07/20/1987GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20, 1987
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 July 20, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. by
Chairman, Norman Caouette.
PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman
Gerald Cole, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner
David Sawyer, Planning Director
Loretta Thompson, City Clerk
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
ABSENT: Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner
Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman
Pledge of Allegiance:
T. MINUTES ---------------- --------------------------------
-- ----Mr. Caouefte sfafed that fhe firsf ifem of
business was the election of the Chairperson
and Vice Chairperson for the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Sawyer stated that Section 2.16.040 of the
Grand Terrace Municipal Code states that on
the first meeting of the Planning Commission
following June 14th, shall select one of its
members to serve as Chairperson and another
person to serve as Vice Chairperson. The
floor was opened to take nominations.
Commissioner Fran Van Gelder nominated Norman
Caouette as Chairperson for the ensuing year.
It was seconded by Commissioner Ray Munson.
The nominations were closed by David Sawyer.
The voting was directed to accept Mr. Caouette
as Chairperson of the Planning Commission.
PCM-87-35 Motion carried all Ayes. 4-0-0
Nominations were opened up for Vice -
Chairperson. Commissioner Munson nominated
Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, seconded by
Chairman Caouette. No further nominations.
PCM-87-36 Motion carried all Ayes. 4-0-0
Commissioner Norman Caouette introduced the
second item of the evening, the minutes of
April 6, 1987.
Commissioner Cole mentioned one correction of
the minutes. He had attended the Planning
Commission that evening, though he is listed
as absent.
Norman Caouette asked for motion which
included correction on the minutes.
Commissioner Fran Van Gelder moved' that the
minutes be accepted, with correction.
Seconded by Commissioner Munson.
PCM-87-37 Motion carried all Ayes. 4-0-0.
Tentative Norman Caouette opened the Public Hearing
Tract #13205 Items. Tentative Tract Map #13205, Specific
Plan #85-12, request for removal of a
requirement.
Mr. Sawyer referred to the Planning Commission
Meeting of July 6, 1987. The Commission had
continued this item until this meeting, with
the request that the minutes regarding the
Commission's previous actions be provided.
Those minutes have been provided as well as
the information listed in the Staff Report
from the last meeting including, the
Applicant's letter with his current request,
City Council Resolution 86-30 approving
Tentative Map #13025 which the current request
is regarding, pa a 16 of the Specific Plan,
which deals with Recreation and Parks
requirements, the City Council minutes of
January 9, 1987, regarding the park proposal
and a referenced letter from Mr. Storm, also
the Planning Commission minutes of June 9,
1986, recommending approval of Tentative Tract
#13205 and the Specific Plan, the Planning
Commission minutes of August 4, 1986,
regarding the requested waiver of conditions
for Tentative Map #13050, Green Belt Park and
a letter from the Department of Water
Resources dated December 10, 1985, regarding
the current map. Again the applicant's
request is the Green Belt Landscape Park
requirement be removed and the applicant
allowed to bring the property lines to the
center or to one side of the easement for the
California Aqueduct and remove any
responsibility for either a park or extension
of Observation Drive.
Commissioner Fran Van Gelder mentioned the
reluctance to develop a park without the
easement, as stated in the packet materials.
She questioned the strength of the reluctance
from the Department of Water.
Mr. Sawyer stated he was not sure as to the
degree of the reluctance by the Department of
Water. He stated that they do not have the
absolute right to prevent it but they do want
to discourage it as much as they can. They
would not have any legal method in stating
their disapproval. Mr. Sawyer mentioned the
easement is there and as long as whatever goes
on top of that easement can be torn out, the
PUBLIC HEARING Water Company should be satisfied.
Tony Petta
11875 Eton Dr.
G.T.
Statement on the Green Belt area. Made
reference to the existing area that is now
already into a park site, east of Preston
Street. When that area was brought up for
discussion, the Planning Commission and the
City Council were deciding whether or not to
have a Green Belt. The decision was to have
the Green Belt. This was a positive decision
due to the beauty of the area, and it would be
an asset to the city.
Brought up the possibility that if the
Planning Commission and City Council had been
negative, it would mean that the fencing would
still be at the present location. It would
indicate that the property would be divided to
property owners on the right and left. There
would be obvious sites with landscaping and
other areas with weeded areas, this would be a
detriment to the City.
Here is a case where the City is able to
acquire an area for a Green Belt, at no cost.
In addition, the developer would add in the
development at no cost. Certainly there is
maintenance cost. It would be an asset to the
City to have a Green Belt added on for the
cost of maintenance. To have a Green Belt,
normally the City has to buy the property
first and then improve it, as well as maintain
it.
In addition to whatever park sites the City
needs, this would be an addition for a Green
Belt for the beauty of the City as opposed to
what would be a weed patch. The City should
take advantage of this opportunity and accept
the dedication all the way through the area.
It is a 100 ft. strip from one end of the City
to the other. A Green Belt all the way would
3
set off this City, and be a beautiful site
throughout the City.
To be able to get it at no cost for the City
and an improvement also. It is something the
Planning Commission should consider very
seriously.
Bill Storm
T.G. Austyn Devel. Mr. Storm stated they were basically neutral
in this development. Randy Anstine called him
and asked if he would be interested in
eliminating the park. The feeling was that
the City would rather use the funds in another
area. They could screen the park from public
view, heavy shrubbery, along each end of the
area. Private property, and maybe visible
from the homeowners own backyard. His
understanding was that the City only had so
many funds to allocate. The City apparently
was not in favor of just an ordinary Green
Belt. He mentioned that we would put in the
Green Belt and the City would enhance it with
a gazebo, basketball courts and other
facilities.
They either wanted to enhance the Green Belt
or no Green Belt at all. As far as they were
concerned, we could go either way. They could
do the Green Belt or not do the Green Belt and
with funds that would have been used for
upgrading this Green Belt someplace else. Mr.
Storm stated it seemed to him that the
question was of economics. Whatever we wanted
they were willing to do.
Commissioner Munson questioned if it was the
responsibility of the developer to build the
fences on the property owners' backyards.
Mr. Storm mentioned that the fencing was part
of the product fencing. The sideyard fencing
was located at the edge of the park. It would
be the same fencing that would be used for the
housing product.
Mr. Storm stated that they were not going to
go beyond what was presented. However, there
was another plan that would provide additional
facilities but it was not budgeted. His
company was basically thinking of a minimum
Green Belt with basic benches etc.
Commissioner Van Gelder inquired about the
possibility of the back property line being
extended, would that include the property
fence?
4
Mr. Storm mentioned that the aqueduct could
not be fenced at the end. The State would not
allow such fencing. The aqueduct would
probably be included into one of the adjacent
lots, one fence would probably be eliminated.
It would be absorbed into one of the
homeowners property. It would become a
private sideyard and the responsibility for
maintaining would be the appropriate
homeowner.
Randall Anstine, Assistant City Manager,
responded to the items under discussion. A
clarification was made to the items brought up
by Mr. Storm and the news media. Mr. Anstine
referred to the Conditions of Approval which
stated that the plans for the park site must
meet approval by the City Engineer as well as
himself. The first time that he had heard
that the park site was no longer under
consideration was when he was contacted by Mr.
Austyn's landscape architect who informed him
that Mr. Austyn had rejected the plans for the
tot lot and the facilities. That subsequently
resulted in the phone call that was placed to
him from Mr. Storm. After the consultation
with the City Engineer it was decided that the
park could be eliminated so long as the
condition for the continuation for Observation
Drive existed.
The City's Parks and Recreation Department
does not object to that area being made into a
park site. The objection, according to Mr.
Anstine, was the Green Belt which was there
from the Griffin Development. The conditions
of approval state that there will be picnic
tables, tot lot, and other items provided.
Upon the plans submitted by Mr. Austyn's
architect, those items were not included it
was a basic Green Belt. The plans were taken
back to the Department of Parks and
Recreations, the concept was objected to.
There was then a follow-up meeting with Mr.
Storm and the architect engineer, there were
plans produced showing the developed tot lot,
other park amenities. Mr. Anstine mentioned
that was what the City was basically looking
for. Mr. Anstine stated that later he
received a call by Mr. Storm indicating that
the project was rejected.
Mr. Anstine stated that he wanted to make the
record clear, that the Parks and Recreation
Department is in favor of this site being
developed as a park site so long as the
conditions for approval are adhered to.
5
Mr. Anstine continued to state that there were
no minimum amounts. At that point in time it
was left solely to the discretion of the
developer.
He had asked Mr. Storm to produce the second
drawing that the landscape architect provided
earlier. He stated that drawing represented
what the Parks and Recreation Department would
like to have, and would be happy to support
that development.
Mr. Storm did not recall previously mentioned
conversations. He stated that their proposal
had always been to provide the green belt with
the tot lots and the benches. He stated that
they did not want to go beyond that and
questioned Mr. Anstine if that met with his
approval.
Mr. Anstine stated that was correct but must
keep in mind of how the plans were laid out as
previously discussed.
Mr. Storm mentioned a problem that they had
been having was with the basketball facility
next to housing. They felt it was too close
to sideyard windows. Problems with the gazebo
and other facilities. They were trying to
coordinate and leave pads feeling that the
City should come in and provide the facilities
themselves with their own funds. Their
proposal has been to have essentially a green
belt with a trail, few park benches, simple
tot lot. They were not interested in putting
a great deal of money in this because they, in
the very beginning, proposed a green belt be
put in. They felt it would enhance their
marketing program to make the neighborhood a
nice area. They felt that the park was the
best thing to do. They had a special meeting
with City Council prior to turning in their
tentative map, prior to going to Planning
Commission. Requested City Council give
direction as to whether they wanted a
landscaping belt, or a dirt swatch. His
position being that they supported the
landscaping green belt. They were paying park
fees in addition to this park, they did not
have the funds to build a highly maintenanced
park. They felt it would be less expensive to
do a basic green belt.
CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING
6
NOW
Commissioner Cole would like to see further development
than the green belt that is proposed. Can sympathize
with the developer in not wishing to develop a full
size park... however, a tot lot, benches, and pathways
are fairly simple.
PCM-87-38 Chairman Caouette stated that there seems to be a
misunderstanding on interpretation of conditions of
approval, and moves that the conditions of Tentative
Tract map 13205, SP 85-12, remain as approved by City
Council on June 26, 1986. Seconded by Commissioner
Cole.
Motion carried all Ayes.
CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE ADJOURNED THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE CONVENED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD.
Review of a Proposed 3.33 Acre Commercial Retail Center.
Blue Mt. Partners
Mr. Sawyer stated that the applicant is Blue Mountain
Partners and proceeded to present the staff report.
Chairman Caouette referred to the requirement that
Commerce Way shall be not less than 60' or as
designated in the General Plan whichever is less. The
General Plan could say 88' and this condition could
still allow 60'.
Mr. Sawyer clarified stating that the intent of this
was that the 60' right of way would be the minimum for
this requirement. The intent was to leave it flexible.
Mr. Westberg stated he was involved a couple of months
ago in one of the study sessions with forewarning of
this project coming soon. He was here this evening to
go over the whole scenario and define some of the items
that they presented more precisely. Introduction also
of Mr.. Peloquin, owner of the project, to address
certain conditions that were read previously.
c�
Mr. Westberg made a presentation of the
project to the Commission.
Mr. Sawyer explained that a General Plan
Amendment is necessary if this project is
approved as presented.
Mr. Westberg stated that they understood that
the Planning Commission is in the position
where it gives architectural approval
possibly. At this time the Planning
Commission was not in the capacity of granting
General Plan changes.
Mr. Westberg requested that the City assist
them to carry forward the project in a manner
which requires little time on preliminary
aspects of this project. They wish to get to
the issues as quickly as possible as they are
aware of the possibility of General Plan
changes for the street alignment and street
width questions.
Mr. Westberg stated that Mr. Sawyer has asked
for a detailed landscaping/irrigation plan.
In reference to their Thursday meeting, that
it might not be appropriate for them to carry
the project to that extent until they know
��. exactly the width of the streets and the
alignment factors. That was one condition
they would like to have agreement on by the
Planning Commission. He requested that they
would like to defer that until it is known
whether the project is approved.
Commissioner Van Gelder inquired if any
studies had been done as to what the impact
would be on traffic.
Mr. Westberg replied that they know that
Wildan and Associates are doing the General
Plan review of the entire area and part of
that review is a traffic study. He stated
that they are at the fore front of the street
and there is a great deal of square footage of
land beyond their site. He stated that they
could not assume what might take place with
all of the land. If their project is
successful that might indicate that other
projects will be successful or it might not.
He mentioned that they really did not know
what the traffic study might be. Scenarios
could be created. They have only taken into
effect what they think is the judicious way to
go forward on the project, in regards to the
width. He stated that they went one lane in
each direction, with parking on the street,
but that was not part of the tally in regards
to their project.
Mr. Westberg mentioned that he wanted to
narrow the street because the previous width
was excessive, it has an industrial feel to
it. A commercial shopping plaza feel is
needed, narrowing the street down for that
effect.
Commissioner Van Gelder mentioned the project
was a fantastic development. Grand Terrace
has so many traffic problems would certainly
hate to have this type of development hindered
by poor traffic.
Mr. Westberg stated that the loans are already
committed to the project. There are alot of
things that as a developer/architect need to
be done to get this project ready for
submittal to the City for plan check and
building approval. If they knew that they had
a fairly reasonable "go project" and could
initiate some of that action prematurely, then
maybe the September time frame would not be as
great an issue.
Commissioner Munson asked if the first phase
would be a tax generator.
Mr. Westberg explained that initial phase 1
has no involvement with that phase. It has no
involvement with the initial phase because
there have been no deals made. Phase 1 is an
entire retail operation. With the ITT
situation there is a major parking issue.
They have not addressed that particular entity
in this phase. The size of the retail stores
is unknown at this time. He mentioned that
hopefully there will be various sizes. They
want a home—grown plaza type of area. It is
fairly close to a bedroom community and hope
that people will enjoy that type of plaza.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the developer
had any goals as far at what point in the
venture would it be expected to have a certain
percentage of the stores occupied.
Mr. Westberg stated that the only goal he has
is to get the project approved and started.
He referred to his client to comment on
Commissioner Van Gelder's question.
Mr. Westberg stated that Phase 1 and Phase 2
are along the freeway, Phase 3 is retail on
the other side of Commerce Way. They will be
�5 9
moving forward with the project and would be
impacted considerably by not having the
adequate parking that they need for that type
of retail center, if in fact they were made to
increase the width of the street by another
30' through the project. When he came on the
site and looked at Commerce Way, he discovered
the street to be very obtrusive in the width
and way it reads.
He stated that they have looked at what the
environment has to offer, what the property
has to offer and what they want to see as far
as ambiance and quality. Thus, they came up
with the project with its street widths and
also the parking requirements to get enough
square footage on the project to make it
viable.
Mr. Peloquin stated that what they would like
to have tonight is a conceptual approval and
recommendation by the Planning Commission that
they go forward with the General Plan
Amendment change with regards to the width of
the street, being an ultimate right of way
with approximately 42' in paved section across
the front of the shopping center.
He mentioned that they have been talking to
Carl's Jr. regarding a fast food chain,
nothing definite yet, at that location. The
City lacking fast food chains and they are
looking at the prospect. They were also
speaking with a hardware store.
Mr. Peloquin further stated that the thing
they could not wait for would be item #1,
completing the Wildan study, and wait for that
period of time before they can move on with
the project. Joint venture partner, Savings
and Loan Utah, is impatient and he worries
what would happen when September comes up and
the new General Plan has not been approved.
Continued delays would cause this partner to
pay out interest on the land loan to ask that
we sell this property and go on to another
project. He stated that he would not wish to
do that as he feels comfortable with this
project.
He stated also that they would not want to see
the property broken up into parcels and sold
off and be individually built out and
developed on a piece meal basis. They would
like to keep the continuity of their
architectural style throughout the 9 acres and
make it all uniformed.
e10
ME
Referring to Item #3, he has no problems with.
Item #4 refers to the landscaping on the right
of way within 15' landscaping setback is on
the City's right of way and would like this
approved this evening.
Mr. Westberg requested that the Planning
Commission approve their concept so that they
could continue on with their architectural
plans.
Commissioner Fran Van Gelder requested
clarification on figures of the sidewalk
dimensions, 5'sidewalk, next to the street.
So 64' is now the requirement for the street
and the City Engineer has also stated that 60'
would be adequate.
Mr. Westberg stated that at this time between
42 and 60' it requires a complete plan change
with quite a reduction on parking spaces which
would allow less density or less square
footage as far as the retail center and less
revenue for the City.
Mr. Peloquin explained their situation as the
face of car stalls on opposite sides of the
street they would prefer to have as fixed
items. The difference between vacant car
stalls going across the street to vacant car
stalls with the landscaping remaining and
where the line of dedication should be placed.
If the vacant car stalls have to be moved,
wider away from each other, that is where
their impact is. They have two landscaping
strips in a paved section that will either
stay as is, fluctuate a narrower landscaping
strip creating greater paving width or wider
paving width, existing landscaping strip and
pushing our cars inward into the project thus
decreasing our car count.
Mr. Sawyer clarified the impact of Mr.
Kicak's recommendation regarding the sidewalk
was not that the required footage would be no
longer needed but that the actual physical
improvement would not be necessary. It would
not be that they were gaining or losing 5'...
Commissioner Van Gelder questioned if the 5'
could be included as part of the greenery.
Mr. Sawyer explained that it normally would
be on the public right of way and if we want
to give the approval for that boundary
landscaping requirement to be located on the
public right of way then it could be part of
that.
11
0
Mr. Westberg stated that they could effective-
ly bring the right of way dedication in so
that there is only 5' of landscaping in the
public right of way, 10' on on -site. It is
just a matter of where they put that
dedication line. If they have a greater paved
width and still the 5' and then the 10' of
landscaping and moves their cars out.
Mr. Sawyer explained that what we are really
talking about is a distance of 46' and the
requirement from the General Plan which calls
for a right of way width of 88'. That
includes the improved roadway of 64' and
normal landscaping with city maintaining the
landscaping and sidewalk.
He further stated that in addition to that the
City's code requires that on the private side,
if the private side is going to be developed
with a parking lot there is an additional 15'
of landscaping in the boundary landscaped
area. What the proposal calls for is two
things, a narrowing of the 88' right of way to
a 72' right of way and also incorporating that
15' on each side, with a total of 30' within
the right of way. There is actually a
distance of 46' that is being absorped into
the right of way in order to allow them to
provide the parking aisles and depths for the
stalls that they need in order to have the
layout that they proposed.
Mr. Sawyer referred to Mr. Kicak's indication
that 60' would be acceptable. He clarified Mr.
Kicak's comment that he could support a 60'
minimum if the General Plan went along with
that in the future, but not 42'. The problem
with that narrow of an improved roadway is not
only whether or not it would handle the
traffic for this project, but without knowing
how the property to the South is going to be
zoned, it may not be adequate. If we approve
this narrower roadway we may have a
possibility of a bottleneck in the future.
Mr. Kicak had indicated earlier that the
existing Commerce Way right of way was
substandard to the General Plan requirements
and that appears to be a very wide block of
pavement.
Commissioner Van Gelder questioned Mr. Sawyer
if there was too much time spent on this
particular item when a decision could not be
made until the changes of the General Plan are
resolved.
12
Mr. Sawyer stated that he feels that the
concensus of the Planning Commission and staff
is that it is a worthwhile project. He
indicated the problems the developer goes
through in developing such a project.
Mr. Westburger reiterated the urgency in
starting the project, preferably before
September, at least on the agenda for
discussion on the zoning problem.
Mr. Peloquin mentioned the developer had been
working on this project for more than one
year. Their study has been architecturally
well enhanced. He mentioned that they would
encourage their project to be allowed to go
through and let the General Plan suit this
natural growth pattern, then their success
would be enhanced according to their time
frames.
Mr. Peloquin proposed that the project be
accepted now and that their consultants would
do the plans based on what they have. If
there are any changes from now to the next
year, they are at a better position to purport
it. If there are any problems they can
prepare now for any solutions on the General
Plan. He stressed that it would be to their
benefit to fit the General Plan with what they
have proposed. He felt that they could satisfy
the City's requirements. When they had
started the project they were hoping to start
and complete the project by the first quarter
of next year.
Chairman Caouette opened to entertain a motion
for discussion by the Commission.
PCM-87-39 Commissioner Van Gelder moved that they accept
the Site and Architectural Review to approve
SA 87-6 with regards to the architectural site
and site design as presented tonight. Subject
to the following conditions as listed.
Commissioner Cole asked if that included the
recommendation of 64'.
Commissioner Van Gelder stated that was her
intention to include that in the motion as she
understood it.
Commissioner Cole seconded the motion for
discussion.
1.3
Commissioner Munson asked the Planning
Director if the area south of this goes to
some type of residential home building, R-1 or
R-2, would the 42' carry the traffic if there
was no parking on the sides.
Mr. Sawyer stated he and the City Engineer
would be hesitant to comment on that without
knowing what would be specifically in that
area. It was the City Engineer's suggestion
that it be 60' and not 421. Mr. Sawyer stated
that he did not have adequate information to
answer at this time.
Mr. Kicak stated that the project was well
designed and conceived. The realignment of
Commerce Way made sense to him. He liked the
idea of taking it as a lump rather than the
individual parcels being developed. He
expressed the concern as to the status of the
property to the south, if it becomes
commercial, whether or not the 42' would be
able to handle the traffic. If the 42' were
approved he felt the parking on the side could
be eliminated and still get two lane traffic
in each direction, however it would be a very
narrow roadway. He felt it would not be
possible to approve a 42' width without some
direction of the Master and General Plan as
far as the consultant taking a look at that.
He could not approve it at this point.
Commissioner Van Gelder praised the project
and stated it would be a welcome addition to
the community. Again expressed the concern
over the street traffic. Commissioner Van
Gelder suggested approving this in concept.
She stated that it would not be possible for
the Planning Commission to allow a 42' width
without first having the revision of the
General Plan. She stated that she understood
the developer's concern about money being tied
up in the project.
PCM-87-39 Chairman Caouette called for a vote on the
motion.
Motion carried all Ayes.
14
CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE ADJOURNED THE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BOARD.
The Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
�R. awyer vi?Pan ing Director
Approved by:
Nor a-
Chairman/Planning Commission