Loading...
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