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