03/10/1980PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
MARCH 10, 1980
A Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Grand Terrace, was held in
the First Baptist Church of Grand Terrace, 12354 Mt. Vernon, Grand Terrace,
California, on March 10, 1980 at 6:35 p.m.
PRESENT: Frank Tetley, Chairman
Sandy Collins, Vice Chairman
Vern Andress, Commissioner
Winifred Bartel, Commissioner
John McDowell, Commissioner
Tom Rivera, Commissioner
Lloyd L. Watson, Commissioner
Gil Haro, San Bernardino County Planning Staff
Brian Esgate, City Engineering Staff
Myrna Lindahl
Martine Gerg, Secretary
ABSENT: William DeBenedet, Commissioner
Ron Schuster, Commissioner
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance, led by Commissioner Andress,
and oral roll call.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1980
Corrections were made as follows: Page one, under Location of
Tract 11302 as E/s Grand Terrace Road; Page two, Paragraph two,
was corrected to show Mr. Payne as speaking; and the number of
project units was corrected to show 31 units.
PCM-80-19 MOTION was made by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner
Andress and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of February
25, 1980 as amended.
TRACT 11302 (Continued from 2/25/80)
Proposal: A) 31 unit condominium on 2.69 acres
B) 2 lot subdivision on 2.69 acres
Location: E/s Grand Terrace Rd., approximately 459' S/o Vivienda Ave.
File/Index: A) LSH/80-0010/E219-119
B) SUB/80-0011/E219-119/TR11302
Applicant: Terrado Grande, Ltd.
Representative: Ray A. Bicknell
Page one -
PC-3/10/80
Staff, Gil Haro, made a presentation, stating the Commission, in
their meeting of February 25, had requested the Applicant to submit
renderings and elevations showing the site from Grand Terrace Road,
and had also requested the City Engineer to attend this meeting to
explain the proposed drainage.
Engineering Staff, Brian Esgate, made a presentation, stating the
conditions of approval propose that the Contractor is to build an
inlet structure at his project entrance to conduct the water generally
north to the low spot just north of Vivienda, with some outlet to
prevent erosion. The water is to travel north underground alongside
the road. At the intersection of Grand Terrace Road and Vivienda,
the pipe will continue North until there is a sufficient elevation
drop to outlet. The Contractor is to construct a culvert under
Grand Terrace Road, which will become City property. The pipe will
be 15-18 inches, and will be installed at a depth of approximately
10 feet. There is no expected impact on the properties downstream,
since the additional drainage is not expected to exceed 1%.
Chairman Tetley called upon the Applicant for input to the hearing.
SUPPORTING TESTIMONY:
Mr. Ray Bicknell, 8951 Chapman Avenue, Garden Grove, stated he had
furnished 30 copies of a rendering showing the front elevation and
the view from Grand Terrace Road at the meeting of February 25, and
felt this should be adequate. He stated a willingness to comply
with the Commission's requirements on the 112 foot frontage on
Grand Terrace Road, but voiced objection to installing tile roofs
and masonry fencing, feeling these items will increase the cost
of the units to the extent they would not be affordable to young,
first-time homeowners. Mr. Bicknell stated a preference of
installing asphalt shingles or rock roofs, and wood or chain link
fencing.
Chairman Tetley called for opposing testimony, stating comments
are to be limited to the four matters being heard at this time,
as follows: type of roofing; type of fencing; drainage; and the
appearance of the 112 foot frontage on Grand Terrace Road.
OPPOSING TESTIMONY:
Mr. William Liles, 21840 Grand Terrace Road, stated as long as
the drainage goes north, he has no objections to the project.
Chairman Tetley closed Public Hearing.
In discussion, the Commission discussed roofing cost and types of
fencing materials.
Page two -
PC-3/10/80
PCM-80-20 Following discussion, MOTION was made by Commissioner Andress,
seconded by Commissioner Watson and carried unanimously that
the fencing on the West side of the property along Grand Terrace
Road, approximately 112 feet, is to be of wrought iron and masonry
construction.
PCM-80-21 MOTION was made by Commissioner Andress, seconded by Commissioner
Bartel and carried unanimously that a six-foot high decorative
masonry wall shall be installed around the perimeter of the site.
PCM-80-22 MOTION was made by Commissioner McDowell, seconded by Commissioner
Bartel and carried unanimously to accept the required building
elevations and renderings as submitted by Mr. Bicknell.
PCM-80-23 MOTION was made by Commissioner Andress, seconded by Commissioner
McDowell that, as a condition of this project, all roofs are to be
of red tile fashion.
In discussion, Mr. Bicknell stated a requirement of tile roofs
would require extensive structural changes in the construction of
the project, and requested latitude in working with materials
available. Engineering Staff, Brian Esgate concurred the tile,
due to its weight, could require construction changes.
Following discussion, MOTION carried on AYE votes of Commissioners
Andress, McDowell, Watson and Chairman Tetley, with NOE votes by
Commissioners Bartel, Collins and Rivera.
MOTION was made by Commissioner Collins to allow the developer to
pick some tile, or other material on the market that resembles
tile, such as concrete slabs. MOTION died for lack of a second.
PCM-80-24 MOTION was made by Commissioner Collins, seconded by Commissioner
Watson and carried unanimously to request the developer to install
an improved off -site storm drain along Grand Terrace Road as
recommended by Staff.
Staff Gil Haro, stated the Applicant has fifteen days in which
to appeal any decision of the Planning Commission to the City
Council.
Mr. Bicknell indicated he plans to appeal to the City Council, and
requested a copy of the Minutes, and all the terms and conditions
as stated by the Planning Commission, as soon as possible.
APPEAL OF MINOR DEVIATION DENIAL - E 228-113 (Continued from 2/11/80)
Proposal: Appeal of Minor Deviation Denial requesting construction
within road right-of-way.
Location: N/s Vista Grande Way, approx. 1400' NE/o Grand Terrace
Road.
Applicant: Anthony Romero
Page Three -
PC-3/10/80
This matter was continued to allow the Commissioners an
opportunity to physically view the site.
Staff, Gil Haro, made a presentation including analysis, findings
and recommended denial of the appeal, with the recommendation the
garage be located on the west side of the residence. Mr. Haro
stated the Applicant had failed to appear each of the four times
this application was to have been considered, and the Applicant
was duly notified each time.
The Applicant, nor any individuals speaking for or against the
matter, were present at the meeting.
In discussion, concern was expressed regarding erosion under the
existing wall, and the bluff in general. Engineering Staff,
Brian Esgate, expressed concern regarding the proposed site for
the swimming pool within five feet of the bluff, due to the
instability of the bluff.
PCM-80-25 Following discussion, MOTION was made by Commissioner Collins,
seconded by Commissioner Rivera and carried unanimously to
deny the Appeal of Minor Deviation - E 228-113.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Proposal: Amend the General Plan from "Commercial" to
"Residential" 2-4 DU/AC on 3 acres.
Location: South side of Minona Drive, extending south approx.
400', between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Arliss Drive.
File/Index: GPA/79-0390/E225-120
Applicant: City of Grand Terrace
Representative: Seth Armstead, City Manager
Staff, Gil Haro, made a presentation including analysis, findings,
and listed three alternatives for the Commission to consider as
follows:
(1) Do not amend thv General Plan from Commercial to Residential
2-4 DU/AC for 3- acres located s/o Minona Drive and n/o the
Grand Terrace Independent Market between Mt. Vernon Avenue and
Arliss Drive.
Comment: This action will maintain the Commercial designation
of the General Plan, possibly encouraging the premature
conversion of the residential neighborhood to commercial
land use.
(2) Amend the General Plan from Commercial to Residential 2-4 DU/AC
(except for A.P. #276-182-03 - Benmoor Enterprises, Owner) for
approx. 2.75 acres located s/o Minona Drive and n/o Grand Terrace
Independent Market between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Arliss Drive.
Page four -
PC-3/10/80
Comment: This action will recognize on the General Plan Map
the existing residential neighborhood and prevent
further encroachment of commercial development into
this neighborhood. This action will also allow
Benmoor Enterprises to again request a zone change
to C-1-T (Neighborhood Commercial) for their parcel
of land.
(3) Amend+the General Plan from Commercial to Residential 2-4 DU/AC
for 3- acres located s/o Minona Drive and n/o Grand Terrace
Independent Market between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Arliss Drive.
Comment: This action will recognize the entire neighborhood
including the property owned by Benmoor Enterprises) on the
General Plan Map for residential land uses.
Mr. Haro then recommended the Planning Commission approve Alternative
No. 2, adopt the Negative Declaration and instruct the City Clerk to
issue a Notice of Determination.
Chairman Tetley called upon the Applicant for input to the hearing.
SUPPORTING TESTIMONY:
City Manager Seth Armstead, representing the City, stated the City
Council, in their capactiy as the Planning Commission, prior to
establishment of the present Planning Commission, held a hearing
on October 18, 1979 regarding Benmoor Enterprise's zone change
request from R-1-T to C-2-T. Following the hearing, the Commission
voted unanimously to deny, without prejudice, the request, and
directed Staff to initiate a study of the subject area of the
General Plan.
Mrs. Joan Moore, 22773 La Paix, representative of Benmoor
Enterprises, stated this parcel had been zoned C-2-T for 18 years,
and during the course of working on the General Plan, somehow the
parcel was changed to R-1-T. She requested this parcel to be
allowed to remain in the Commercial designation under the General Plan
and indicated concurrence with Staff's recommendation to approve
Alternative No. 2.
Chairman Tetley called for opposing testimony.
OPPOSING TESTIMONY:
Mr. Darrel McKinley, 12050 Arliss Drive, stated a preference
for Alternative No. 3, to amend the General Plan from Commercial
to Residential.
Mr. Don Mangus, 12070 Arliss Drive, also spoke in favor of
Alternative No. 3.
Page five -
PC-3/10/80
Mr. John R. Helt, 22592 Miriam Way, asked how the property
originally had gotten zoned Commercial.
Mr. Jack Hall, 12060 Arliss Drive, stated when the zone change
occurred, notices had not been sent informing the surrounding
residents of the proposed change. He spoke in favor of
Alternative No. 3.
Mr. Kenneth Howard, 22512 Minona Drive, spoke in favor of
Alternative No. 3.
Mrs. Marsha Mangus, 12070 Arliss Drive, spoke in favor of all
residential, Alternative No. 3.
Mr. Ron C. Gomez, 12045 Arliss Drive, voiced opposition to the
Commercial zoning, and spoke in favor of Alternative No. 3.
Mr. Ed Gregor, 11986 Arliss Drive, spoke against Commercial zoning.
Mr. John R. Helt, 22592 Miriam Way, spoke against Commercial zoning.
Chairman Tetley called upon the Applicant for a rebuttal.
Mrs. Joan Moore stated she feels the property should be Commercial,
since it is located 150 feet from the middle of town, and voiced
opposition to amending the General Plan. She questioned why the
residents had not opposed when the General Plan originally was
being worked on.
OPPOSING TESTIMONY FOLLOWING REBUTTAL:
Mr. Don Mangus, 12070 Arliss Drive, stated he plans to remain in
his home for a long period of time, and had he been informed his
property was located within Commercial zoning, would never have
purchased the house.
Mrs. Marsha Mangus, 12070 Arliss Drive stated they had not
previously been informed of proposed changes, and had learned
of the matter from seeing a sign on the property designating
it for lease as commercial.
Mr. Jack Hall, 12060 Arliss Drive, stated the owner of the Grand
Terrace Independent Market had wanted the Mangus property, 12070
Arliss Drive, changed to Commercial zoning. When this matter
was heard at Planning Commission, the surrounding property owners
opposed this, and the matter was denied by the Commission.
Chairman Tetley called for a final rebuttal from the Applicant.
Mrs. Joan Moore declined further comment.
Page six -
PC-3/10/80
Chairman Tetley closed Public Hearing.
The Commission discussed the three alternatives presented, and
also discussed the possibility of designating zoning of Administrative/
Professional for the property in question, and types of businesses.
RESOLUTION NO. PC-80-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE
REGARDING THE FIRST CYCLE 1980 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.
PCM-80-26 Following discussion, MOTION was made by Commissioner Collins,
seconded by Commissioner Andress to adopt Resolution PC-80-3
The Resolution was read in full. MOTION carried on AYE votes of
Commissioners Andress, Bartel, Collins, Rivera and Watson, with
Commissioner McDowell voting NOE. Chairman Tetley indicated the
Chair will abstain, except in case of a tie.
ADJOURN TO PUBLIC WORK SESSION
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission adjourned to Public
Work Session at 8:28 p.m. The Public Work Session adjourned at "
10:10 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission
will be held Monday, March 24, 1980 at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Myrn Lindahl
Approved•
Page seven -
PC-3/10/80