Loading...
12/21/1987GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1987 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commissionn was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on December 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 Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner ABSENT: Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Pledge of Allegiance: Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner ----------------------------------------------------------------- MINUTES ----------------------------------------------------------------- WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Discussion on minutes. WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Item #1 Minutes MOTION PCM-87-85 Chairman Caouette opened discussion for the first item of business, approval of the October 19, 1987 minutes. Commissioner Hawkinson made the motion to approve the October 19, 1987 minutes with noted changes as discussed in the workshop. Seconded by Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder. Chairman Caouette asked for any discussion on the minutes. MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES. 6-0-0-1. 1 Item #2 & #3 TPM-87-6, CUP-87-13 City of Riverside Water Wells Site #1/#2 Chairman Caouette opened the discussion for the second and third items, TPM-87-6 and CUP-87-13, City of Riverside wells #1 and #2. The Planning Director referred to the last meeting, December 7, 1987, the Planning Commission addressed the applications from the City of Riverside for TPM-87-6, CUP-87-13 and SA-87-12 (water well sites). Up until that time staff was recommending approval of the applications, however, the day of the hearing staff received the long awaited draft General Plan from the General Plan consultant. Upon review of this document, it was revealed that the consultant proposed the extension of Commerce Way through one of the proposed well sites. As a result of this these items were continued until tonight's meeting. Staff has met with the City of Riverside and the consultants on the General Plan issues and have come up with a recommendation for the Planning Commmission. Staff recommended approval of TPM-87-6 with the conditions listed in the original staff report and the addition of two new conditions; #10 (The City of Riverside shall offer to dedicate the easterly 44' of parcel #1 including the property line return according to the City of Grand Terrace Standards and condition #11 (The City of Riverside shall sign an agreement that if the General Plan circulation element designates a Commerce Way location that effects parcel #1, the City of Riverside shall improve the westerly 44' of Commerce Way to the City of Grand Terrace standards). The Planning Department also recommended approval of CUP-87-13 and SA-87-12 with the conditions as listed in the original staff report. The additional conditions for the tentative map will allow the City to have the necessary right-of-way dedication in the event that the proposed Commerce Way along the currently proposed alignment, will assure that the City of Riverside will also be able to have the well functional. The Planning Director concluded the presentation of the staff report. 0 Chairman Caouette opened discussion on the item. Commissioner Sims asked if the improvements required of the City of Riverside along the Commerce Way designation would require a sidewalk. The Planning Director clarified that had not been considered as yet. The initial plans had indicated that would be a standard condition. Commissioner Sims asked if under. the Site and Architectural portion when the remaining parts were developed (tentative map) the landscaping would include parkway type landscaping as well. The Planning Director stated that it would be looked at on a staff level either by the City Engineer or himself. Commissioner Sims expressed concern on how much of an overhang there would be on the building itself (the control room which would be adjacent to the right of way) and asked if that would encroach into the parkway. The Planning Director stated they would not allow an encroachment of an overhang to go into that facility, it would go to the edge of the overhang. Commissioner Sims asked if the their proposal of a 4' sidewalk would remain in the parcel. The Planning Director stated that was correct. The City of Riverside has not indicated that the 4' sidewalk would be eliminated. Commissioner Sims stated that his only concern was compatibility with the rest of the development. The Plannning Director stated they could not foresee what type of development would be there nor the architectural design but this type of design is a step above that of similar structures. Chairman Caouette stated that since the proposed General Plan is being amended that there may be plans in the future to realign to the east if necessary. The Planning Director stated that if that is the case then they would only take what is necessary from the alignment. Also, if the street does not go through there then they would simply not take the dedication but it would be improved with the landscaping as parcel 3 #2 would be. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the City of Riverside agreed with the initial conditions. The Planning Director stated they reached an agreement at an earlier meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED Chairman Caouette asked the City of Riverside to present their project and asked if they were in concurrence with the additional proposed conditions. Ed Kostel City of Riverside He said that they had agreed to the conditions and were willing to meet the road improvements and could work with the City of Grand Terrace in terms of granting a 44' easement or possibility of granting it, if Commerce Drive does go through the site at its proposed alignment. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the project. Tony Petta 11875 Eton Drive Grand Terrace, CA. He asked for clarification of the location of the project. He was in agreement with the Planning Director that irregardless of where Commerce Way is now or where it is proposed to go, that the project will not be impacted either way. The Planning Director explained that if the road goes as it is proposed now it would impact the project, but if it goes elsewhere it is possible that it would not have any impact on it. He mentioned that is only a recommendation from the consultant at this time. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED 4 0 MOTION PCM-87-86 Commissioner Sims asked if the previous comments and recommendations on this project from the last meeting were included in the current packet. The Planning Director indicated that they would be reflected in the minutes from the previous meeting. He mentioned that he thought there were four (4) motions that actually reflected changes in the conditions. Commissioner. Munson made the motion to approve TTM-87-6 and CUP-87-13 with the conditions designated and amended on December 7, 1987 and the conditions proposed to be added by staff. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES. 6-0-0-1. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED Item #4 Single Family Residence Glenn Sharman 23175 Glendora G.T. MOTION PCM-87-87 Chairman Caouette opened the discussion on SA-87-12. Planning Aide/Jeri Ram presented the staff report with conditions and recommendations from staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. Chairman Caouette opened the public hearing either for or against the project. No discussion by the Commission. Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve SA-87-13 with conditions. Commissioner Sims seconded. MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES. 6-0-0-1. 5 Item #6 SA-87-12 City of Riverside Water Wells #1/#2 MOTION PCM-87-88 Item #5 SA-87-14 Bob Keeney RV Park Barton Rd/ La Crosse 0 Chairman Caouette opened discussion on this item. The Planning Director presented the Site and Architectural portion of the previous items from the City of Riverside. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder made the motion to approve SA-87-12 with conditions as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES. 6-0-0-1. Chairman Caouette opened discussion on this item. The Planning Director presented the staff report on SA- 87-14 with the conditions and recommendations as presented by staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. The Planning Director presented the Planning Commission with three (3) alternatives. 1) To approve the project as submitted recognizing that the Site and Architectural Review would be for building purposes only and that the entry way (ingress and regress) be dealt with on a Council level. If that is approved then the building and architectural approval that the Site and Architectural Review Board would provide would be good only if the Council would approve the ingress and egress. 2) That the project would be denied and that would allow the applicant to appeal the decision at the next City Council meeting. No 3) That the Planning Commission is willing to accept the compromise of the driveway solution that the applicant has indicated he will present tonight, if that is the case. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if it was standard procedure for the applicant to commission the traffic study. The Planning Director stated that it was based on concerns with a portion of the project. They stated that if the applicant provides a traffic study from a professional group then it would be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, the traffic study in question did not convince either Cal Trans nor the City Engineer. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if there was a strong possibility of not being objective with this procedure. The Planning Director stated that was a possibility but it should be remembered that they are dealing with a state licensed profession of engineers and if there are complaints of non -professionalism in our recommendations such as this the engineers are liable to lose their license. 0 Commissioner Sims asked if the exhibits from CG Engineering were the .results of their traffic study. The Planning Director explained that Cal Trans was presented with the traffic study as was the City Engineer. The packet does not include the traffic study but response letters from those two bodies with regards to the Traffic Engineering Study. Commissioner Sims asked if CG Engineering indicated that this type of configuration was okay. Dave Boraquin CG Engineering 2627 S. Waterman Ave. San Bernardino, CA. Mr. Boraquin prepared the analysis of the proposed development in relation to the traffic ingress/egress off of Barton Road. The conclusion was basically if that easterly entrance was to be an ingress only, based on the amount of traffic turning off of the freeway, there would not be any significant traffic problems related to that access. Therefore, they recommended that the access be approved. Commissioner Sims asked if there was any discussion with Cal Trans in regards to the results. He also asked if the City Engineer agreed with the results. Mr. Boraquin stated that initially the access was a two way access on the site plan and he had communicated with Fred Will and Will Brisley from Cal Trans. He stated that Mr. Brisley expressed concern with the traffic exiting the driveway conflicting with possible turning traffic from the offramp. He basically agreed with that concern and recommended the driveway should be egress only, thereby eliminating any turning conflicts of exiting traffic coming out of the freeway. The City Engineer expressed his concern with the potential liability of the City. Based on the traffic volumes they were talking about coming off of La Crosse onto Barton Road heading westerly, it did not appear to be a problem. However, if they referred to the letter from Cal Trans dated November 20th regarding the ingress only to that parcel, first they stated they were opposed, then they reiterated that they were opposed to it and then they stated it was not in their jurisdiction. He stated that he had problems with that and any recommendations that would override Cal Trans recommendations and could put the City in potential liability. He further stated that the design of the driveways both easterly and westerly has not been completed. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if there was any conversation with Cal Trans regarding any future changes in that offramp and what impact it would have on the project. The City Engineer stated they had discussed with Cal Trans the potential bridge widening, as it relates to this particular driveway. He referred to their letter dated November 20, 1988 with respect to their coordination of the signals. In addition the City Engineer's Office recommended a separate westbound turn lane into the westerly driveway to provide recreation vehicles to turn into the facility without obstructing traffic. He stated that he had spoken with the Cal Trans representatives on this. He stated that there was a question whether or not the City has any responsibility 3 N to even consult Cal Trans in these matters. All of the agencies consult Cal Trans any time a project remotely affects any facilities of theirs as a matter of courtesy or responsibility. There are different types of letters that are normally received from Cal Trans : a) This project is outside any sphere of influence of Cal Trans; and b) The type of letter that was received on this project where their facilities are directly impacted and they will inform us as to what their types of conditions are and what it will take to obtain a permit. (The City Engineer pointed out that the City needs to consider their liability when Cal Trans approves). Chairman Caouette asked for an opinion from the City Attorney in regards to the concerns expressed from the City Engineer on the matter of liability. The City Attorney stated that he did not think it was a substantial liability. However, he did agree with the concerns from the City Engineer in regards to the letter from Cal Trans. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:38 P.M. Bob Keeney RV Park La Crosse Ave. He pointed out that Cal Trans did not state they opposed the entrance, however, Cal Trans could not support the proposed easterly driveway. He had asked Cal Trans if they thought it would be better if there were no entrances between La Crosse and the bridge. Cal Trans was saying in essence that no driveway would be better but they were not really opposed to it. Mr. Keeney asked them to write a letter to that effect and referred to the November letter. He referred to the Traffic Engineer's proposal of the two driveways being better than eliminating one driveway. He stated that they needed the one driveway in the center of the project. He referred to the County of San Bernardino's Traffic Engineer and willingness to contribute input on the project. 9 He mentioned that Cal Trans major concern was the exit of the project, not the entrance. Therefore they moved the exit west. He mentioned that their proposed ingress and egress would not change the architecture, site layout, pad layout and would not change any of the buildings. However, it does put both the RV and commercial into the same driveway. He mentioned that if the Planning Commission cannot approve the driveway as proposed then could they look at the rest of the project now so they could continue their working drawings on the rest of the project. Chairman Caouette referred to the landscaping requirement as mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Keeney stated that they have agreed to landscape all of the portions in between the RV stalls. Chairman Caouette asked if that would require an additional condition. The Planning Director stated that one of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit was that the Site and Architectural Review Site Plan meets #1 requirement of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Sims asked which one of the renderings referred to as presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Keeney stated that they were asked to present a striping plan for the area immediately to the front of the project and also the property to the west. Mr. Keeney stated that the reason they objected to the plan was not due to it not working for the commercial but because it exits the cars farther east which they were trying to avoid and it mixes the RV and commercial traffic. Vice —Chairwoman Van Gelder asked how they would control the ingress and egress for RV and commercial only. Mr. Keeney explained that the only way they could do that was through signage. Chairman Caouette referred to the Cal Trans letter dated November 20th and the recommendation for a separate westbound turnlane (westerly driveway) to allow recreational and other vehicles to enter without obstructing traffic. Mr. Keeney explained the colored drawing and the insert 10 of another westbound turnlane. Chairman Caouette asked if where the of_framp meets Barton Road would there be a stop sign? Mr. Keeney explained if traffic exited going south on La Crosse and planned to go west you have to come to a stop. Chairman Caouette asked if the stop sign would stay there and expressed concern with slow moving recreational vehicles negotiating the driveway. Mr. Keeney asked if he was referring to the easterly driveway or westerly driveway. Chairman Caouette stated the easterly. Mr. Keeney stated that they would not be entering that driveway, it would be restricted to commercial use only, and no entrance by an RV. The City Engineer stated that the area where the stop sign is right now, westerly curbline of La Crosse Street, is actually in the Cal Trans right of way. They cannot guarantee that the stop sign would be there at all times. If the street were widened it would be needed more than ever. Chairman Caouette asked if the configuration addressed the separate westbound terminal.. The City Engineer explained that he did not know how well it could be addressed at this point in time. Commissioner Hawkinson stated that one of the Cal Trans alternatives was to move the entrance all the way to the westerly side of the project, making it as far away from the freeway as possible. The City Engineer stated that Cal Trans would like to see a single driveway as far westerly on the property line as possible. He thought this was one of the proposals as presented to the Planning Commission. He thought this was as close as possible to maintaining the circulation on the interior but eliminating the easterly driveway on that sketch does cause some internal traffic problems. Commissioner Hawkinson asked why there was a desire to separate the commercial and RV into two separate entrances. 11 0 W 0 Mr. Keeney answered that the planning staff and himself did not feel it was wise to mix those two uses. As far as moving the entrance to the westerly boundary, they could not even get financing because entering into the shopping area from the rear was considered poor planning. Chairman Caouette asked if staff would comment on the proposed amendment #1. The Planning Director stated that staff had reviewed the proposed amendment and found that it was not as desirable as having the two entry ways because the idea of having the RV traffic focused away from the convenience center traffic does have its merits for entering and exiting the project. The interior layout of the project has merits as far as the two driveways because traffic can go in and around the project. The way it is presented, the location of the buildings is not too detrimental to the project but the applicant felt that the originally submitted plan is more in line as to what they were trying to do with the buildings. Commissioner Munson asked how they would prevent traffic from exiting out that driveway. The Planning Director explained that the applicant indicated it would be by signage. Commissioner Munson asked if they could make the sign say right turn only. The Planning Director stated that there would be a sign that would say no exit at all, entrance only, as well as the parking striping indicating that also. Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the divider stripe plan in the center of Barton Road was indicated. The City Engineer explained that under the plan they were looking at there would be a yellow stripe which would provide for turning movements from the easterly bound traffic on Barton Road into the area. Commissioner Hawkinson explained that he was referring to the area that was pink. The City Engineer explained that the picture they were looking at was a two way left turn, and it was striped. There is something similar which now exists on Barton Road between Preston all the way to Canal Street. 12 X MOTION PCM-87-89 Chairman Caouette stated that according to the staff report on the site and architectural as far as landscaping and structure goes there was no particular problem. There had been the suggestion that the Planning Commission act on that and defer any action on the ingress/egress situation for action by the City Council. He felt that was a reasonable action since they were dealing with a liability issue but did not feel comfortable taking action which places the liability on the part of the City. Also as proposed by one of the conditions added by the City Council requiring that the easterly driveway not be constructed so his inclination would be to act in that manner. Commissioner Sims expressed his concerns with the liability issue. He stated that he had a problem with deferring the issue to Council since the Planning Commission had the same responsibility for liability as the Council. The Planning Director suggested a motion to approve as presented the Site and Architectural building elements only contingent upon future approval of the Site Plan and other elements of the Site and Architectural Review application by the City Council. Commissioner Cole made the motion to approve SA-87-14 as presented the Site and Architectural building elements only contingent upon future approval of the Site Plan and other elements of the Site and Architectural Review application by the City Council. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed her agreement with Commissioner Sims in that the Planning Commission should make the decisions on this project and not pass it to the City Council. Commissioner Hawkinson expressed his desire to keep the decision making on the Planning Commission level. He also expressed his opposition to the project. There should also be a recommendation dealing with the traffic flow. Commissioner Munson asked if it would be possible to approve this motion and then return with a second motion dealing with the egress issue. 13 MOTION VOTE PCM-87-89 Chairman Caouette mentioned that would require amending the motion because the motion specifically deferred action on the ingress and egress. He asked if there was any other discussion on the motion or any desire to amend the motion. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked that the motion be restated for clarification. The Planning Director restated the motion: To approve as presented the Site and Architectural building elements only contingent upon future approval of the Site Plan and other elements of the Site and Architectural application by the City Council. The City Council will be dealing with other things such as eliminating the signage from the application, making sure it meets the Conditional Use Permit requirements. MOT1ON FAILED. COMMISSIONERS VAN GELDER, HAWKINSON AND SIMS VOTING NOE. 3-3-0-1. (9 Chairman Caouette asked for additional motions. MOTION PCM-87-90 Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve the project as presented with the two driveways. The Planning Director clarified that staff's recommendation felt that was the best design from a planning point, however, one of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit was that all of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit are met in the Site Plan Review and condition #38 states that the easterly driveway would be eliminated and that one driveway would be as close to the property line as possible. That was a condition that was placed by the Council during the Conditional Use Permit. He asked the City Attorney if the Planning Commission could approve the Site and Architectural Review in that manner. The City Attorney stated that if the Planning 14 Commission did that they ought to continue with a recommendation as the first motion that failed included so that the Council knows that even if they change the driveway from what would be approved tonight by that motion that the Site and Architectural as to the buildings would continue to be approved. The Planning Director clarified that this would be the last action tonight before it went to Council. Chairman Caouette clarified that it would not have to go to Council. The Planning Director stated that if the Planning Commission approved it tonight they would be going against the Conditional Use Permit conditions but normally this would be the last action by this body so it would not have to go to the Council. The City Attorney clarified that it would because of the driveway recommendation would not be in accordance with what has been approved by the Council, but this portion (Site and Architectural Review) would not have to go before the Council. The Planning Director stated it was the same as the other motion. The City Attorney clarified that it did include both. That portion would be the same as the other motion, however, you are making a definite approval of two driveways which is really a recommendation that the Council change their condition. Chairman Caouette clarified that it would then have to go to the Council. The City Attorney clarified that would be true only as to the driveways. The Planning Director suggested that they consider the first motion again changing it so that they include within that motion a recommendation by the Planning Commmission that condition #38 be changed to allow the two driveway entranceways. That way the Planning Commission would be approving Site and Architectural and approving everything but that but we may have to add a few conditions. Therefore make that recommendation that they change that condition so that it can be done. 15 9 MOTION PCM-90 RESTATED Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve as presented the Site and Architectural Review application and recommend the City Council remove condition #38 and approve Site Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission at this time. Also, add signage conditions to be approved by staff through the normal signage process and that the flexibility of the RV parking layout shall be dealt with on a staff level and that staff will work with the applicant to provide loading spaces as staff deems necessary for the convenience store center. Chairman Caouette seconded. Commissioner Sims asked if the Planning Director and the City Engineer were in support of this. The Planning Director explained that the report was written for denial based on the fact that it was presented with two driveways and he would recommend that they still deny it if they were not changing the motion to recommend that the Council eliminate condition #38. He could support that as they change the motion. Commissioner Sims asked if after all of the conversation regarding liability and traffic situation that the Planning Director would change his mind due to a condition being eliminated. The Planning Director stated that the liability was the question and the essence of what the Planning Commission was trying to do was to have the Council make that decision. He could recommend that the driveway be presented as two as long as the Council recognizes that the liability was a question. Chairman Caouette pointed out that originally the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project and it was reinstated on appeal. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONER SIMS VOTING NOE. 5-1-0- 1. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:15 P.M. Approved By, No man Caouette, Chairman Respec ly Submitted, avid R. awyer, Dir ctor 12/21/87 P.C. Mtg. 16