Loading...
05/20/1985 - 12-8.1038 12-8.1038 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting May 20, 1985 The adjourned regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, 92324 on May 20, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Sanford L. Collins. PRESENT: Sanford L. Collins, Chairman Ray Munson, Vice-Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Norman T. Caouette, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner John McDowell, Commissioner William DeBenedet, Commissioner Vern Andress, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Vern Andress I. Minutes Minutes of May 6, 1985 PCM 85-28 Motion by Commissioner Hawkinson, seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 8-0 vote to approve the minutes of May 6, 1985 as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS A. Time Extension Tentative Tract 12218 / SA 82-6, northwest corner of DeBerry Street and Mount Vernon Avenue. Mr. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report. The Tentative Tract was originally approved in 1981, and since then, has had extensions. At this time, the tract is eligible for a one year extension. Staff recommended a one year extension. With respect to the Site approval, Mr. Kicak informed the Planning Commission that the City Council granted a retroactive site approval for the project that ended June 24, 1984. The applicant, Mr. Karger, submitted his plans in November 1983, since that time, Staff had several comments that were corrected by Mr. Karger's Consultants. On May 17, 1985, a completely new package of plans for this project were submitted by Mr. Karger. These plans were similar to those that were initially proposed, however, there was a question of whether or not the resubmittal of a single set of plans constitutes a site approval. This matter was referred to Mr. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney. Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney, felt that there had been an expiration of the approval. Commissioner Caouette asked if the expiration referred solely to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Hopkins, responded that no the expiration only referred to the Site and Architectural Review approval. Mr. Hopkins also indicated that because of the change to the General Plan, the applicant would be required to submit a Specific Plan with the project proposal. Commissioner DeBenedet asked if the building could still be reviewed for Site and Architectural approval. Mr. Hopkins indicated that a Site and Architectural Review is required, since there is no longer an approval. Commissioner Caouette asked if the applicant had run out of the extensions allotted by the Ordinance. Mr. Hopkins said yes, as far as the Site and Architectural Review is concerned, however, the applicant may have an extension of one year for the Tentative Tract. Mr. Kicak indicated that two actions were requested of the Planning Commission. The first one was to approve extension of Tract 12218 for one year. The second request, by the applicant, was to extend the Site and Architectural Review for a period of one year. The applicant had submitted his plans in November of 1983, which was the date that he paid his fees, there had been correspondence between the Building and Safety Department and the applicant advising him of the things that had to be done to complete that set of plans before Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 2 a building permit could be issued. On 5-17-85, a completely new set of plans had been submitted to Building & Safety that were similar to those that were originally submitted, but they did not have a full review. Mr. Hopkins suggested that the Planning Commission may consider a variance to the required submittal of Specific Plan. However, the variance would have to be requested by the applicant. Commissioner Munson asked whether the Planning Commission would have to request the variance. Mr. Hopkins replied yes. Chairman Collins asked the applicant, Mr. Barney Karger, to make his presentation. Mr. Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, Grand Terrace. The Extension for the Tentative Tract Map is pretty much automatic. It was not Mr. Karger's intent to ask for an extension on the current Site approval, but for an interpretation by the Planning Commission. Mr. Karger asked the Planning Commission if he had made a substantial performance by working with the Building and Safety Department. He said the plans were corrected, and if allowed, would build the condominiums, which would be superior to any apartments that could be built on that site. Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Karger if he would reconsider tile roofs. Mr. Karger said the tile roofs would be on the front, because the forced air units would be on top and the solar heaters would be on the back . He said he would include tile roofs on the first two lots on Mt. Vernon Avenue, so that tile would be visible from the other side and include tile roofs on the two lots near Mirado Street. Commissioner Munson had a concern with the density factor using net acres. Mr. Karger responded that he proposes to use 17.5 units per net acre. The gross is less than 10 and the net is 17.5 units per acre. Across the street the net is 26. Mr. Karger said they were the best looking condominiums he could find, in Orange, L.A. , San Bernardino or Riverside Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 3 Counties. Chairman Collins asked if there were any further questions of the applicant. Commissioner DeBenedet asked the applicant if he was going to stucco the units at the corner of Mt. Vernon & DeBerry. Mr. Karger said he was going to have wood siding with an arched window 2 stories in height that has a plaster top around it. Commissioner DeBenedet asked about the proposed landscaping. Mr. Karger said he was going to plant an exhorbitant amount of 15 gallon treets. Chairman Collins asked for a discussion among the Commissioners. PCM 85-29 Motion by Commissioner Caouette, seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson and passed by a 6-2 vote, to recommend to the City Council that Tentative Tract Map 12218 be extended until June 9, 1986. Chairman Collins and Vice-Chairman Munson voted against the motion. PCM 85-30 Motion by Commissioner McDowell, seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson and passed by a 8-0 vote, to take no action on Site and Architectural Review 82-6. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Specific Plan/Conditional Use Permit 85-8, Mount Vernon Villas, 252 apartment units on 14.5 acres between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Canal Street. This item was continued from the May 6, 1985 meeting. Joseph Kicak presented the Staff Report. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that a Study be performed on the extension of Brentwood between Mount Vernon Avenue and Canal Street. The City Council directed Staff to prepare that study, which has now been completed. Staff concluded that the Brentwood extension between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Canal Street would serve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 4 no useful purpose in conjunction with the development in that area. Mr. Kicak felt that the Planning Commission should not consider the extension of Brentwood westerly between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Canal Street. Commissioner Caouette had the following concerns about the proposed development. He felt there may be problems with acquiring the full right of way width on Mt. Vernon Avenue in order to comply with the General Plan. The existing right of way and paved width on Canal Stret are substandard to the General Plan. Traffic signals may be needed at Canal Street, the intersections of Grand Terrace Road and Mt. Vernon Avenue and Barton Road and Canal Street. Commissioner Caouette felt that the developer should pay for the additional right of way and traffic signals. Commissioner Caouette also felt it was necessary to determine the feasible density in the area based an the density permitted. PCM 85-31 Motion by Commissioner McDowell, seconded by Vice-Chairman Munson, and passed by an 8-0 vote to accept the Engineer's Report having to do specifically with the extension of Brentwood to Canal Street and to recommend to the City Council that the Planning Commission has no further interest in the extension of Brentwood westerly. The Planning Commission began to discuss Specific Plan 85-8. Commissioner Cole asked the City Attorney if the Planning Commission would create some problems by limiting density in this particular area. Mr. Hopkins, the City Attorney, said that there would be some problems created. In order to limit density, the City Council would have to adopt an Ordinance; it would also be required that the Housing Element of the General Plan be amended. Chairman Collins asked the City Attorney if the goals and objectives in the General Plan are actually requirements. Mr. Hopkins stated that the Housing Element does set up some requirements of the City as part of the General Plan. Any ordinance adopted by the City would require amending everything that needed to be amended in the General Plan. Chairman Collins asked the City Attorney if 20 units per Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 5 acre was a requirement in the Housing Element. Mr. Hopkins said no, it was a maximum excluding bonuses, it's available subject to a Specific Plan. PCM 85-32 Motion by Commission Caouette, seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson, and passed by an 8-0 vote, that in addition to the City Engineer's recommendations on the Brentwood Street Extension, there are other issues in the report, which have significant bearing on development in the immediate area and should be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. In addition to those implications it should also cover both density in the area, and the burden for paying for additional services, specifically, possible stop lights in the area. Motion Passed 8-0. The Planning Commission began to discuss maximum densities on all properties within the City of Grand Terrace. PCM 85-33 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and seconded by Commissioner DeBenedet, failed by 2-6 vote to recommend to the City Council that a limit of 15 units per acre be placed on all properties in the City. Chairman Collins, Vice-Chairman Munson, Commissioner's Hawkinson, Caouette, Cole and Andress voted against the motion. Commissioner Hawkinson expressed concern regarding the complications with Gage Canal. Mr. Kicak referred that issue to the City Attorney. Mr. Hopkins stated that the City is looking at the possibility of acquiring the right to cross the Gage Canal by eminent domain. Another issue is the Title to Canal Street and to have it as a public road rather than a private road, which is used for public purposes. And finally the ability to land- scape and to use the Canal as a bikeway. Mr. Hopkins described parcels as being unusual looking parcels. One is a piece Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 6 of property that contains the Canal, the second is a portion of Canal Street and the third is right of way next to Canal Street. The City needs to acquire all or parts of each individual parcel. PCM 85-34 Motion by Commissioner Caouette and seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson, passed by a 7-1 vote to recommend to the City Council that they direct City Staff to study or continue with the study effort to date, assessing the issues that the Planning Commission has raised and utilize that study to recommend to the Planning Commission feasible density alternatives for the entire area and the associated improvements that would go along with those density suggestions. Commissioner McDowell voted against the motion. Chairman Collins opened the discussion for Specific Plan/Conditional Use Permit 85-8. Mr. Kicak stated that the Planning Commission had previously considered, informally, the proposed development of 252 units known as Mt. Vernon Villas. The Specific Plan had been presented to the Planning Commission at previous meetings. The Applicant, Mr. Al Trevino, 1015 Madison Place, Laguna Beach, CA addressed the Commission and showed some slides of the work that they had done in the past and what they propose to build in Grand Terrace. Chairman Collins called a brief recess at 8:38 p.m. and the Planning Commission reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Commissioner Hawkinson told the applicant that he would like the plans to show an entry or exit way onto Canal Street. He also stated that the majority of people favor tile roofs and enclosed garages. Mr. Trevino's response was that the written material that they had seen did not require two covered spaces per unit. Commission DeBenedet wanted to know how two laundry facilities were going to serve all of those units. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 7 Mr. Trevino pointed out that there were laundry facilities located in the clubhouse, one near the little jacuzzi, and one near the lap pool. Each unit will also have an area for a washer and dryer. Commissioner DeBenedet wanted to know what type of air conditioner and heating unit was going to be used and why was only one swimming pool planned for this project. Mr. Trevino said that no decisions have been made on the type of heating and air conditioning equipment. As far as the pools are concerned, there are two pools planned for this project. Commissioner Caouette had a concern regarding traffic signal improvements that will serve the area and who was going to pay for these improvements. Mr. Trevino pointed out that they will be paying approximately one million dollars in fees and these fees are meant for these types of improvements. Discussion among Commission continued on median strips. Chairman Collins pointed out that the Specific Plan states that an increase of 1500 cars a day on Mt. Vernon is insignificant. He uses Mt. Vernon Avenue and two additional cars a day is an impact to him. Chairman Collins also stated that the Planning Commission does not approve of 6 foot block walls blocking off the properties from the streets. Another point of the Specific Plan states that the R-3 zoning allows 290 units, but the Zoning Code only allows 9 units per acres, which is 131. Chairman Collins continued to point out different areas where the Specific Plan does not meet the City's General Plan or Zoning requirements. He also felt that Specific Plans should be revised for the Planning Commission before they are approved by the City Council. Commissioner Caouette asked if there was a phasing plan for this project. Mr. Trevino stated that a decision on whether this project would be built in phases or as one project has not been determined. Commissioner Munson felt that the Planning Commission wanted to see one car garages and tile roofs as a condition of approval for the Specific Plan. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 8 Mr. Trevino said that no decisions have been made as conditions for approval on this project. Commissioner Munson discussed the sewer fees with Mr. Trevino. City Attorney Hopkins clarified the issue on fees. The sewer fee of $378,000 as indicated in the Specific Plan is composed of $1,500 per connection, $1,350 of the $1,500 is directly paid to the City of Colton, $150 of each of the connection fees goes to the City of Grand Terrace. It doesn't matter if apartment uses less or more, for the purpose of the fee, because that is the exact amount that is paid to the City of Colton by agreement. And as that increases from time to time, the City of Grand Terrace is then required to raise their fee accordingly. The Water Co. has a fee of $352,800 that does not come to the City. In addition, $100,800 is for permits, plan check, inspection etc. , that's a direct cost to the City and is not a profit item. This is the same for the Specific Plan, parcel map, and Conditional Use Permit fee of $6,300 that's paid to the City of it's review checking. However, on the Streets, Parks and Storm Drains, which is over $200,000, the statements that Mr. Trevino made are correct, they would be put into the City for Streets, Parks and Storm Drain Capital Improvement. But, the remainder or most of the $1,048,000 would not come to the City. Chairman Collins proceeded with the public hearing and asked if there was any one in favor of the this project. With no one speaking in favor, he then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition to this project. Mr. Homer H. Howell Jr. , who resides at 11829 Mt. Vernon Ave. , addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Howell felt that the shrubbery becomes a problem with undergrowth. There is also a traffic flow problem that will increase traffic as the area developes. Mr. Howell pointed out problems with parking and the proposed bike trails. In conclusion, he felt there were a lot of problems with no easy answers. Dr. McDuffy, who resides on 11830 South Mt. Vernon Ave. , addressed the Commission. He felt that the traffic problems on Mt. Vernon Ave. will increase if the proposed project is approved. In conclusion, he felt the Planning Commission should not approve any projects until the traffic problems have been resolved. Chairman Collins closed the public hearing with no one else speaking for or against this project. Discussion among the Commission took place at this time. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 9 PCM 85-35 Motion by Chairman Collins and seconded by Vice-Chairman Munson and passed by a 5-2 vote to deny Specific Plan/Conditional Use Permit 85-8, due to the Specific Plan inadequacies, due to the fact that it is detrimental to the general health, safety and comfort of the residents of the neighborhood and the City as a whole in that it has impaction on the City infrastructure and circulation element. Commissioner's DeBenedet and McDowell voted against the motion. PCM 85-36 Motion by Chairman Collins and seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson and passed by an 8-0 vote to accept the resignation of Mrs. Winifred Bartel and recommend to the City Council to accept this recommendation and provide Mrs. Bartel with a letter of commendation for her seven years of service on the Planning Commission. . Chairman Collins adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:37 p.m. to a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m, on June 17, 1985. Respectfully submitted, i i 097PH KICAK, Planning Director Chair an of the Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5-20-85 Page 10