Loading...
02/02/198712-08.1070 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 2, 1987 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commision was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California 92324 on February 2, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Norman T. Caouette. PRESENT: Norman T. Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Gerald Cole, Commissioner Daniel McHugh, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Commissioner Stanley Hargrave I. MINUTES Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 19, 1987 continued to March 16, 1987. II. ITT TECHNICAL SERVICES INCORPORATED, DETERMINATION OF USE AT 22365 BARTON ROAD Discussion as follows (condensed): Planning Director Kicak stated that the Planning Commission requested to consider a proposed use within a structure. The current zoning of the property is C2. The zoning, which would permit that the use as proposed by ITT, pursuant to our Chapter 10, Section 10-020, Subsection I of the Zoning Code would be AP zoned., At the present time although the area is zoned as C2, the uses on the adjacent parcels located just Westerly of the Stater Brothers Shopping Center are AP uses and those uses are permitted in a C2 zone. Mr. Kicak stated that he had requested the City Attorney to determine if the use as it is proposed within the C2 zone is legally permitted and the City Attorney would address that issue later in the meeting. L� Mr. Kicak stated that there were three concerns that the staff has and the first one was the zoning and asked that the Commission consider the opinion of the City Attorney with respect to the zoning and if the project as proposed was considered there should be some mitigation measures with respect to the parking on private property and traffic circulation within a public right-of-way. Mr. Kicak stated that the second concern was parking. The total number of parking spaces within the complex at the present is 182 spaces. Both the C2 zone as well as the AP zone require one parking space for each of the 200 square feet of the floor area. Based on the floor area between the two structures there are required 185 spaces which is merely three short of the requirement under our present zoning code although this project was approved prior to the incorporation of the City. There is an agreement between the two properties, Security Pacific Bank and Jaeger Development, for mutual use of the parking facilities and other facilities on site. Mr. Kicak added that the traffic circulation on Barton Road was the third concern. The traffic circulation at the present time on Barton Road, especially for the left turn movements in the vacinity of that project is in constant conflict because of the proximity of the two driveways for 22400 and 22440 Barton Road and the project being discussed. These particular traffic problems can be mitigated to some extent, but he didn't think they could be totally eliminated but could be mitigated to where they were bearable. City Attorney Ivan Hopkins stated that he reviewed the agreement between Security Pacific and at that time Mr. Keeney who was the owner of the property. They reached an agreement upon mutual covenants so that the property could be developed. There is a reciprocity in the agreement so that the agreement can be enforced by the party. It's a covenant running with the land. One of the terms of the agreement indicates that there will not be any uses in that building that are not consistant with the zoning and legal uses of the property. They have mutual and joint easements to one another for parking and traffic circulation. The bank does not have sufficient parking for its own purposes without that agreement and it would not have been an allowed use otherwise. They can enforce the restrictions of the agreement as covenants running with the land, due to the covenant running with the land feature. The zoning on that property is C2. The bank, when established and currently, are permitted in a C2 zone which is one of the two parcels of the piece of property. He didn't know of any use in the other office building currently which was not a permitted use under the C2 zone with the exception of the ITT schools. He didn't think in a C2 zone that this school was an allowed use without a use permit; maybe a nonconforming AP use and certainly all of the uses in that building would be permitted uses under the AP District that currently exists. There are other uses which the Planning Commission could find are consistant with these stated uses and which do not create undesirable traffic, parking or congestion in the areas unless mitigated so he thought that whatever the Commission determined it would be a permitted use with a use permit and probably would require mitigation of traffic and/or parking that would be associated with this use, however that's if the Commission finds that this use of this building is a nonconforming AP use. If the Commission finds that; all of the uses would be permitted in a C2 zone and thus it is not nonconforming AP use, then it is not an allowed use of the C2 zone and basically that's what the Zoning Code Title 18 provides for them. Chairman Norman Caouette stated that the City Attorney was saying certainly not a C2 use, but it might be considered a nonconforming AP use in a C2 zone and if the Commission made that conclusion then they could possibly consider it with the conditional use permit. City Attorney Hopkins stated that yes, that was what he was saying. He had some problems about any interpretation that would allow the use so long as there is the potential of a use being stretched to a very liberal interpretation when the bank or the adjoining property owner has indicated some concerns in regards to this particular use. If the traffic is increased above that which is currently allowed and provided for with the uses of that building we could certainly increase our liability of the City because that is already a dangerous condition. Mr. Hopkins stated that in addition, if we increase the parking or the load on the parking that's currently provided, the bank certainly would have an action against us for allowing a use that would be consistant with that allowed if in fact that's the finding of the Commission. One last point City Attorney Hopkins wanted to make so that it would be a matter of record was that it should be set forth that Mr. Kicak is a tenant in that particular building. He does not have a financial interest in that facility and does not in Mr. Hopkins' opinion have a conflict of interest. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he hadn't heard one specific thing that was going to be done to mitigate these problems. He hadn't heard one specific thing that was going to be done to mitigate the liability to the City. He stated that the Commission also had an appeal from Security Pacific that they couldn't be here tonight but they do want to address the Commission. Mr. Hargrave stated that he needed to hear what they had to say because he thought that they have an interest in this. At this point in time he didn't see anything that would give him reasonable cause to say this is an AP zone, I don't see anything to give me reasonable cause that there are specific things that are going to be done to mitigate where the students are going to park. Planning Director Kicak stated that he wanted to point out that this item was brought to the Commission at the request of the Commission at the last meeting, that the Commission at that time had requested that they wanted additional information. There has not been an official request by the applicant for the Determination of Use per say. Mr. Kicak stated that they brought this when we advised the applicant the Planning Commission wanted to look at it. We asked them to make their presentation. There has not c been a formal application for Determination of Use by the applicant but the Planning Commission had requested to look at this carefully. John Richardson stated the one thing the lease does call for from ITT is that they do want additional parking space. ITT recognized the need for parking and that has been stipulated in the lease that within a year the landlord would supply adjacent parking which could be controlled by the school for the students to park there. Mr. Richardson stated that he could understand the traffic thing the Commission was speaking of. He thought it was very important but at this point he was looking for some kind of a yes or no as to whether or not that facility could be deemed as C2 and if this was a proper use in a C2 or whether it was AP. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he'd like to somehow see if they could work on this a little bit more; get some more information, get some more specifics and get the property owner to perhaps see what they could do about the parking situation. Mr. Hargrave stated that the City Attorney had read verbatim out of the Code, and thought what he said was that the Commission could consider it an AP zone if they could be reasonably convinced that this would not cause a parking and/or traffic problem. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that he just didn't see that this was a viable consideration at all for this location. He wished there was a way this thing could be worked out but he just didn't think this was the location to do it. Chairman Caouette stated that the Commission ought to entertain a motion on the Determination of Use of ITT Technical Services in the C2 zone. John Richardson responded that he'd like to have the opportunity to come back to the Commission with a proposal that may resolve the issues, may provide the mitigating circumstances that the Commission needed. He stated that if their developer could assure us that they can provide us with sufficient parking spaces off premises and that those premises would not create a traffic hazard or a pedestrial hazard, they would like to then bring this back to the Commission at that time with a plan to provide those mitigating circumstances. Mr. Richardson asked if that seemed acceptable to the Commission? Chairman Caouette stated that if the Commission was willing to accept the very liberal interpretation of Title 18 that the City Attorney spoke of. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he'd be willing to defer his decision tonight to give them time to come back to the Commission with the proposal to try to mitigate some of the problems discussed and if they could be mitigated then he'd be very interested in listening to their proposal. If they couldn't be mitigated then he would have to vote no against their conditional use. Commissioner Munson asked what usage currently under C2 would ITT's be 0 close to. Bob MacNeil answered that he believed under C2 it states personal services and he thought ITT, and not by a major stretch of the imagination, fits under that. They do have and are active in job placement, they do have sales people on staff, administration is a large part of their operation and their career educational services he thought could be viewed as personal services. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he was just looking at the language under 18.33.020A which is what Mr. MacNeil was referring to, and said it stated retail stores and personal services establishments within a building and then sets forth what it's referring to; appliance stores, bakeries, banks, barber shops, beauty parlors, book stores, department stores, drug stores, boot shops, hardware stores, mortuaries, nursery's, offices, radio stores, professional, restaurants, shoe shops, studios and tailor shops, libraries, branch post offices and off premises sale of liquor. He supposed if the Commission interpreted that as personal services it certainly would be an allowable interpretation. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked that if the Commission were to make a motion to continue to maybe two meetings from now, would that give them ample time. Bob MacNeil stated that he'd like to make it in two weeks instead of two meetings because that was about all the time that Mr. Jaeger would entertain ITT for this. He stated that it sounded to him like they were in the wrong zoning; that they should be in AP zoning and guessed the building was put up when the County had the plan but now it's C2 and that sounded like retail which of course he stated they were not. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that the entire zoning in the entire city was reviewed a few years ago and was certain ample notice went out to everyone. He said he would be willing right now to make a motion to continue this until the next meeting. Bob MacNeil stated that he would certainly like to leave it open and that the next meeting would be fine. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked the Chairman to entertain a motion to do so and Chairman Caouette said he certainly would. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson made a motion that the Commission continue this item over to the next regular scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hargrave seconded that with the condition that the Chair recognize any public discussion of this before they went to a vote. (PCP"-87-2) Commissioner Van Gelder asked that if they came up with adequate parking and traffic patterns, was that going to be the determining factor if they 0 did in fact fall into either of those catagories of zoning. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson said he would like to see Grand Terrace be the home base for an ITT School. He thought that it would be a tremendous asset to the City. Commissioner Hargrave stated that his second on the motion was just to give the gentlemen time to come back to the Commission, because they now understood the problems more fully and they understand the concern of the Commission and that they were very concerned about these issues and would hold them paramount at least in his decision, but he was not trying to create any preimpressions that he was for or against. At this point in time he thought the codes were pretty specific and mitigating circumstances haven't been mitigated. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that that was the spirit that the motion was made. He thought what they were trying to do was give them every possible alternative to come back and convince the Commission that some of these major issues could be resolved. Chairman Caouete stated that the Commission had a motion and a second to continue this item for two weeks and asked that the Commission cast their votes. MOTION PASSED - 4:1 (pMC_S7_12) Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission to become the Architecture Design Review board. Respectfully submitted Approved by: CHAIRMAN, Planning Commission