09/16/1985 12-8.1044
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 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, CA 92324 on September 16, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. , by Vice-
Chairman Jerry Hawkinson.
PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman
Gerald Cole, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
John McDowell, Commissioner
William DeBenedet, Commissioner
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary
ABSENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman, Excused
Sanford Collins, Commissioner, Excused
Vern Andress, Commissioner, Excused
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Commissioner DeBenedet
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, excused himself from the meeting @
7:05 p.m. , due to an emergency.
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stepped in for the Planning Director.
I. MINUTES
A. Minutes of August 5, 1985.
PCM 85-102 Motion by Commissioner McDowell
seconded by Commissioner Cole and
passed by a 4-1 vote, to approve
the minutes of August 5, 1985, as
submitted.
Commissioner DeBenedet abstained
from the vote.
B. Minutes of August 19, 1985.
PCM 85-103 Motion by Commissioner Munson seconded
by Commissioner McDowell, and passed
by a 4-1 vote, to approve the minutes
of August 19, 1985, as submitted.
Commissioner DeBenedet abstained from
the vote.
II. A. Annual Review of General Plan (Continued from August 19,
1985, Planning Commission Meeting).
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson indicated that Chairman Caouette wanted
this item to be continued until the Joint City Council/Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for September 28, 1985.
The Planning Commission began discussion on the Annual Review
of the General Plan.
PCM 85-104 Motion by Commissioner McDowell
seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson
and passed by a 3-2 vote to delete
Item Number 2 from the Annual Review
of the General Plan. The item to
be deleted states that in the areas
now zoned R-3, the maximum densities
to be considered is not to exceed
16 units per acre. This density is
to include any bonus accruing to the
proposed projects within this zone.
Commissioners' Munson and Cole voted
against the motion.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked the Planning Commission if there
were any comments on Item 5D, which states that Assessment
District proceedings be considered for providing the public
improvements required for the development of areas 10, 11 and 12.
He felt that the Planning Commission may want to also delete
this item.
Commissioner McDowell felt that these items should not be
continued to the September 28, 1985, Joint Meeting since this
would be a working session.
PCM 85-105 Motion by Commissioner Munson and
P.C. Minutes
9-16-85
Page 2
seconded by Commissioner McDowell
and passed by a 5-0 vote, to direct
Staff to forward to the City Council
the final recommendations on the
Annual Review of the General Plan as
modified.
II. B. Determination of Use - Telephone Switching Station
Requested by Mr. Jim Harber. Site is located north of the
house at 21996 Van Buren Street and approximately 700' west
of Michigan Street.
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, read Planning Department Staff
Report verbatim.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson opened this item for discussion. Asked
if the applicant and/or his representative were in the
audience.
Mr. John Starner, with C.G. Engineering in San Bernardino, was
there representing the applicant, Mr. Jim Harber. The Pacific
Bell Company is proposing to build an unmanned remote switching
center within the City Limits. The purpose of the building
is to provide for growth in the City and it's surrounding
communities. The size of the building would be approximately
5,000 square feet, personnel associated with it's use would
only visit the site 2 or 3 times a week for maintenance of
the facility. The proposed facility will not generate noise,
vibration, electro-mechanical disturbance or emission of odors.
The Pacific Bell Company is willing to work with the Planning
Commission and if the determination of use is approved, Pacific
Bell will then submit a Conditonal Use Permit. The proposed
building will be compatible with the surrounding area. Mr.
Starner distributed a proposed concept to the Commissioners,
and requested that they approve the notice of determination.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anyone in the
audience that would like to speak in favor of or in opposition
to this project.
Being no public comments, Vice-Chairman Hawkinson opened
discussion among the Commissioners.
PCM 85-106 Motion by Commissioner Munson and
seconded by Commissioner Cole, passed
by a 5-0 vote. The Commissioner
determined that the switching station
P.C. Minutes
9-16-85
Page 3
would not be detrimental to the
surrounding property and a telephone
switching station is an acceptable
use on this particular site, subject
to obtaining a Conditional Use Permit
from the City.
II. C. Parcel Map 9448, located between Mt. Vernon and Canal
Street. Applicant is McMillin Development Company.
Mr. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, presented the Planning
Department Staff Report verbatim.
After discussion among the Commissioners, Vice-Chairman
Hawkinson opened the meeting for public discussion.
Mr. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Karger indicated that Mr. Pearson, the property owner,
would like to include the small section of property so that he
may put it up for sale.
Since there was no further public discussion or discussion among
the Commission, Commissioner Munson made the following motion.
PCM 85-107 Motion by Commissioner Munson seconded
by Commissioner DeBenedet, and passed
by a 5-0 vote to approve Parcel Map
9448, as submitted.
II. D. Charles Tsang - Site & Architectural Review SA 85-09,
88 Unit Senior Citizen Rest Home located at 22325 Barton Road.
Conditional Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commission
at their regular meeting of August 5, 1985.
Mr. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, presented the Planning
Department Staff Report verbatim.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson opened discussion on this item and asked
Mr. Charles Tsang, the applicant, to address the Commission.
Mr. Charles Tsang, the applicant, 1205 Ashworth, Artesia, CA. ,
addressed the Commission. He indicated that the resthome is not
a convelescent home, but more of a retirement type of facility.
This facility will be for active elders, who enjoy daily
P.C. Minutes
9-16-85
Page 4
activities such as reading books, or playing cards.
There will be no medical facilities available at the resthome
because it will be more like a hotel.
Commissioner McDowell asked if the rental rates had been
established.
Mr. Tsang indicated that the rental rate would be $504.00 per
person, which would include 3 meals a day, room & board, and
limited maid service. The building will be off-white stucco
with a spanish design. He referred design questions to his
architect, Mr. Tony Inferrera.
Mr. Inferrera, the Architect for this project, addressed the
Commission. The building will be an off-white color, red
mission tile, glass bronze and dark brown wood trim. The
walls around the units on the ground floor and the walls
around the exterior of the dining room will also be stucco with
a brick cap, which is a chocolate brown color.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was anyone who wished to
speak in favor of or in opposition to this project.
Mr. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way, recommended that the
developer be required to landscape and grade his property
on the Canal right of way, if approved by Riverside Gage Canal.
PCM 85-108 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and
seconded by Commissioner Munson, and
passed by 5-0 vote, to have the
applicant execute a covenant running
with the land, whereby he agreed to
install the landscaping at such time
the City received approval from the
Canal for this project.
PCM 85-109 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and
seconded by Commissioner Munson and
passes by a 5-0 vote, to approve
Conditional Use Permit 85-9 and Site
& Architectural review 85-9, including
the findings as written in the Staff
Report and subject to the conditions
as recommended by Staff.
II. E. Sign Code Variance - Red Carpet Realty located at
22456 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA.
P.C. Minutes
9-16-85
Page 5
Mr. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, presented the Planning
Department Staff Report verbatim.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if the applicant or his
representative was in the audience.
Mr. Gene Carlstrom, owner of the office located at 22456
Barton Road, addressed the Commission regarding the sign
variance request.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if any of the Commissioners
had any questions.
Commissioner McDowell asked who owned the business.
Mr. Carlstrom responded that he purchased the business in
July, 1984, but has been there since 1978.
Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney, indicated that Mr. Carlstrom had
never had a variance and his sign became non-conforming
last December.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson felt that the City should support the
businesses that have been here for sometime.
PCM 85-110 Motion by Commissioner Munson and
seconded by Commissioner DeBenedet
and passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve
the variance for Red Carpet Realty as
requested, with the condition that it
be for the life of the sign or until the
business changes ownership, whichever
occurs first.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. RESOLUTION NO. 85-06, A Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Grand Terrace recommending approval of City
Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 8.72.200 Dealing
with Signs.
Mr. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, presented the Staff Report
verbatim. Mr. Hopkins indicated that the Sign Ordinance was
recently amended after meeting with the Chamber of Commerce.
Included within the Sign Ordinance provisions, were signs and
P.C. Minutes
9-16-85
Page 6
banners for open houses, condominiums, and apartments. After
it had been adopted the Chamber of Commerce approached the City
and asked that the City broaden that particular section. It
was recommended that it be presented to the City Council, who
recommended it's approval to the Planning Commission and
it has been referred to you as required by law. That's what
this public hearing is all about, if the Planning Commission
acts favorably upon it or if you do not approve the recommend-
ation, it will go back to the City Council, who will hold a
public hearing on it after and consider your recommendations
and consider approval or disapproval of the Ordinance.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson opened up the meeting for public
comments and comments by the Commission. Being no comments,
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson closed the public hearing with no one
speaking either for or against the Resolution.
PCM 85-111 Motion by Commissioner Munson and
seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson, and
approved by a 4-1 vote, to approve
Planning Commission Resolution No. 85-06
supporting the proposed Ordinance to
change the Sign Code.
Commissioner McDowell voted against the
motion.
B. Resolution No. PC 85-07. A Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Grand Terrace supporting approval of an Amendment
to' the City of Grand Terrace's Municipal Code, Section 18.66.050
Dealing with Appeals to the City Council of Use Permit Decisions
of the Planning Commission.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. Hopkins to present the Staff
Report. Mr. Hopkins indicated that this amendment was not
current with the law. The Conditional Use Permit process
provides that we have to give notice to certain properties
adjacent to the properties being considered for the Conditional
Use Permit.
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, indicating that this amendment
was necessary in order to be current with the law. The current
Conditional Use Permit process provides that notice has to
be given to adjacent properties that would be affected by the
Conditional Use Permit.
The Zoning Code indicates that anyone dissatisfied with the
decision of the Planning Commission may appeal to the City
Council. Those persons being the applicant, or a member of
the City Council, both of which are property appellants.
P.C. Minutes
9-16-85
Page 7
However, since the City is required by law to give notice to
adjoining properties, it stands to reason that due-process
requires that those properties also be allowed to appeal
unfavorable decisions of the Planning Commission. This
Resolution would support an amendment to the Zoning Code,
which would bring the Zoning Code into conformance with the
law.
Commissioner Cole asked if decisions that are not appealed
go to the City Council.
Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney, said that is correct, regarding
Conditional Use Permit. Anything that requires an adoption
of an Ordinance, Zone Change, Specific Plan Approval, requires
approval by the City Council based on the Planning Commission
recommendation. In some areas, the Planning Commission has
the final jurisdiction subject to appeal. Those areas being
Conditional Use Permits and Site & Architectural Review, etc.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked if the Planning Commission had
any further questions. He opened this item for the Public
Hearing, and asked if there was anyone in favor or against
this Resolution. Being no one either for or against, he
closed the Public Hearing and entertained a motion from the
Commissioners.
PCM 85-112 Motion by Commissioner Cole and
seconded by Commissioner Munson and
passed by a 5-0 vote, to approve
Resolution No. PC 85-07, supporting
the proposed change in Section
18.66.050 of the Municipal Code
Dealing with Appeal Procedures.
Vice-Chairman Hawkinson adjourned the Planning Commission at 8:30 p.m.,
to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. October 7, 1985.
Respectfully submitted,
ALEX E TR
PLANNING DIRECTOR
NORMAN CAOUETM
CHAIRMAN, PLANNING
COMMISSION
P.C. Minutes
9-16-85
Page 8