Loading...
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