10/21/1985 12-8.1045
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 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 October 21, 1985, at 7:05 p.m. by
Chairman Caouette.
PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman
Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman
Gerald Cole, Commissioner
Vern Andress, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Sandy Collins, Commissioner
John McDowell, Commissioner
Alex Estrada, Planning Director
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner McDowell.
I. MINUTES
A. Minutes of September 16, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting.
PCM 85-113 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and
seconded by Commissioner Munson, and
passed by a 6-0 vote to approve the
minutes of September 16, 1985, as
submitted.
Chairman Caouette abstained from vote.
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. Keeney & Sons - Sign Variance located at 12139 Mt. Vernon Avenue.
Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director to present the
Staff Report.
Mr. Alex Estrada, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report.
Mr. Bob Keeney requested a Sign Variance of the Keeney Building
Sign and Inland Counties Learning Center. Presently, the sign
does not meet the height nor monument sign requirements. The
City's Sign Code will only allow one monument sign not to
exceed 24 square feet. There are presently two signs on the
one sign pole. The height of the sign shall not exceed 8 feet
and the existing height is approximately 14 feet. The
applicant, Mr. Bob Keeney, has requested a variance for this
sign.
Commissioner McDowell asked staff if, when a variance is
granted and the ownership changes, would the new owner be
prosecuted if the sign was not brought into conformance with
the sign code. Supposing Bob Keeney sells his building, or
suppose the other people move out, what will Staff do then.
Planning Director Estrada responded that if Mr. Keeney were
to move out, both the Inland Counties and the Keeney Sign would
have to be brought into conformance with the current sign code.
Commissioner Andress asked if the Inland Counties Learning
Center was still in the building, he understood that they
had moved already.
Mr. Bob Keeney confirmed that Inland Counties Learning Center
was no longer in his building.
Commissioner Andress asked why is the sign still advertising
and are we asked then to put an okay on a sign that does not
even advertise something that is no longer in the building.
Planning Director Estrada indicated that the Planning Commission
could approve the sign variance with a condition that the
Inland Counties Learning Center sign be removed.
Chairman Caouette asked Commissioner Andress if he wished to
make that a motion.
Commissioner Andress said that he would as soon as the
discussion was closed.
Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone in the audience
who wished to speak in favor of or against this Sign Variance
request.
Mr. Bob Keeney, the applicant, 12139 Mt. Vernon, Grand Terrace,
indicated that the Keeney Sign was designed by the County of
San Bernardino. His intent was not to put the Keeney
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 2
Building sign up there, but the County made them put it up
because they wanted Keeney to designate the Center. So,
the County made them put up this Keeney Building sign, which
says Keeney Building. The reason this variance is requested
is because of the expense of replacing it. Mr. Keeney stated
they originally paid $2,000 and to replace it would cost
approximately $5,000. He indicated that since the Inland
Counties Learning Center was no longer there, that they could
take the Inland Counties Sign down, but asked that the
Planning Commission not make them take the whole sign down.
Commissioner Andress asked Mr. Keeney if he did not want the
sign, and if the sign advertises something that you don't
necessarily want advertised, your building, and if it
advertises a business that has not been there for over a
year, why do you want a sign up there?
Mr. Keeney indicated that the Keeney Building Sign is the
sign that they do not want, but they did want the Inland
Counties Learning Center sign, so that they could advertise
another business in the building, but not necessarily the
Keeney Building Sign. But, again, the Keeney Building
sign is smaller.
Commissioner Andress misunderstood Mr. Keeney, he thought
Mr. Keeney wanted to remove only the Inland Counties Learning
Center Sign.
Mr. Keeney indicated that he wanted to keep the marquee sign
in order to advertise another tenant.
Commissioner McDowell asked what could Mr. Keeney do to make
his sign legal.
Planning Director Estrada pointed out that in order for Mr.
Keeney's sign to be in compliance, he would have to come in
with a sign not to exceed 24 square feet and not to exceed
8' in height. Presently both signs are 20' in height, with
the Keeney Sign being approximately 1' x 6' , which is 6 square
feet and the Inland Counties sign being 4' x 6' , which is 24
square feet. Now, that sign is in conformance but there again,
you have two monument signs, both the Keeney and the Inland
Counties are considered monument signs. In order for Keeney to
be in compliance he would have to bring down his sign back to
8' in height and not to exceed 24 square feet. I believe Mr.
Keeney is asking to keep both signs as they are at this time
and he will remove the lettering of the Inland Counties sign
but to keep the Inland Counties framing for future use, for the
tenants that are there at this time.
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 3
Mr. Keeney indicated that he did not want to lower the
sign, because there is a tremendous amount of traffic from
the school and they have a problem with vandalism. Anything
that is put out there such as landscaping is vandalized. If
the sign is lowered, the top of the sign would be within
striking distance for every kid that walks down there.
Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished
to speak in favor of this variance request.
Barney Karger - 11668 Bernardo Way, indicated that he drives
by the Keeney sign 2 or 3 times a day and he hardly ever sees
the sign. It is much more irritating to see a revolving sign
moving than a 100' high sign. What's irritating is not being
able to find the Dr. 's office , attorney's office, or builder's
office. The Keeney sign and most of the signs in Grand Terrace
are not objectionable. Indicated that he has concreted in his
sprinkler heads at his apartment buildings and that children
still manage to kick them out. So, he knows they are going
to break anything they can reach. The sign is not objectionable
and 5 years from now or ten years from now it is not going to be
objectionable. He remarked that he would like to see the
Planning Commission find that this sign is not objectionable,
keep the Keeney sign up there until he sells it, and then it
will be known as another building. Also, keep the Inland Counties
Sign up there for another tenant.
Chairman Caouette asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor
of this variance request.
Mr. Bob Keeney - Noted that when they put up the sign, they did
not want to put Keeney Building or Keeney Center or anything
else up there, only the address 12139, they said that would be
the name of the center, so they wouldn't let him do it. He
stated also that he would still like to instead of having it
say Keeney Building, that he would like to have the address.
He indicated that he would be willing to do that.
Chairman Caouette closed the public hearing and opened discussion
among the Planning Commission.
After a brief discussion among the Commissioners, Chairman
Caouette indicated he would entertain a motion.
PCM 85-114 Motion by Commissioner Andress and
seconded by Commissioner Cole and
passed by a 6-1 vote, to approve
the sign variance request for the
Keeney building monument sign located
at 12139 Mt. Vernon Avenue. The
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 4
approval of the variance will be for
the life of the sign or until the
business changes ownership. In
addition, this motion denies the
Inland Counties Family Learning
Center sign and orders Mr. Keeney to
remove that sign.
Commissioner McDowell voted against
the motion.
III. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Chairman Caouette understood that Mr. Bob Keeney wanted to make an
informal presentation on the resubmittal of his Chapparel Pines
Apartment project.
Planning Director Estrada indicated that Mr. Bob Keeney has
requested time to make an informal presentation on his project
known as Chapparel Pines. Mr. Keeney made a presentation at
the last City Council Meeting and the Council waived all of
the processing fees for this project resubmittal, with the
exception of the cost for the public hearings. Which at this
time, would require two public hearings, one tentatively
scheduled for November 18, 1985, which would be the Planning
Commission public hearing and the second public hearing would be
on December 12, 1985, which would be the City Council public
hearing. Now, these public hearing would be for a resubmittal
of an updated version of the specific plan and conditional use
permit as will be submitted by Mr. Bob Keeney. Mr. Keeney will
just make an informal presentation of his project and would like
to receive some of your comments, so that he may include them
in his formal submittal.
Mr. Keeney began his presentation by stating that this plan
is exactly the same plan that the Planning Commission previously
approved. The only difference being that we have reduced it from
17 1/2 units to an acre, to 15 3/4, which apparently is the
number that has been approved by the City Council for that
whole block. Of course, we feel that we should have a little
bonus density, because of our location and our access and
so forth. It's really the same exact plan that the Planning
Commission voted on before, except we've taken out some of
the units.
Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Keeney if this was the same project
as the initial project.
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 5
Mr. Keeney responded by saying that this was only Phase I of
the initial project.
Chairman Caouette asked if this property was entirely R-3 or
R-2, it has A-P on it as well.
Mr. Keeney replied, again, this was zoned A-P, which he would
guess is a commercial designation, but the General Plan
designates as a Medium Density Residential. But on the other
hand, with the Conditional Use Permit, the Medium Density
Residential is allowed in an A-P Zone. Whether or not it
gets a zone change is strictly academic as far as he is
concerned.
Chairman Caouette responded that he assumed Mr. Keeney did not
plan on submitting a change of zone with his application.
Mr. Keeney replied " Well, I think the conditions before that
you approved, that during our submittal process that we also
submit for a zone change, now after that, parcels, 10 and 11
were given an automatic zone change. We didn't apply for that
or we were not requested to apply for it, at that point in
time. The zone change as far as I'm concerned, if you really
think we need to go through the mechanics of that it doesn't
bother us at all. But, I think it's a waste of time."
Commissioner Hawkinson responded that after listening to the
City Council Meeting Thursday night, thought it was anticipated
that this was going to come up again. But, for his edification,
and maybe for the other Commissioners, thought that Mr. Keeney
did not ask for a zone change on that particular parcel. Asked
if he was correct in assuming this.
Mr. Keeney replied, "Well, I think at the time, my thinking was,
and I will try and second guess what I was even thinking about,
that if we didn't get the project approved that we would still
have an A-P designation on the property and could possibly use
it for other uses rather than multi-family if the multi-family
didn't work. So, I wasn't sure, I was sort of sitting on the
fence as to whether we really wanted that zone change or not."
Commissioner Hawkinson believed that there was some urgency of
time required in order to sell bonds on this project.
Mr. Keeney had talked to Ivan and felt that the urgency did not
really exist as originally anticipated. Maybe the City
Attorney could address this item.
Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney, indicated that Mr. Keeney was
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 6
concerned that the grandfather provisions would be lost to
him and that he would not be able to sell mortgage revenue
bonds for multi-family uses on the property. He indicated to
him that the laws that will go into affect as of January
1, 1986, do not limit that. The only restriction that
would be effective upon him and his project would be to
make more restrictive the income requirements and he
would still be grandfathered in. And, that in any event
it was probably too late in time already to be able to sell
the bonds and have them in place by the first of the year,
and that he could not avoid those more restrictive laws
that will go into effect on January 1, 1986 in any event.
Commissioner Hawkinson asked the City Attorney if there was
anything that would prohibit getting this project moving
along and at the same time change the zoning.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated that excluding the zoning
request, the specific plan and the conditional use permit
could both come to the Planning Commission in their November
meetings and then at the City Council at their December
meeting and have approval prior to the first of the year.
The zoning requirement has not been filed to my knowledge,
and I don't think there has been a request filed. That would
have to be filed in order to proceed with the Zone change.
However, his approval before was that he would do the zoning
sort of in conjunction with the site plan and architectural
review, because, if you have the same conditions that you
had previously he would not be able to proceed with the project
until the zoning is in place with R-3 zoning rather than A-P
zoning, that was one of your requirements in the past.
Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the zoning would have to come
into conformance.
City Attorney Hopkins responded that he is presuming that the
Planning Commission would place the same condition on it
as they did before, then the answer is yes.
Mr. Keeney asked if it was necessary with the Conditional Use
Permit to do this zone change, that it seemed to be only an
excercise.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated that language for the R-3 or
the A-P zone is that uses permitted with Use permits are
permitted subject to obtaining a use permit in the A-P
district. Uses permitted in the R-3 district shall be as
follows: Multi-family uses, apartments, duplexes, tri-plexes,
four-plexes, group dwellins, public uses including public
parks and playgrounds. And so, that is what the A-P
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 7
basically says, he can have multi-family uses.
Commissioner Hawkinson asked if it was better to continue
with the same language that the Planning Commission had
used the first time around.
City Attorney Hopkins agreed that yes, it was the most
conservative approach.
Mr. Keeney requested some kind of indication that there were
no problems as far as the Planning Commission is concerned,
with this plan. So that if he does proceed and come back
to the Planning Commission, that there will not be any
problems with the project.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated the only problem with that, is
that the Planning Commission has to remain impartial, they
have to hold a public hearing and if some one from the audience
presents what they pose to be a problem, the Commission will
have the opportunity to make that determination.
Commissioner Hawkinson indicated that he will probably have
the same stipulations attached to this project as we did before,
mainly access across the Gage Canal.
Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Commission if there was any
further discussion.
Commissioner Collins understood that there was some discussion
with the City Staff as to whether Mr. Trevino has a major or
minor change with his project. He suggested to the Staff
that they consider the fact that his project was railroaded
through the City Council to start with and the Planning
Commission denied it for a number of major reasons. If there
is some way that the Planning Commission can get some of the
conditions that they have applied on everyone else, applied
to Mr. Trevino, then the Commission would be satisfied.
City Attorney Hopkins did not think there was any question
with the Staff whether it's a minor or major deviation. Staff
was abundantly clear, he thought, when the Council endorsed
what staff indicated at the City Council meeting that this was
not in fact, a minor deviation. That it constituted a major
subdivision change in the proposal and that it would require
another public hearing and approval by both the Planning
Commission and City Council. Mr. Trevino took the position
that it was a minor deviation. Mr. Hopkin's position was that
it constituted approximately 15% increase in the density or
number of units and in no way could that constitute a minor
deviation. In Mr. Trevino's own words that the Council had
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 8
granted him a 5% minor deviation variance, which in actuality
is a 15% variance. There was never a question, and the
Council indicated to Mr. Trevino that they had to go along with
their legal counsel's advise. The only real discussion was
that he wanted a consensus of the Council to indicate to the
Planning Commission that the Council agrees with his conceptual
approach, which the Council did grant him that request.
Commissioner McDowell indicated that the thing that bothered
him most about that is it's going to put 30 more units in the
same little area, charge it off to Edison, with only a 3 year
lease, which could terminate and you would have 30 in the old
grounds.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated that was not entirely correct.
Although that was partially his approach, it is half of that.
Half of it is going to the Ale and property, half is
attributable(15 units approximately1to the Alexander property,
which he has in fact acquired, which is 1.1 acres. The other
about 1/2 of his total increase or approximately 15, 16 units
are being increased upon the same property using the 2.1
Edison 3 year leasehold interest as the basis for the open
space. So it is half of what you said.
Mr. Barney Karger agreed with allowing Mr. Trevino to have the
Edison Property for the additional density.
The Planning Commission continued discussion on the Trevino
project.
Chairman Caouette asked if there was any further discussion, if not
he would like to discuss the creation of an approved list of
Consultants for the City of Grand Terrace.
Planning Director Estrada asked the Chairman to be more
specific as to what kind of consultants the Planning
Commission would like to see on the approved list. Should
the consultants prepare specific plans, environmental
assessments, traffic studies, etc. And should the firms
be local only or within San Bernardino/Riverside Counties.
Chairman Caouette would like to see firms from Southern
California or close enough to ask questions or request
further documentation.
Chairman Caouette would like to see 10 or 15 firms on the
approved list.
Planning Director Estrada intends to send 15 request for
proposals and receive a possible 10 responses. He will
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 9
submit to the Planning Commission a draft of the RFP.
If the Commission has any comments or additions they would
like to add, he would appreciate them before the RFP's
go out. Asked if after the RFP is approved, does the City
Council have to approve the request for proposal.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated establishing the list does
not require City Council approval.
Planning Director asked the City Attorney to give a status report on
Senate Bill 705.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated that the Planning Commission
had a copy of the bill, which states that anytime you are
going to move utilities it's going to be a cost upon the
developer.
City Attorney Hopkins made a presentation to the Planning Commission
on the progress of gaining access over the Gage Canal.
He and Joe Kicak, City Engineer, met with the City of Riverside
regarding the Gage Canal and they determined and found out the
following: One, the Fee title of the Canal itself was
acquired through Eminent Domain through the City of Riverside
a few years ago. The City of Riverside indicated that the
reason that they went into the Eminent Domain action was that
some of the San Bernardino County interest were starting to
buy up shares in the Gage Canal properties assumingly to
reacquire the water rights that was being taken from San
Bernardino over to Riverside. So, the City of Riverside
got concerned and entered into Eminent Domain and acquired
the Fee Title to the Gage Canal property. Now, that's not the
Canal, the Canal itself is still owned by the Gage Canal
Company, as well as in this Community, the Canal Street.
The Company is a privately owned Company that originally or
course, was the water purveyor for most of the agricultural
interests in the City of Riverside. The City of Riverside
now has about 30% of the stock in the Canal Company so they
do own stock in it, but they are not the principle
owner, 70% is still in private interests. The City has
indicated and they felt that they had the concurrence of the
Canal Company said they would be agreeable to our crossing
the Canal with certain restrictions, Ivan indicated
that we were not receptive to that, and that we would want
to negotiated that further, is that they indicated that they
only want one crossing and that in regards to that crossing that
the other crossings that are currently licensed and permitted
by the Canal Company would be ceased and so that those crossings
would stop and they would just have one crossing. We indicated
that we would probably recommend, in that event, that we would
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 10
i
in fact litigate the Eminent Domain. But, assuming that we
can get over that hurdle, they would want, of course, that we
guarantee structural integrity. Mr. Hopkins indicated that
assuming that they are engineered correctly and that would be
a matter for our City Engineer to determine, that he would have
no objection and that we would expect and anticipate that the
requirement would be that we preserve the structural integrity
of the Canal. The 2nd is that they would not be willing to
entertain the use of the Canal property as a bike path or jogging
path. 3rd, they would be receptive with certain conditions to
again preserve the integrity of the Canal to landscaping of the
Canal property by the City. They would want us to acquire
the Canal street for a nominal fee. That's not what the Canal
Company had indicated to us in the past, they were willing for
us to acquire it, but it was not a nominal fee. We would be
willing to acquire the Canal Street, and continue to use it as
a public street, but we would only be willing to do so at a
nominal fee. Mr. Hopkins did not have any objection to that
as long as it's not one crossing. That's really the only
objection he had to their entire proposal. But, there are of
course some policy decisions that this Commission should
consider and certainly the City Council would have to
act on before we acquire any of them. One is do we want to
create a thoroughfare on eastern side of the Canal and secondly,
it depends on what the nominal cost is for Canal Street and
thirdly, how many crossings do we want over the Canal and how
many are we willing to settle for and finally, how important is
the use of the Canal property as a bike path or jogging path
to the City. He thought those were the policy decisions that
have to be made. One of the criticisms that we came under, and
Attorney Hopkins thought maybe rightfully so, the City of
Riverside when they walked in jumped all over them, because
apparently there had been a promise on a previous meeting that
they would come up with a plan to cross the Canal. And, the
planning for the traffic around and over that Canal. That had
not been done and they felt put upon that it had been promised
and had not been done. And Attorney Hopkins thought they were
right, because we had apparently made a committment to do that
and we failed to follow through, they were chagrined and he
thought with good cause. And then apparently, we went through
Staff, through the City Manager's office, and went directly to
Canal Company, when we had promised the City that we would come
back to them. He thought there was a miscommunication between
our own staff up through the City Manager's office and so again,
they felt that we had not lived up to a bargain that we had made.
Attorney Hopkins, indicated that he assured them that we would
document and give them all that we promised them, and thinks
that it's good because he thinks we enlisted the support of the
City of Riverside.
Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 11
Chairman Caouette asked if there was any further discussion. Being
no further discussion, Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning
Commission at 8:30 a.m. , to the next regularly scheduled meeting at
7:00 p.m, on November 4, 1985.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
A EX EST ADA, PLANNING DIRECTOR
APPROVED:
7
C IRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission
Ir Meeting Minutes 10-21-85
PAGE 12