Loading...
09/21/1987GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING September 21, 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 September 21, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Norman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Fran Van Gelder, Vice -Chairwoman Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner ABSENT: Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Hawkinson ------------------------------- 1. MINUTES --------------------------------- WORKSHOP Convened at 6:30 P.M. Discussion was brought up on the minutes and vote taken on the issue of continuing or discontinuing verbatim transcription. The vote was a split decision thus verbatim was to be continued. Minutes from the July 20th and August 17th meetings were discussed with corrections. WORKSHOP Adjourned AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED 7:00 P.M. Chairman Caouette convened the meeting to order. Chairman Caouette brought up the the first item on the agenda, TPM 87-5, parcel split. Applicant/Stephen Fox CG Engineering TPM-87-5 The Planning Director presented the staff report on the revised plan for this parcel map. The item is a continuation of a four lot subdivision previously 1 heard. It is now resubmitted to the Planning Commission as a three lot subdivision. He presented the reviewing agencies recommendations and recommended denial. Chairman Caouette opened discussion from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the dedication of Pico Street was included in this revised plan. The Planning Director stated that the conditions do not include the dedication for street frontage on either Pico Street or Blue Mountain Court. Commissioner Sims referred to the conditions submitted by the City Engineer. The City Engineer, he mentioned, had indicated the dedication of 30'for right of way. The City Engineer clarified that the conditions were based on the original parcel map, 4 lots, with 1 lot fronting on Blue Mountain Court. He stated that the applicant would not take access on Blue Mountain Court. If in fact the applicant did take access he would have to negotiate with the property owners that owned that street. He referred to his recommendations on his memorandum stating that item 3B and item 4B be deleted, specifically the offer of dedication of right of way 30' to the east of Blue Mountain Court. That street should remain a private street. Commissioner Sims asked how the grading in this site compares to the surrounding areas. The Planning Director stated that the surrounding areas to the south and the west were a slight slope and goes up the hillside with a greater slope to the east. He mentioned in order to fit three lots here, staff felt that the grading that would have to be done would intensify the topographical impact on the building sites. Staff recommended a denial on three, but said it would be appropriate for a two lot split. Commissioner Munson expressed concern for the traffic and parking impact on Blue Mountain Court. The Planning Director stated that since it was a private road the City would not be responsible for parking enforcement. It would be up to the owners to deal with it as a private matter. 2 Commissioner Hargrave asked if the 3rd lot's grading change would have a significance on the rain runoff down Pico Street. The City Engineer stated that any rain runoff from roofs and surfaces would have some significance but could not convey at this time what the impact would be. Commissioner Hargrave asked about the flood conditions down Pico. The City Engineer stated that at the vicinity of Pico and Mt. Vernon the problems are about as compound as anywhere else in the City. Commissioner Sims mentioned that since the City Engineer was revising his recommendations the lot fronting Blue Mountain Court, southeast corner, would increase approximately 4,000 sq. ft. If this map was revised to reflect that situation and Blue Mountain Court became a public street, he asked what impact this would be to the City. The City Engineer stated that it would be up to the property owners of Blue Mountain Court and if they could show that they could maintain the street and conform with City standards then they could dedicate Blue Mountain Court as a public street. The City would not be involved in the dedication or improvements to that street. The City Engineer stated that if it goes as a private street the R-O-W or setback is measured from the existing easement. If they think in terms of considering Blue Mountain Court for dedication then same should be considered at this time. With the parcel as it is being currently considered and the requirements as we have expressed they would have sufficient room for the R-O-W. The acceptance of the right of way should be deleted right now. The Planning Director stated that any siting of a building can be handled in the Site and Architectural Review. '� �.[:� ���ti�l► tik�ilil �I W � �i��� �� �� �,� � �i� �I���� �T:T�7� �►` [ei! David Boraquin 2627 S. Waterman Ave. San Bernardino, CA. CG Engineering 3 Mr. Boraquin was representing applicant/ Stephen Fox. He presented the parcel map display. He stated that with their previous request for parcel map subdivision being denied, their project was continued. He stated that what they have done with their new map was to increase the size of their lots. It was the applicant's intention as a compromise, to increase the lots and to have a different access avoiding impact on the private road of Blue Mountain Court. It is the applicant's purpose to comply with current standards. Chairman Caouette the project. Stephen Fox 382 Bonnie View Dr. Rialto, CA. Owner of property asked for public reply in favor of Mr. Fox stated that his project would uphold the value of the area and stated he would be willing to comply with the property owners desire to maintain appropriate building standards. Chairman Caouette asked for public reply in opposition of the project. Dennis Kidd 22874 Pico St. G.T. Mr. Kidd stated that he was opposed to the project due to the size of the lots already in the vicinity and the topography. Michael Stein 12711 Blue Mountain Crt. G.T. Mr. Stein was the representative of the property owners in that area. He stated that they agreed with the staff report and were in opposition to the project. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED 7:40 P.M. 4 CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE OPENED DISCUSSION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director to review the overall history of the project from the start. The Planning Director gave a brief description of the parcel map and the status presently of the project. He explained the present zoning and the upcoming changes and their effect on the area. Commissioner Munson asked of the City Engineer the water title for that area. The City Engineer referred to the map and explained the location of the water line in surrounding areas. He was unable to clearly define the water line location for the parcel map. Chairman Caouette referred to the southside of Pico Street and the asphalt berm that runs along the street. The City Engineer stated there was a curb which came up to the easterly property which is to the west of the property in question. There is a berm which runs south, not in the best condition but there is a berm. Commissioner Hargrave asked if during the General Plan Revision they might look at rezoning that area to try to retain the character of the area to larger acreage or larger lots. The Planning Director stated that staff would be looking at that area. Chairman Caouette stated that there are questions on suitability and grading. Commissioner Hargrave stated on the subject of grading that the City Engineer seemed very comfortable with the project. He directed a question to the Planning Director for his objection to the grading. The Planning Director stated that visualizing the grading and retaining walls that would be necessary, it would not be in character with the surrounding areas. The incompatibility with the density around it would have a strong impact to the neighborhood. Chairman Caouette stated his support of staff's 5 recommendations. He would have to support the project, but would suggest a subdivision of two lots. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the project were a subdivision of 2 lots would grading and retaining walls be necessary. The Planning Director stated that grading could be necessary for a subdivision of two lots, but at this time was not certain to what extent it would be necessary. MOTION PC-64 Commissioner Hargrave moved that they accept staff recommendations to adopt the resolution of denial of TPM-87-5. Commissioner Munson seconded. Motion carried, all AYES. Break PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:15 P.M. Applicant/Forrest City Dillon 11601 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA. 90025 The Planning Director presented the project specifications and conditions for Phase II of this development. He reported on the Site Plan/Conditional Use Permit-87-1 and the Negative Declaration, along with the reviewing agencies and staff recommendations. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there were any further conditions in regards to parking. The Planning Director referred to the City Engineer's recommendations. He further stated that there 22 additional parking spaces with guest spots marked. He stated that the 22 figure was 75% recommended by the zoning code. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the variance was not necessary because of the Specific Plan. L The Planning Director gave the Specific Plan definition. He mentioned that it meets the intent of the General Plan, setting independent criteria that is required for development. Commissioner Sims inquired about the traffic impact for Phase I and II. The Planning Director referred to the traffic analysis from Phase I and the City Engineer's recommendations. The City Engineer said that CG Engineering had told him that their traffic analysis covered the whole project, considering a higher density. Chairman Caouette asked if a four lane Mt. Vernon was assumed in the early traffic study. The City Engineer answered that the projected traffic volume could be handled on either levels C or D. The Planning Director referred to the lights at Mt. Vernon and Washington Avenues. He said that traffic was maintained at level B or D. The City Engineer said that the intent was to eliminate the intersection and come off of the freeway further up. Chairman Caouette asked if a traffic light at the bottom of Mt. Vernon was considered. The City Engineer stated it had been but was no longer considered due to the expense. He figured it would run $125 per unit for the traffic signal. Chairman Caouette asked if the building permits, once paid, if those funds could be used for signals. The City Engineer referred to the current budget for the signal at Mt. Vernon Avenue and Barton Road. The contribution was from the developer, school and should have enough funds. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the funds from HCD (Housing Community Development Grant). The City Engineer stated that those funds allocated to the City are available upon completion of the project. He mentioned that the City would have to make a certain 7 percentage in contribution also. Commissioner Munson asked if the landscaping couldn't be taken care of by the applicant. The City Engineer explained that the landscaping on Gage Canal should be done by the applicant, but the City of Riverside requires that the City assume the responsibility of upkeep. He suggested that the City pass on the costs to the applicant. Commissioner Munson suggested that the apartment housing complex pay the City and the City would maintain Gage Canal. Commissioner Sims asked about drainage from Mt. Vernon side to Canal side, and water runoff from Canal to Barton. He also asked if the interior roads would carry most of the water. The City Engineer stated that a curb and gutter would be a possibility. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the conditions were comparable to Phase I. The City Engineer stated that the conditions were identical to Phase I, except for traffic signals. Chairman Caouette asked about the front setbacks and the garages in front. The Planning Director said that there were two different plans in the packet. One was the original landscaping plan and the other was the revised location of the garages on the site plan. Chairman Caouette asked if the conditions on wall treatments were the same as in Phase I. The Planning Director stated that they were. He also said that the Site and Architectural Review would cover this, as well as landscaping, and it would be appropriate to do so this evening. Commissioner Sims asked what the current standards were on the road specifications and any differences between Phases I and II. The Planning ,Director stated that they had not addressed the current standards. City Council would have to discuss the street widths. 0 PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED 8:55 P.M. Applicant/Forrest City Dillon Carol Tanner 11601 Wilshire #1900 Los Angeles, CA. Ms. Tanner said they were a real estate developer who builds their own projects. She presented the history of the project stressing consistency throughout both Phases. She explained they had corrected the problem caused by the garages and visibility. They had followed the Mt. Vernon Master Plan. She pointed out the positive points to their development. Chairman Caouette opened the discussion from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hawkinson said the square footage fell short of what was required in the Phase. He mentioned that the guest spaces were 77 per ordinance, the project recommended 58. There was a 15' setback for the project but 25' was stated in the ordinance. He asked if the parking, setbacks and landscaping could be worked out. Also, he mentioned that detached garages did not meet with Phase I approval, asking feasibility of upgrading garages to carports. There was discussion between Commissioner Hawkinson and Carol Tanner regarding the conflict of continuity between Phase I and II. Commissioner Hawkinson stated there was an ordinance conflict. Commissioner Sims asked about the internal access, if the grading would join both phases. Also, asked if erosion protection was considered. Ms. Tanner answered the grading would be done at the beginning of the Phase, and the project starting around January or February. Also she stated the erosion protection was not mentioned in the conditions. The City Engineer clarified that if needed the erosion protection condition could be added. Commissioner Munson then brought up the question of maintenance of landscaping on the Canal side, southerly, Forrest City or the City. 9 Ms. Tanner replied that it would be difficult to estimate costs or materials needed, if they do it at all they would do both phases. Commissioner Munson requested that this problem be addressed this evening. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it should be established now as a condition. Commissioner Sims asked if what they were proposing to include the Edison parcel. Ms. Tanner stated that they would do the landscaping, gutter and grading at costs to them and the City would reimburse Forrest City at a percentage. Chairman Caouette mentioned that City Council would have to vote on appropriating money for this. -4J.B. "Barney" Karger 011668 Bernardo Way G.T. . Mr. Karger expressed some support and desire that the project be completed as soon as possible. Tony Petta 11875 Eton G.T. Mr. Petta pointed out that the City would not necessarily have to go with the offer by Forrest City. They could bid for contract prices. Mr. Petta brought up the past history on Phase I and the problems at that time faced by the Planning Commission, those of density, traffic in general, and traffic on Mt. Vernon. Mr. Petta mentioned that the problem of density was resolved to the satisfaction of the populus and the developer. The Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit were approved however the Planning Commission had no opportunity to get back to Phase I on clear conditions. City Council addressed the parking, size of units and the garage issues. Jack Booker 11785 Mt. Vernon 10 i G.T. Mr. Booker expressed opposition with the project. He saw problems with the parking, garage sites, and the traffic flow. Allan Thomas 11875 Mt. Vernon G.T. Mr. Thomas voiced opposition to the project. He felt it would bring a change to the neighborhood and expressed a desire to maintain a certain demeanor in Grand Terrace. Dr. Mc Duffy 11830 S. Mt. Vernon G.T. Dr. Mc Duffy stated that he was the sole remaining property owner, located between Phase I and II. He foresaw problems with storm drainage, sewage hookup and handling, and rezoning. THE PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED 9:50 P.M. BY CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED 9:50 P.M. BY CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE The City Engineer mentioned that the sewage issue is addressed in his recommendation report, item no. 1. Commissioner Sims asked whether or not the sewage system within the Forest City project could accomodate or if provisions were made for the future sewage of the Mc Duffy's property. The City Engineer answered that Mc Duffy wanted to make sure he was provided sewage service from Forest City to the back of his property. That the property drains towards Mt. Vernon at this time. If the property develops there are two options: 1) To raise the west end drainage towards Mt. Vernon. 2) To build a pump station. He further stated that legally they cannot require 11 Forest City Dillon to provide service to Mc Duffy's property through their property. Ms. Tanner mentioned that if Dr. Mc Duffy's property is purchased they will work out the development problems with the property owner. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Mc Duffy's property is not purchased now but perhaps later, would that require a whole new project. The Planning Director answered they would need to look at the General Plan along with the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Director would not recommend an access point now with Dr. Mc Duffy's property being considered. Commissioner Hawkinson referred to Mr. Petta's comments on the designation of 12 units per acre & 3.75 units per acre senior bonus on the earlier Phase I, asking if that would be applicable to Phase II. The Planning Director stated that there was no recommendation or percentage available on this Phase. He stated that it would be appropriate to make a condition on this now if so desired. Commissioner Munson asked about the new General Plan for eastside 215, the 12 units per acre with bonus of 20% offsite would that be provided by the developer. Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that there was a difference in bids from Forrest City in comparison to other bids which were more costly. He felt this was a good project with a good compromise. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that the contract bidding issue should be handled by City Council not the Planning Commission. Commissioner Munson expressed concern with the landscaping on Canal Street as well as the pro-rata share. He felt it should be absorped by Forrest City Dillon using greenbelt and not dirt. MOTION PC-65 Commissioner Munson moved that Forrest City Dillion establish a greenbelt on Canal/Gage Street. Chairman Caouette stated the motion should include 12 f the point that maintenance should not be handled by the City but should be paid by the developer in both Phases I and II, similar to the Britton Project. Commissioner Hargrave seconded the motion. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if this should include the triangular portion of property. Commissioner Cole stated that Forrest City should be willing take on the responsibility of maintaining Canal/Gage area. Ms. Tanner mentioned they Gould landscape the property on both Phase I and II however they had no idea as to what had been proposed by the property owners themselves. Commissioner Munson inquired if there was a need to withdraw the motion or not. Commissioner Hargrave clarified that the applicant had stated they would do landscaping and pay the pro-rata share. Chairman Caouette asked for a vote on the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. Commissioner Munson mentioned that the project proposed a 15' setback but City Ordinance required 25' which was more appealing to him. Chairman Caouette stated that the S&A was a technical item for them. They could make a motion to adopt those items at the time of the CUP. MOTION PC-66 Commissioner Munson moved that the setbacks be set at 25'feet, for Mt. Vernon and Canal Streets. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. Chairman Caouette stated that there is 50' feet of landscaping on Canal Street now. Commissioner Munson proposed to revise the motion to a 25' setback on Mt. Vernon only. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. Commissioner Hargrave asked why there was a 15' ft. setback on the project. 13 Er Ms. Tanner explained this conformed with the topography in the local area. The Planning Director said that the setback is usually used for landscaping. The Planning Director gave the definition of a setback. Commissioner Munson withdrew his motion. The Planning Director explained that 15'ft. setback can have some berming. The initial project does not have a berm. There is a 3' ft. height maximum above the street grade, inside the property line. Commissioner Munson suggested a 25' ft. setback with berm, parking with landscaping. Commissoner Cole mentioned that he liked the berming on the outside instead of the inside as the Planning Director had suggested. Both the City Engineer and the Planning Director explained that the public right-of-way does have some berming with public sidewalk in Phase I and can be put into Phase II. The grading drops 4' to the parking lot area. Commissioner Hawkinson asked what would happen if the public street does not continue with the development. The City Engineer explained that the City could make it required that they install improvements continous with Phase I and II; 32' curbline, 44' parking lot adjustment can make it work. MOTION PC-67 Commissioner Hawkinson made a motion to have the street improvement plan continous from Phase I to Phase II, with meandering sidewalk and berm. Commissioner Munson seconded. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. MOTION PC-68 Commissioner Sims made a motion to have Condition #4 changed to read that it would assure adequate drainage control in Phase II and must meet with the City Engineer's approval. Commissioner Hargrave seconded. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 14 f f Commissioner Hawkinson asked for the City Attorney's input to insure that Dr. Mc Duffy's land will not be effected. The City Attorney clarified that whatever the conditions were with conditional approval it must be set for Council with staff approval. Commissioner Munson asked the City Attorney if it was proper to require a condition not to transfer the development. The City Attorney said they could require that they come back when the ownership changes. That there be no extensions required with transfers, only this current owner. Commissioner Hargrave referred back to a bond of 1985, the IRS deadline could preclude the transfer to the other developer. MOTION PC-69 Commissioner Hawkinson moved that they approve SP/CUP- 87-1, including Negative Declaration. Commissioner Van Gelder seconded. Chairman Caouette added that it include the previous conditions and include Condition #2 to add 22 parking spaces totaling 58 guest spaces. The Planning Director suggested in order to remove any confusion on what the parking would be used for, they should designate the spaces as guest parking spaces. Commissioner Hawkinson mentioned that they should require the same designation of tenant parking in Phase II as Phase I, just for continuity. Commissioner Munson questioned what Forrest City will do for the City. The money that the project brings in on sales tax would not cover cost of emergency services. The Planning Director stated there were 12 units per density, and the 20% bonus was not in effect yet for this project. It would be discussed in the upcoming General Plan Revision. MOTION CARRIED, 6 -1. COMMISSIONER MUNSON VOTING NOE. 15 MOTION PC-70 Commissioner Hawkinson moved that the architecture of Phase II be the same as Phase I. Commissioner Cole seconded. Commissioner Cole said that the conditions of staff should be included in the motion also. The Planning Director mentioned that the landscaping and fencing would be included in the Site and Architectural. Commissioner Munson asked about Canal and Mt. Vernon roads and whether they should have rod iron fencing. The Planning Director suggested that they could bring in a condition to show landscaping, road and berming project. Also, putting in a rod iron with pilons between phases. MOTION CORRECTION PC-70 Commissioner Hargrave moved that SA-87-9 be approved to include the conditions by staff. Commissioner Cole seconded. The Planning Director suggested including a condition that there be some leeway on the landscaping to be approved by staff. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, avi awyer, Planning Direct r 16 Approved by, Norina�Ca �te , Chairman Planning Commission