Loading...
11/02/19870 c GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 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 November 2, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Norman Caouette. PRESENT: Fran Van Gelder, Vice -Chairwoman Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner ABSENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Pledge of Allegiance: Gerald Cole ----------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES ----------------------------------------------------------------- WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. A general discussion between the Planning Commission and staff regarding parking layout issues for the retirement hotel project. WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder called the Planning Commission to order. MINUTES Minutes for July 20, 1987, September 8, 1987 and September 21, 1987 for discussion. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder mentioned that page 7 was missing from the July 20, 1987 minutes. She asked if that meant that the minutes could not be approved if a page was missing. The Planning Director stated that these minutes 1 could be continued. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to the 1st page under PCM-87-35, nominations were opened up for Vice -Chairperson, it should have stated that Ray Munson nominated Commissioner Fran Van Gelder for Vice -Chairperson. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to page 2, 4th paragraph, "Commissioner Van Gelder moved that the minutes be accepted with the corrections. Seconded by Planning Commissioner." Vice - Chairwoman Van Gelder asked for the name of the Planning Commissioner. The Planning Director stated that staff would check on that. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked for any further corrections before page 6. She referred to the bottom of page 6, "Chairman Caouette adjourned Public Hearing," there should be something in front of the first three lines at the bottom of the page. The Planning Director acknowledged the request. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to page 13, two paragraphs from the bottom, there was never a second to the motion. The Planning Director asked if there was a vote on the motion or was there a new motion. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder stated that it was not indicated but mentioned perhaps it was not seconded. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder stated that Commissioner Cole thought he had seconded that motion, but it did not show that it was seconded or voted on. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if they needed to have a vote to continue this to the next meeting. The Planning Director stated that they would just continue them to the next meeting. September 8th Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to the minutes of the September 8th, 1987 meeting and asked for 2 C e any additions or corrections. Commissioner Ray Munson stated that he was not present that night. Commissioner Hargrave referred to page 6. He mentioned that Chairman Caouette made the statements in the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th paragraphs and he made the statement of the 8th paragraph. MOTION PCM-87-75 Commissioner Hargrave moved that the minutes of September 8th, 1987, be approved with the corrections. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. Motion carried, all ayes. 5-0-1-1. Minutes September 21 Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to page 3, next to the last paragraph, "r-o-a..." asked if that meant right of way. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to page 10, stated that the speaker's name should be Barney Karger. She stated that Tony Petta was listed as 11875 Eton, which she assumed was correct. The next page showed Allan Thomas as the same address, which may be correct also she was not sure. Commissioner Van Gelder also referred to page 7, 6th paragraph from the bottom, she mentioned that she had spoken with Chairman Caouette and he recalled that he had stated Mt. Vernon and not Barton Road. Commissioner Hargrave referred to page 10 and speaker Barney Karger's correct street should be Bernardo Way and not Bernard. He also referred to page 12, 3rd paragraph, "Commissioner Hargrave referred to Mr. Petta's comments on the design of 12 per acre and 3 3/4." Commissioner Hargrave stated that he thought he said 12 3/4 units per acre and 3 senior bonus units not 3 3/4. Commissioner Munson stated that he believed that it was accurately stated in the minutes. The Planning Director stated that it actually works out where it was 12 units per acre, with 3% increase for senior citizens happened to be 3.75 3 units per acre which brought it up to 15.75. There may have been some misunderstanding on whether or not it was 3 additional units or the 3%. Commissioner Hargrave stated that there was a difference between the two. The Planning Director stated that the minutes should read 3% senior bonus or 3.75 additional density. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would agree to either one of them. The Planning Director stated that it should be left at the 3%, that way the 12 units would not have -to be changed. Commissioner Hargrave referred to page 15, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, "the Planning Director stated there was 12% density..." and that was not a correct statement. The Planning Director stated that it should read 12 units per acre density. Commissioner Hargrave referred to page 15, 2nd paragraph, and mentioned that he would like to change the word "...would," for could. Commissioner Sims referred to page 11, 4th paragraph from the bottom, the statement that he supposedly made would need clarification. He believed the issue he was addressing was the existing sewer problems, whether Dr. McDuffy's property would be able to sewer through the development and continue on down. The Planning Director stated that staff would listen to the tape for clarification. Commissioner Sims referred to page 15, 5th paragraph from the top, where Chairman Caouette added that the previous conditions included to add 22 parking spaces to 58 spaces according to Commissioner Sims that statement did not seem to flow. Commissioner Sims asked if the question was that extra guest spaces were being restricted. 4 The Planning Director stated that Chairman Caouette had asked about condition #2 which they had put on in order to add parking. The condition was that the guest parking would be identified and then there was discussion regarding a reduction and he believed that the percentage reduction had gone down 75%. He mentioned that staff could go back and do it verbatim. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder mentioned page 11, last paragraph, believed that it should read Commissioner Van Gelder asked if Dr. McDuffy's property is not purchased now but perhaps later. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if they needed to wait until staff brought back the corrected minutes. The Planning Director stated that they should continue these minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 7:25 P.M. GP/Z-87-3 1 CDS ENGINEERING RETIREMENT HOTEL The Planning Director presented the project with the conditions and recommendations by staff and the reviewing agencies. The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission in two separate motions recommend that City Council approve the General Plan 87-3 and Zoning Amendment 87-3 and their associated Negative Declaration. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked for any questions from staff. Commissioner Munson asked if the 5% landscaping requirement included the landscaping along Barton Road, or if it was over and above. The Planning Director stated that was above. He mentioned that the applicant had presented 8.8% landscaping in the parking area. He pointed to the areas that were not included in the plan. He further identified the current line of the 5 C a C C General Plan and Zoning designations along a particular property line where it is being proposed. Commissioner Sims asked if it would be proper for him to ask about circulation problems this evening. The Planning Director stated that he could mention any comments or suggestions and they would be included in staff requirements and approval if so directed. Commissioner Sims wanted to make sure that they were there to talk about the General Plan and Zoning Change. The Planning Director stated that the hearing was on the General Plan and Zoning Amendment. It was also important to give staff input on approval of the landscaping and parking layout. It would be up to the Chairman if they would like to have the vote and deal with the Zoning and General Planning issues separately and take care of that and on the parking layout or put them both together. Commissioner Sims stated that would be fine with him if the Chairman desired to do it that way. The Planning Director stated that the City Attorney reminded him that they still have the Public Hearing portion of it yet on the General Plan and Zoning Amendment. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder opened the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED 7:30 P.M. Michael Palmer CDS Engineering 18002 Skypark Circle Irvine, CA. Mr. Palmer stated that they were back this evening requesting approval of the project here and not for approval of the commercial structure as discussed. They had a couple of questions in regards to the City Engineer's recommendations. He expressed concern with condition #3, the traffic signals and the payment of proportionate share. He stated they needed to know as far as T dollars and cents what that would be. The Planning Director stated that they would be working with the City Engineer to come up with a concrete figure before the City Council meeting. He stated that they do not have that cost figure tonight but they would have it for the City Council Hearing. He mentioned that it boiled down to the fact whether or not the Commission felt it was appropriate or not for the applicant to pay that pro-rata share based on the formula worked out by the City Engineer. Mr. Palmer referred to recommendation #4 where it mentioned that the applicant record a one lot subdivision. He mentioned that what they would like to do would be a lot line adjustment instead and if there were a difference between the two. The Planning Director stated that one of the reasons why the City Engineer put the one lot subdivision requirement was that it provided corners to be set which is not always done with lot line adjustment. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked for public comments in favor or opposition to the project. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:32 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 7:32 P.M. Commissioner Sims mentioned that staff should look at the entrance circulation and how vehicles would be able to turn once they have entered. He stated that there should be some type of radius on the median island or eliminate that area unless it was needed for landscaping requirements. Commissioner Sims asked if the posts that support the roof were partially installed or were they going to be installed. Mr. Palmer replied that they had already been installed. Commissioner Sims asked what type of vehicle was intended to be driven through there and saw a problem with making such a sharp turn. Mr. Palmer explained that it was his belief that was already approved through the original site plan. 7 C r� c The Planning Director stated that was correct and asked what type of vehicles they had in mind when they designed the plan. Mr. Palmer explained just the small vans, transportation vans used for car pooling. Commissioner Sims recommended to the Planning Director that he take another look at this again. He mentioned that there were certain turning radius which needed to be angled more to get out. He also asked if there were provisions for traffic to turn around and head back out towards Barton Road. He saw an additional problem with being able to make that turn. The Planning Director stated that staff would meet with the City Engineer and have him reevaluate the radius problem, loading zone and parking area around stalls #18 and #20. He mentioned that they had gone forward with the building permits that had been issued earlier and began construction on the building. They have not met the parking requirements but they did receive building permits so they started construction and the parking had been designed at that time with relation to the building. He mentioned that they have gone forward and put these improvements in per approved building permits regarding the structure itself not the landscaping, parking etc. Therefore, when staff takes a look at this they will be looking at the changing the landscaping but they do have to deal with what has been built out there now. The Planning Director gave an early history on the project. Commissioner Sims asked if the canopy was part of the earlier structural building permit. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Commissioner Sims mentioned that if they could revise that area to improve the movement it would be a good idea. He mentioned that they could lose one handicapped space and he did not know how that would affect the project overall, some consideration should be given there. The Planning Director stated that staff would take that into consideration. WIW51�lilj Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder opened discussion for a motion. Commissioner Munson referred to item #9 which asked for a 6' solid masonary wall which was to be established along the westerly side of the project and he did not see that at the end of the parking perimeter along the westerly side. The Planning Director mentioned that when those conditions were written and put onto the project, that property was not included in the project. Commissioner Munson stated that the wall would tend to solve some of the traffic problems that would occur from Reed Street to Barton Road as a short cut. He mentioned that he would like to see eliminating the access onto Reed Street unless it is needed for fire emergency. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if it could be an exit only. The Planning Director mentioned that it should be noted that the traffic would be going onto Barton Road if the access were not there. It would eliminate the residents' option of coming in at the secondary access entrance. Commissioner Munson mentioned that sooner or later there should be signalization at Canal Street which would eliminate some of the concerns. Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that there were problems with the circulation to the south of the hotel. He stated that if the block wall was put up and impeded the traffic on the west side going in or out, except for the fire lane, then the traffic would have to exit from the south side through the existing driveways. The other alternative would be that they would have to exit through the area that Commissioner Sim's referred to between the trash bins and service area. The Planning Director stated that there were two options available. One would be to leave the access open and the other would be to cut off this traffic from the apartments. He mentioned that the traffic can go onto Reed and Barton right now but the Planning Commission can look at other 0 C e" alternatives Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would like to know what the City Engineer's input would be on these new parking changes and traffic flow problems. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked about the effect on fire exits. Commissioner Cole stated that blocking access onto Reed Street made the parking awkward. He mentioned that unless a turnaround were provided at the end then the traffic would have to back Out. The Planning Director stated that there was no access from Reed Street to Barton Road through this area. Commissioner Hawkinson referred to item #7 and that it seemed clear that streets needed to be provided as part of this project. If the traffic were one way and if there were something to insure that this would remain one way traffic, then there would not be a problem. However, he stated that his real concern was of the traffic in the apartment complex coming through this project and adding to the element of traffic already. He mentioned that one way traffic would be a solution and could solve the turn around problem. The Planning Director stated that he was informed by the City Attorney that this would need to be advertised as a separate issue if they wish to have it removed. If the Planning Commission would like this item brought back for the parking layout then it could be advertised for the next meeting. The Planning Commission may wish to consider moving the lines tonight or do it all at the next meeting. Commissioner Cole stated that he would like to wait until the City Engineer submits his study on the parking layout. MOTION PCM-87-76 GP-87-3 Commissioner Cole moved for approval of GP-87-3, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. 10 Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-0-1. MOTION PCM-87-77 Z-87-3 Commissioner Hawkinson moved for approval of Z-87- 3, as recommended by staff. Commissioner Sims seconded. Commissioner Munson brought up the question of the lot line adjustment. The Planning Director stated that was one of the conditions worded in the resolution. He mentioned that was what the Planning Commission would be approving with this motion. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-0-1. Mr. Kenge Ling CDS Engineering 11802 Skypark Irvine, CA. Mr. Ling mentioned that they would be against the lot subdivision and it would be too costly. The Planning Director informed the Planning 0 Commission that they could change the one lot subdivision condition or if not the applicant could appeal to the City Council. He further explained that the City Engineer wanted the one lot subdivision because he needed the corners set and markers on the lot. Commissioner Sims added that with this project there would be some dedication on the ingress and egress to Barton Road therefore, due to the public dedications the map would be needed. Mr. Ling mentioned that additional dedications were approved in 1985. Commissioner Sims clarified that he was speaking about the interior of the parcel and that easements were required for ingress and egress. Mr. Ling referred to condition #3 concerning the public access to the project site from Barton Road. Also, conditions #7 and #8, access and easement requirements. The Planning Director stated that the easement 11 C e"' requirements for the ingress and egress have not been formalized, he would have to refer to the City Engineer. He stated that the intent on those was to provide access to that particular apartment project only which was under the same ownership as this property. Whether they were intending to do that through recorded easements or not, staff has not researched this. Commissioner Sims stated that the project of the retirement home dated 1985 clearly pointed out that easements were required for ingress and egress. He stated to the applicant that in order to satisfy the conditions a one lot subdivision would be required. Commissioner Munson mentioned to the Planning Director that this issue had already been voted on and the only recourse the applicant would have was to go before City Council on an appeal. The Planning Director stated that the Commission could pass a motion to resend the earlier motion if they wish to change that condition. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked the applicant if he understood that he could appeal this decision to the City Council. The Planning Director clarified that an appeal would not even be necessary. This would be going automatically to the City Council and the applicant could simply request that the condition not be made part of the approval. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED 8:OOP.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONVENED AT 8:00 P.M. No items for the Site and Architectural Review Board. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. 1.2 c Respectfully Submitted, Dav d—R. - Wyer Planning Director 13 0 Approved by: Nor �arn CaouefHe ,____ Chairman/Planning Commission