unit size and have a completely redesigned package, then it would be considered a new project to start from the beginning. Unless they come back with something different than what has been presented in the past, he would vote against a motion to bring it back for reconsideration. P.G. Meeting Minutes 10-6-86 Page 7 Commissioner Van Gelder felt that it was up to the applicant to submit their plans whether the same or different. Chairman Caouette stated that what was presented previously was not satisfactory and was denied twice. Commissioner Hargrave then in summary stated that it is his understanding that if the applicant wants to come back, it is the applicant's decision, not the Planning Commissions'. And, that the Planning Commission felt there would have to be some material changes before it would consider going through the process. Chairman Caouette concurred with this statement. Commissioner McHugh also agreed that the applicant should bring the project to the Planning Commission. Being no further business, Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respegtfully submitted: Approved by: AIRMAN, Planning Commission P.C. Meeting Minutes 10-6-86 Page 8