Loading...
11/18/1985 12-8.1046 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 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 November 18, 1985, at 7:00 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 Cole I. MINUTES Commissioner McDowell was very grateful and complemented the Staff on the minutes, many things were covered in the meeting and he could not find any mistakes. A. Minutes of October 21, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting. PCM 85-115 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Andress and passed by a 6-0 vote, to approve the minutes of October 21, 1985, as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS I A. Site and Architectural Review SA 85-8, for Specific Plan/ Conditional Use Permit 85-8, Mt. Vernon Villas apartment units, located north of Barton Road between Mt. Vernon and the Gage Canal. The applicant is Forest City Dillon. Chairman Caouette moved to Item No. 2, which was the SA 85-8, and asked staff to give their comments. Mr. Alex Estrada, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report. As mentioned in the Staff report, this Specific Plan and Conditional Use Permit was denied originally by the Planning Commission, McMillin Company appealed the decision to the City Council and the City Council approved the Specific Plan conditioned upon 12.75 units per acre with a bonus density of 3 units per acre for Senior Citizens. The applicant has now submitted his Site & Architectural Review to the Planning Commission, as you note, the Owner/Applicant at this time is Forest City Dillon. They are in the process of acquiring this property and in essence will be developing this project. However, Mr. Trevino is also involved with some of the site planning. Mr. Trevino and Ms. Carol Tanner, representing Forest City Dillon, are in the audience to answer any questions. If there are any particular questions that you would like to ask at this time, maybe the applicant can address them or, if you have any questions of myself, I would be more than happy to answer them at this time. Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Estrada, if the Planning Commission was to approve 1 of 3 alternatives for parking. Planning Director Estrada responded by stating that the Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space be enclosed on three sides. In reviewing past minutes of this project and other projects, 3 sides is almost meant as a garage without a door. However, the Site plan that was included in the Specific Plan that was appealed to the City Council only showed the 2 sides and it was approved on that condition. However, in reviewing the Ordinance, the Planning Director does have the authority to add additional guidelines to the parking or other areas within the plans. Rather than make that decision myself, I would like the Commission to review these alternatives and give me your recommendations. Chairman Caouette noted in the Staff Report that the applicant had not yet provided a layout for auxilliary buildings where the washers/dryers and so forth were to be housed. He asked the Planning Director if he knew the number of washers and dryers proposed or required for a project of this size. Planning Director Estrada did not know the number they were P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 2 proposing and referred this question to the applicant. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of staff. Since there were none, he asked the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Mr. Al Trevino - 1015 Madison Place, Laguna Beach, CA. addressed the Planning Commission. This was the identical plan that was presented to you several weeks ago at your study session. And it conforms with the overall specific plan that was approved by City Council, if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. The one question that you raised regarding washer/dryers, I don't believe that there were any set numbers that apply to apartments. Our intent in the building design was to provide space within each building, in addition, we would provide washer/dryer facilities in the central building facilities. The exact number hasn't been determined. Chairman Caouette asked if the intent was to eventually go condominium with these units. Mr. Trevino answered that under Tax Revenue Bonds, the lenders require that a Condo Map be put on it, but again under the Mortgage Revenue Bonds, they are committed as apartments for a period of time. Commissioner Munson inquired which plan was being considered for approval, the exhibited plan or the hand-out in the packets. Planning Director Estrada responded by stating that originally, the plan that was submitted was the plan you see up there. However, that shows 264 units and it shows the Edison Property, which is not a part of this project approval. The approval is for 252 units and that's what you have in your plan. The plan we are considering tonight is the plan that you have there. The architect apparently did not have time to make the rendering of that plan that you have there for display tonight. But, this just gives you the overall concept of the plan that you have in hand at this time. Mr. Trevino indicated that it was identical in all respects, except for the two buildings that were left off of this plan. Mr. Trevino pointed out the buildings that were not included in the Commissioners plans. Commissioner McDowell asked how the Senior Citizens were going to be designated. P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 3 Mr. Trevino had not determined that designation. They would like to separate some of the buildings so that they are in a quiet area and not mixed with family units. However, the courts have not looked favorably upon people doing that because people have a free choice to choose wherever they care to live, so this is a very sensitive issue at this time. Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Trevino if the carports proposed included any kind of storage for the things that go along with automobiles. Mr. Trevino indicated that they were going to provide storage adjacent to the unit. In lieu of providing them in the carport, it's more protectable. We do have the storage area adjacent to each unit next to the washer/dryer and hot water heater area. Equivalent area that you would get in some of the parking areas but, they have found that people will tend to store combustible materials, etc. in the carport, which becomes a fire hazard, plus the policing becomes an insur— mountable problem. Chairman Caouette asked what the square footage would be for these units. Mr. Trevino indicated that the two bedroom master bedroom suite is approximately 909 square feet. The average square footage for each unit will be approximately 870 square feet, the one bedroom unit will be approximately 606 square feet. Commissioner Andress asked about that Edison Property that they are proposing to improve. What is the plan for maintaining this property. Mr. Trevino indicated that this Edison property was not included in this submittal. Those additions were considered minor additions to the Specific Plan and the interpretation was that it would be a major addition to the Specific Plan and we would have to go through public hearings, etc. to include that as part of the Specific Plan. So at this time, we are not including the Edison property as part of this plan. Commissioner McDowell wanted to know what were the proposed project boundaries. Mr. Trevino indicated that there is a drainage swale that runs through, it's a concrete lined swale constructed and that's the boundary line. The large Edison Tower happens to be located in this area and this small triangle is City property. Our intent to try and resolve that whole section P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 4 in our original presentation. Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Trevino if he had substantial evidence that carports are safer. Do you have any sub- stantiating evidence. Mr. Trevino indicated that he did not say that at all, he said from a design standpoint that in a site like this in a rental apartment, that you get a greater feeling of open space from the standpoint of safety, fire, only I was referring to that we felt that based on the experience that some very major developers have, like the Irvine Co. , Mission Viejo Co. , who build 2-3,000 of these a year, have come to a conclusion that carports present a better solution than garages. Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Trevino what evidence he had to support this theory. Mr. Trevino stated that the major developers have done extensive studies. Commissioner Munson replied, to me a carport is cheap. Mr. Trevino indicated the only argument that one can present is that in the Newport Beach area for instance, which has the highest per capita income almost in the nation, these people do use carports and these are rentals that go from $800 to $1400 a month for a one bedroom or two bedroom. When you say it's cheap I think that I really don't know what you mean by cheap, because a carport from a visual standpoint allows the space to continue, it allows people to not be pinned in and to walk more freely through the site. I think much of this is a matter of taste. I think your view is probably very defensible, I think that the view of major developers can be defensible. I don't think there is right or wrong in this particular case. Commissioner Munson asked Mr. Trevino what would you say if as a condition of approval, garages were required. Mr. Trevino replied that I think the Ordinance is very clear that the structure is to be enclosed on 3 sides, it doesn't say how it's to be enclosed, it doesn't specify individual unit, and I think the Attorney would be the one that would have to make a judgement. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. Trevino if he had a Phasing Plan for this project. Mr. Trevino replied that no, there are several aspects that we P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 5 have to contend with, such as the crossing of the Gage Canal. In our discussions with the City, they feel very confident that this will be resolved before occupancy is granted on any of these units. But, let's assume the worst conditions, that there is a stretch out in the crossing of the Gage Canal and I think we would have to reconsider the phasing and put in a temporary access to allow emergency vehicles in and out of the development. But at this time, our plans call for the crossing of the Gage Canal. Commissioner McDowell- As far as I can see the Planning Director's position about C on Page 5 is solved by the Ordinance is that right Mr. Estrada. Planning Director Estrada replied yes, if those are the wishes of the Planning Commission. Commissioner McDowell asked do we have to concur or what? Planning Director Estrada - Well sir, on Item # 1, as I mentioned the carport type of parking was part of the Specific Plan that was approved by the City Council. What I am saying, as Planning Director, is that according to the Ordinance, I have the authority to include additional guidelines for circulation or parking facilities etc. What I am asking the Planning Commission tonight, is to determine what type of parking structure they would like to see in this development. The Commissioner must select one of three different parking structure alternatives. Commissioner McDowell asked are we supposed to take a vote of approval? Mr. Estrada responded I would like to see the Commission vote on each of these items separately as a separate motion. Chairman Caouette- If we were to take no action on the Parking, wouldn't the parking proposal in the plan become the approved parking? In other words, if we do nothing wouldn't it stay as just the covered parking as proposed? Mr. Estrada- Yes it would stay as two sided parking, as per the Specific Plan. Commissioner McDowell replied somewhere along during this meeting we must take that up separately and vote on it, is that correct. Mr. Estrada responded that is correct. Commissioner Cole - On this parking situation, what we have P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 6 now is covered parking with 2 sides enclosed. Is that correct? Planning Director Estrada responded that's correct. There is a parking typical section in your plans that indicates two sides. Commissioner Collins asked what is determined by Planning Department as enclosed on 3 sides? Does that mean you don't have to have a garage door? Planning Director Estrada responded the Zoning Ordinance states one parking space shall be enclosed on 3 sides and shall be a minimum of 10' by 20' and that could mean, and maybe the City Attorney can help me out on that, interpreted as carport with 3 sides or an individual parking space with 3 sides. Commissioner Collins apparently you don't consider it a one car garage. Mr. Estrada - I would not, but maybe the City Attorney can help me out on that because that's a little vague in the Ordinance. Mr. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney- One car garages would certainly fall in that category, but the proposed carport is less than a one car garage. Chairman Caouette- Because it has no door? Mr. Hopkins, responded a garage would have four sides. Chairman Caouette- We could specifically condition it for one car garages. Commissioner Andress stated at the present time, just so I understand correctly, we are talking about these carports being each one having 3 sides covered. The back, two sides and a roof? Is that true Mr. Trevino? Mr. Trevino replied right now we are talking about a carport and the ends of the carports are covered. Commissioner Andress - Okay, so what are you saying? Mr. Trevino- The front and the back of a carport would be open, this is what was approved by the City Council in the Specific Plan. Commissioner Andress- So there would be covering on the one P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 7 wall and 6 - 10 parking spaces and another covering on the other wall, nothing in back and nothing in front, but only a roof. Mr. Trevino- Indicated it would have a roof. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked, In other words for the sake of clarity, what you are saying is the roof is considered one of the 3 sides. Is that correct? Mr. Trevino indicated, As Mr. Estrada said the Ordinance is not really clear on this, we propose to enclose one side with shrubbery and landscaping. We prefer to do it with landscape, so from a structural standpoint, 2 sides would be enclosed with materials from a structural standpoint. It is our intention to have a low hedge, which would cover the main part of the car. We prefer to do it as a landscape feature rather than as a structural feature. Commissioner Andress- Mr. Chairman let me ask Ivan, were you present at the City Council meeting when this was approved and is it your understanding that what they approved was a wall made out of shrubbery on one side nothing in the back, 10 or whatever parking spaced down, another shrubbery wall and a roof, is that what they approved? Mr. Hopkins- No, I don't think the Council looked at the proposed parking. That may have been what Al invisioned and certainly the City Council approved a Specific Plan, they did not approve a Site and Architectural Plan, which is before this body. This body will hve to approve that and I see no problem with you doing exactly as he has indicated if you wish to waive the 3rd side in favor of shrubbery or whatever, I think you certainly may. But, I think it will take a specific action on your part. The Council did not approve a Site and Architectural Plan. Whether or not he spoke to that in the Specific Plan, I really can't tell you, if he did, the City Council was not aware of it. Commissioner Andress- It's feasible then that somewhere down the line because of lack of watering what started out as 2 sides, no longer exists as 2 sides and we have a completely open parking area with a roof over it, because the schrubbery is dying, is that correct? Mr. Hopkins- I've lived in a lot of apartments, and I think that's probably what will happen, but, I am not an expert. Commissioner Andress- Mr. Trevino are you proposing 252 units? P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 8 Mr. Trevino- Is that the correct number Mr. Estrada? Mr. Estrada -Yes. Mr. Trevino- Do we have guidelines for how many guest parking spaces are to be provided, a ratio or something? Mr. Hopkins- Yes sir. It's in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Estrada- According to the Zoning Ordinance Guest Parking shall be required, but shall not be enclosed, and shall be labeled guest parking. The number of spaces is to be approved by the Planning Commission, that's for your apartments and condominiums, etc. They do not give any specific's on guest parking spaces, as a guide, under the PUD District, 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit are required, plus guest parking shall be provided at the ratio of 1 for every 4 dwelling units so that can give you a guideline. However, that's under the PUD Zoning District, the applicant has proposed 31 guest parking spaces for this project, if the Commission feels there is a necessity for additional parking then they have every right to add additional parking spaces as a requirement. Commissioner McDowell- As I figure this out, there would be 252 parking spaces to set up for the tenants, then there would be 63 if you have one to four guest parking, not 31. Mr. Estrada replied yes if this ratio is used. Commissioner McDowell - What ratio are we using? Mr. Estrada stated there is no set standard on the number of guest parking spaces under the R-3 Zoning District that, shall be determined by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Andress realized the proposal that is before us would be 1 for every 8 units. Mr. Estrada answered yes, 1 for every 8 units, that's correct. Commissioner Andress- The guidelines that you read us, which are not mandatory or binding, is 1 to 4. Mr. Estrada- That's correct. Commissioner Andress - Mr. Trevino, you are proposing 252 units how many people are going to live in each of those units? Mr. Trevino - 1.5 person average per unit. Because there P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 9 are many one bedroom units, approximately 30% one bedroom. Commissioner Andress - Where are you going to park all these people on X-Mas or Thanksgiving when all their guests arrive? Mr. Trevino - Let me just clarify a couple of things, one, the standard guidelines that were read to you are for Planned Unit Development, which are primarily single family units, larger units, family type units. Under the Zoning for apartments, there are no guidelines. It's at the discretion of the Planning Commission. In other communities, the ratio for seniors is 1 space per unit. Commissioner McDowell- Well, do I understand that there are 2 parking spaces for every regular apartment? Mr. Trevino - Yes. Commissioner McDowell- 504 spaces of parking regularly assigned to somebody, then you have 31 guest parking spaces. Mr. Trevino - 32 spaces. Mr. Trevino- In most cities, they allow X % of the units to be compact parking. In this particular Ordinance all stalls are the same. Commissioner Cole- Do we allow for compact stalls? Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney- Referencing most cities does not have any bearing in our City. We only recognize what we recognize and the fact that Newport Beach has the highest per capita income in the United States has absolutely no bearing on us. They may have a beautiful ordinance, but it really is not applicable to us. Commissioner Collins- What type of roof material and siding is being proposed? Mr. Trevino- We are using concrete tile on all pitch roofs and the siding is stucco. Chairman Caouette- Condition 7 and 8 on Conditions of Approval refer to acquiring access across the Canal and Number 7 says prior to the issuance of a building permit, legal access shall be provided across Gage Canal to the satisfaction of the City, my question would be to the City Attorney what constitutes legal access? Mr. Hopkins - If we have a right to go across Gage Canal, that P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 10 would certainly constitute legal access. We do not at this time have it, we are in the process of negotiating with the City of Riverside and with the Gage Canal Company to acquire that right. The Gage Canal and the City of Riverside have not been amenable to granting that access to the developer and when it is acquired it will be through the City and the developer is really at the total pleasure of the City and of the other two parties. We would recommend that the City assess that cost to the developer and others in a similar position. But, at this time, we do not know what it will cost. And it is probably an impossible condition for the developer to meet unless he has an unlimited supply of money of which to buy the access. Chairman Caouette- The way that this condition is worded it simply means to have a legal right to cross. It makes no reference to actually building the access across the Canal. The question that there is a condition that follows Number 8, it says access across the Gage Canal from this site shall be construction in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Gage Canal Company. There is a reference to time in Condition No. 7 about having legal access, which is only paper, but there is no reference to time when the actual street has to be built. Mr. Hopkins- That particular condition could be satisfied through a covenant that would be a requirement of the project. We do not have any conditions yet to build across, although the Gage Canal and the City of Riverside have conditions to protect the structural integrity of the Canal and the crossings. The developer would have to build in accordance with these specifications that will be laid out by the City Engineer of Grand Terrace, the City Engineer of the City of Riverside and the Gage Canal Engineer in agreement between the three (3) of them. I think that there probably would be no disagreement from a developer, he understands generally the significance of that requirement and the costs. Commissioner Cole - Could we make a condition that within a certain period of time, after achieving the right to put the crossing, that the crossing be constructed? Mr. Hopkins - I think you could. One of the problems we have is that the Gage Canal and the City of Riverside are wanting to require an access road that would traverse and parallel the Canal on the east side. It would then obviously put us in the position of litigating unless we are unable to convince the City of Riverside and Gage Canal to drop that requirement. As the City Attorney, I have no particular preference whether P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 11 or not there is a road that parallels the Canal on the East side. Other than I would prefer not to have to litigate over simply a construction of a road. As far as I am concerned, I am willing to concede the point that there would be a road. Now, whether that is the best method or not, it what you have to consider and then that particular issue, but, you should decide that issue rather than I as the City Attorney. That condition has some meaning to you, but not to me as the City Attorney, because I'm simply charged with the issue to get across the Canal, not to parallel the Canal. Chairman Caouette - If we approve this plan the way it is today, and the Canal Company denies more than one access and then it follows that a frontage road has to be put in, it will become the burden of the City to litigate and not the property owner. Mr. Hopkins - Certainly, I assume the City Council will approve passing on the costs of litigation onto the developer, however, that is a policy matter. They simply tell me to proceed or not to proceed on litigation. At this stage, I would suspect that we should put on some general condition of approval. They have asked that we parallel the Gage Canal on the East side, they have declined to have any uses mainly of the jogging and bicycle variety over the Canal property itself. They have agreed to landscaping subject to their general provisions and conditions. And, as to the enlargement of the Canal Street itself, they are probably generally amiable to that, but the conditions have not yet been set forth. Chairman Caouette - If we were to approve the plan as it is today, the final solution was that there had to be frontage road, this plan would change substantially, for example where we have parking, we would have frontage road. Would the property owner have to come back with the new plan to rectify that situation. Mr. Hopkins - Yes Sir. Mr. Trevino - The idea was to develop this road straight through, there is nothing that says it has to be adjacent as long as it parallels. This road happens to be under one ownership, the intent is to connect this and to indeed parallel the Gage Canal, so that you do get traffic distribution internally and then you have minimum number of units going across the Gage Canal. Mr. Hopkins - Mr. Trevino is probably correct, in that, if you stop and analyze why the Gage Canal is interested in a parallel road, it's simply to collect the traffic, so that they can have one (1) point to cross over the Canal. They don't really care about the traffic pattern in that area, that's your concern. Their only concern is to collect the traffic to bring it to P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 12 one point to cross the Canal and so Mr. Trevino's point is probably correct. Chairman Caouette - So that in effect, the road, the driveway that we have going through the project would become access for adjoining properties to get onto Canal Street? Mr. Hopkins - Yes. Chairman Caouette - Do you have any language for dealing with this particular situation? Mr. Hopkins - I would make certain that the developement encompass whatever agreement we arrive at with the Gage Canal and with the City of Riverside. That obligation or a pro-rata share of that obligation would be passed to this developer. Commissioner McDowell- I am against the frontage road, because it takes up so much space. Mr. Hopkins - That is the greatest point of disagreement that we have with the City of Riverside and the Gage Canal at this time, which is the number of crossing points. One point of crossing is not acceptable to us, we have indicated a minimum of 3. I have not yet been told by anyone how many points of crossing I should obtain. I have arbitrarily selected 3 with no sound reason for it, 1 doesn't seem reasonable and 20 seems unreasonable. Someplace in between is a more reasonable figure and what that number is I don't know, the City Engineer, Planning Commission and/or City Council, someone is going to have to tell me what is a reasonable number. Commissioner Cole - Is that three (3) in addition to the crossings that already exist? Mr. Hopkins - No, the City of Riverside and the Gage Canal do not want to continue any of those crossing, they are talk- ing about one (1) crossing. The others are all under permit and license and they would revoke the permits and licenses or at least their preliminary proposal. If the City tells me to get three (3), I will get (3), the fact that the City of Riverside and or the Gage Canal drops the 3 licenses and permits, is between them and the existing permittees or licensees. I am not being paid by the permittees or licensees to protect their interest. If the City wants to retain all of them, then we are almost assured of going to litigation, because the City of Riverside seems very adament in eliminating individual licensees and permittees. P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 13 Commissioner Collins - Can I ask you to interpret the conditon that says access across the Gage Canal from site shall be construction in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Gage Canal Company. If the City Engineer says part of that crossing requirement is to provide access for this triangular lot through this property, across the Gage Canal, would that be interpreted under this section? Mr. Hopkins - I think they should include that triangular lot, which is a residential lot. If you spend any money on me to acquire it, it becomes a public right, because he no longer has a private right it is a public right, and you will all have a right at that stage. I can't acquire something for you that becomes a private right, the fact that you spent public monies makes it a public right. If the City of Grand Terrace acquires them they are public. But, future owners may acquire a private right and that would be private to them. But, we can acquire rights to cross it, but they are public. Commissioner Cole - I noticed that Mr. Trevino has noted a future gate location right inside that passage. If we acquire the right to cross the Gage Canal, will he have a right to put a gate right inside the property line. Mr. Hopkins - Inside his property line, but not over anything we acquire. Although, there has been some recent decision where the courts have become more lenient on that requirement. They have allowed in some instances, public property to be gated whereas, in the past they did not allow that at any time. Commissioner Munson - I would like to ask Mr. Estrada a question about this so called inner collector street, for lack of a better term, do you think 24 foot wide is wide enough for that type of traffic, if we only have one access to get across the Canal? Mr. Hopkins - If you are asking me, I don't personally think 24 feet is wide enough for anything, and I don't think your zoning, only if you look at all parts of it put together, allow for that narrow of a street, I think that the minimum requirements in any section, and you have to read them collectively, are greater than 24 feet. Chairman Caouette - Do you have any comment on that Mr. Estrada? Mr. Estrada - Yes, I just wanted to comment that I read the PUD that requires a 30' width road for circulation, then in another section of the Zoning Ordinance it required a 24 foot road width. Our main concern would he to see if these street P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 14 widths would be safe enough for the Fire Department to use for future fires, or future circulation and that's one of the conditions that we have the Fire Department review this to see if this would meet with their standards for circulation. Mr. Trevino - Just for clarification, normally one lane has a capacity of about 1800 vehicles per day, depending on many factors. But, normally in a residential street, it has a capacity of 900 to 1200 vehicles per day peak hour. There is no on-street parking under PUD's normal width for one lane. Where the dimension of 24 feet comes from theoretically and practically is for a car to back out and it takes 20 to 24 feet for that turning movement. But, from the standpoint of carrying traffic 24 feet has ample capacity to handle all of the traffic, since there is no on-street parking, everything is off-street. Chairman Caouette - I will open the public testimony on this project, is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor or against this project? If not, we will close the public hearing portion of this and return it to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Munson- We had discussed a more attractive type fencing than displayed on this map, unless I read it wrong. I read concrete block walls, I just thought that some other type of fencing had been discussed by Mr. Trevino. As I understand it, your feeling is that it would be a 3 foot fence with concrete railing or something else, another 4 feet, maybe 3 or 4 feet, to give you a total of 6 foot fence, is that correct? Mr. Trevino - Yes, I think the Ordinance is fairly clear that it requires a concrete block on the boundary line of the property. Commissioner Cole - Is that the decorative fence, the combination of block and wrought iron, is that along Mt. Vernon and Canal would have the 6 foot block wall. Is that correct? Mr. Trevino - Yes. Commissioner Collins - The Conditions of Approval Number 9 states that Canal Street will be improved along the frontage of the project. Will that include Canal Street along the triangle? Mr. Estrada - The way the requirement reads, it should go along Canal Street along the project site and does not P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 15 include the Edison Property. PCM 85-116 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Andress and passed by a 6-1 vote, to change Condition of Approval Number 9 to read as follows: Canal Street shall be improved to it's ultimate street section including sidewalks along the entire Canal Street frontage of the project beginning from the Southern most point of the project along Canal Street frontage past the Edison property around the bend." Commissioner McDowell voted against the motion. PCM 85-117 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Andress and passed by a 6-1 vote, to change Condition of Approval Number 20 to read as follows: "Mt. Vernon Avenue shall be improved to it's ultimate half-width street section including sidewalks along the entire Mt. Vernon frontage of the project area to the intersection of Canal Street." Commissioner McDowell voted against the motion. Commissioner Collins - The Specific Plan says there is absolutely no impaction by putting 1800 more cars on Mt. Vernon. Obviously, there is impaction. I think we had finally drug it out of people somewhere along the line in our discussions, that it takes Mt. Vernon from Level A to Level C. Those traffic signals at an intersection probably will cost the City somewhere in the neighborhood of anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- This body was talking in terms of an Assessment District that would address all of these problems. What is the present status of that particular action at this point. Mr. Hopkins - As far as I am aware, there is no present status on it. The proposal that was presented to the City Council, by the Developer, was determined not to be feasible. Chairman Caouette - The original intent was to spread that share P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 16 out for Canal Street and Barton Road. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- We recognize that you are talking about the development of the entire area, and if you do it on the basis of this project, which is the first development in this area, you are going to tag him with all of the costs, which is not really fair to him. At the same time, if you let it slide through you are not going to catch the other developments that are going to take place subsequent to this. I think the mechanics need to be worked out somehow to proportionately spread these costs out over the entire area. Mr. Hopkins - It is not that the Assessment District is not feasible at this time, it was too many costs were loaded onto it to make it a marketable project. Remember these are assessment districts which are nothing more than a project that sells tax exempt public bonds to finance a particular or series of particular public improvements. The bonds are generally marketed on a not to exceed 4 to 1 ratio. Where the bonds don't exceed 1/4 of the total value, what is called the true value of the property. They don't want to buy them, because there is not enough security on the project. Commissioner Cole - Is it possible to just make a signalization fee and assessment based on his share of the property. Mr. Hopkins - Yes it is, and if that exceeds what he feels is the profitability of the project, then he simply doesn't proceed with the project. PCM 85-118 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Munson and failed by a 5-2 vote, to add Condition of Approval No. 34 that states: "The Developer will provide traffic signals in a manner approved by the City Engineer at the intersection of Mt. Vernon Avenue and Canal Street. Commissioner Collins and Munson voted in favor of the motion. PCM 85-119 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Condition of Approval No. 34, which states: "That the City institute proceedings for a covenant which would embrace at least 2 signals, one at Mt. Vernon and Canal Street and one at Canal Street and P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 17 Barton Road. The cost shall be based under a percent prorata share to each area, the covenant does not need any advance money at this time, but it shall run with the land when signals or other improvements, not including parks, will be required. These property owners will be required to compensate the City for the installation of these improvements. Commissioner Andress- Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to these parking spaces. How many guest parking spaces are we requiring? Mr. Estrada - Presently, 31 parking spaces and I believe an additional 32 parking spaces, for a total of 63, if we go by the PUD ratio. The developer would have to put in another 32 parking spaces around the project site. Commissioner Andress - I don't think it's our position to say where those would have to go, that would be the architect's job. At the present time, they will either be in the vacant lot represented by the white triangle along Mt. Vernon or along Gage. Commissioner Collins- I believe the motion was that we would have guest parking spaces at a ratio of 1-4. I believe that is 63, not 65. Commissioner Munson- I know we are asking for an awful lot. I am just curious if they could take maybe 25% of the parking spaces could be more for compact cars which would be 8 X 18 or some such number. But, maybe if we gave them some compact spaces instead of standard spaces to help get in some more stalls. After some discussion among the Commissioners the following motions were made: PCM 85-120 Motion by Commissioner Andress and seconded by Commissioner Munson and approved by a 5-2 vote to add Condition of Approval Number 35, which states: "The Developer shall provide a ratio of one guest parking space be allocated for every 4 dwelling units proposed, which would be a total of 63 guest parking spaces." PCM 85-121 Motion by Commissioner Munson and P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 18 seconded by Commissioner Cole and approved by a 4-3 vote, to add Condition of Approval Number 36, which states: "The Developer shall set aside 25% or 78 of the total open spaces for compact cars, size to be determined by Staff." Chairman Caouette, Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner McDowell voted against the motion. Commissioner Munson - In past considerations by this body, has the Planning Commission felt that 3 sides, enclosed 3 sides automati- cally was an enclosed garage. Because to me, that's the way I feel about it, it's really a garage door. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - I think unless you have the addition of the 4th side and the garage door, it's not really a garage. Commissioner Munson- The projects I have seen on Mt. Vernon all have enclosed garage doors. Commissioner Cole - As I understand it you could have enclosed on 3 sides, but you have one side the back, 20 spaces in there, the other side and nothing in the front. Commissioner Collins - The Zoning Code says that there be 2 parking spaces required for each dwelling unit, one parking space shall be enclosed on 3 sides and shall be a minimum of 10' width and 20' length. I don't know how anybody can interpret that to say that you can have 20 of them side by side with nothing in between. Commissioner McDowell - I think we also have to think what has happened before, we sent one of these up with garages on them and it was turned down by the Council. Commissioner Cole - I kind of think Commissioner McDowell mentioned that we have been down this road before, when we made the condition that it be an enclosed garage. By appeal, it went to City Council and was rejected. I'm wondering if we aren't going to go down the same road with this one. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- I quite vociferously disagree with most of the opinions that I'm hearing right now. Because, it is my understanding clearly that we have turned down the project originally for the reasons that were spelled out on this report. And, granted the City Council did subsequently overturn the decision of this body, but, I think the garages vs. carports is strictly something that should be addressed in the Site and P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 19 Architectural Plan. I think you are talking about an architectural design. And, I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with the original reasons that this plan was subsequently passed over by the City Council. I would be very supportive of the garages. I think that was the opinion of this body that garages were appropriate in these apartment projects. PCM 85-122 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Condition of Approval Number 37 which states: "The Developer shall provide a completely enclosed garage to meet the covered parking requirements." The following is a summary of parking spaces that the Planning Commission approved at their November 18, 1985, Planning Commission Meeting: 252 Enclosed Parking Spaces - Garages 171 Open Parking Spaces 63 Open Guest Parking Spaces 3 Handicapped Parking Spaces 78 Open Compact Parking Spaces 567 Total Parking Spaces Commissioner Collins - I would like to move that based on the original presentation of this project a denial was made by this body based on inconsistencies of the Specific Plan. This Specific Plan has not been resubmitted or updated, I move the denial of this project on the findings of inconsistencies of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Munson- I will 2nd that, because there are some things I would like to hear. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- I would like to know what specific problems that you are having with this Specific Plan. Commissioner Collins - I would be more than happy to tell you that tonight. But, I left the hospital 10 min. to 7:00 and I wasn't able to stop at my house and pick up the Specific Plan, which has not been updated or resubmitted. The minutes of that meeting specifies all the things that are wrong with it. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - Well, I would respond to that saying I think that's largely the reason why the City Council overturned it to begin with, because they didn't see the same flaws that we did. I don't see anything that has basically changed. Personally, I P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 20 think it would not be right at all to hold up this project any further unless there is some major objection that we can advance. Mr. Hopkins - The Specific Plan, right or wrong, is not flawed because the City Council made it unflawed by approving it. So, it is the Specific Plan whether they should or should not have at this point is not debateable. The developer has a vested right to develope pursuant to the Specific Plan, you have only before you Site and Architectural review pursuant to the quote unquote unflawed Specific Plan. Commissioner Collins - If the Specific Plan is unflawed I wish somebody would explain to me why we have Condition #5. Mr. Estrada - I can explain that Commissioner Collins, the reason I have that in there is because I just wanted to make sure that this Site and Architectural plan should be consistent with the Specific Plan as approved by the City Council, by that I mean the number of units, the exact plan as submittted to you in the handouts, the circulation, etc. All I am saying is that it should be consistent with the approved Specific Plan. Mr. Hopkins - I am in some disagreement with Mr. Trevino, not total disagreement, in what he feels was approved as the Specific Plan. Because I don't think the Council looked at everything, they gave some general overall requirements as to density, but the Council never approved anything more. I am not defending the Specific Plan, I am simply saying that the Council approved it and therefore has their stamp of approval. You can't overrule something that the City Council has done. They have in fact approved the Specific Plan. Chairman Caouette - So, it couldn't be denied because of the Specific Plan it would have to be because of non-conformance with the approved Specific Plan. Mr. Hopkins - If that's what the motion says, Site and Architectural Review does not comply with the Specific Plan, it doesn't matter. Commissioner Munson- For the sake of getting something moving, I will withdraw my 2nd. Chairman Caouette- The motion dies for lack of a 2nd. Mr. Attorney earlier you indicated something that may be worthwhile pursuing, is requiring participation in the pro-rata share for access over the Canal. Mr. Hopkins - That would be similar to the motion, that I think was passed on the signal lights. That the Developer should P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 21 participate in a pro-rata share to be determined and should enter into a covenant to participate with the costs to be determined by the City Engineer of acquiring the access across the Gage Canal. PCM 85-123 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Condition of Approval Number 38, which states: "The Developer shall participate in a pro-rata share of costs for acquiring access across the Gage Canal, with the costs to be determined by the City Engineer. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Just one question that I would ask, do we need to do anything special on the School Impaction fees relative to this, or is that covered. Mr. Hopkins - They are already required to pay the School Impaction fees. Although, while we speak on that subject, it may be worthwhile just for your information, although it doesn't affect this particular project, there is some ongoing discussion of adopting a rule or regulation which would enable the City Council for unusual circumstances and basically using the same criteria as we use in the Zoning Ordinance for granting a variance to waive school impaction fees. Generally, for single unit development, not for large tract developments or multi-unit developments. If there are unusual circumstances that I feel that they should in-fact provide mechanisms to waive the fee rather than the City to pay it from their purses into the School District purses. Chairman Caouette - One thing that I would like to point out as we've moved along on this project. One thing we don't have is the layouts for the auxilliary building that is noted. We are requiring more parking spaces and where those are going to go I am not sure. And we've also required garages, which would be a new architectural element. And, there is also the possibility that based on findings or recommendations by the County Fire Department, the road width may also change within the project, all of which just comes up to a sum total of significant changes. PCM 85-124 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner Andress, approved by a 6-1 vote, to add Condition of Approval Number 39, which states: "Prior to issuance of building permits, the appli- cant shall provide a revised Site Plan incorporating the auxilliary building P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 22 layout and architectural design, location of all parking spaces, both covered and uncovered architectural design for one car garage facility and any road width changes necessitated by comments by the County Fire Department and it's Site Plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission." Commissioner Munson voted against the motion. Commissioner Cole - If the applicant appeals to the City Council and they overturn one or 5 of these conditions, the revised Site Plan that we would then get back would reflect any conditions that the City Council opts not to enforce. Mr. Hopkins - That's correct. PCM 85-125 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 5-2 vote, to approve Site and Architectural Review Plan 85-8, subject to all 39 Conditions of Approval that were discussed and approved by the Planning Commission." Commissioner's Collins and Munson voted against the motion. Commissioner McDowell - Before we get out of hand, there are several things here tonight that are different policy. I would hope that the Planning Department will put into their units that anybody else that is going to work in 10, 11, and 12, so that they know in advance. They come into this meeting knowing that they are going to have to do certain things, they are going to have to be subject to the expenses of certain things, so that they won't have to haggle over it two hours. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - We were talking about the feasibility of some sort of standardized list that might be imposed as sort of a shopping list or check -off list to all in commercial project s. It seems to me like this might be the natural place to start such a thing. We should set some sort of architectural parameters maybe some sort of landscaping parameters and right on down the line. And, maybe we should put that in some form of a motion if that would help, what do you think? Mr. Estrada - I think that would be helpful. In addressing the problems that Commissioner McDowell brought up, anytime a P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 23 developer comes in with a Specific project we hand them over the Uniform Application, all the forms, etc. And recommend that each person wanting to develope a major project in the City, get or acquire a copy of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance points out the different requirements and reading the requirements for the City of Grand Terrace, sometimes that works and sometimes that doesn't. Sometimes the Developer would like to recommend or ask the Commission either waive or accept the plan to accommodate that specific project and I cannot deprive them requesting that to the Planning Commission. All I can do is point out what the standard is from the City and give the applicant an opportunity to make public his request to the Planning Commission. I met with the Architect and we tried to resolve as many problems as we could and have as close as possible of final plan as we could for this Planning Commission meeting. I hope this does not happen again, I hope to resolve other problems for future projects and also give the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the plans and enough time to make wise decisions. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Certainly, I wasn't suggesting at all that the work that we have seen come from you since you have been in your capacity was any less than top quality. What I was suggesting was that it should be in the form of a recommendation to the City Council, so that they form and Ad Hoc Committe to standardize some of these things that we seem to be looking for in some of these projects. We have certainly heard a lot of criticism about how we are so nebulous on a lot of things, maybe this would help bring some of these things down. I would accordingly make a recommendation that the City Council pursue some sort of a committee to set some standards. Commissioner Collins - I would like to move that this body direct the Planning Department that as a policy they will notify by telephone each Planning Commissioner of the date and time of an appeal that is going to be heard before the City Council on any Planning Commission matter. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson- Point of order here, there is another motion that has been made, but it hasn't had a 2nd yet, but can you add another motion before? Chairman Caouette - There is another motion on the floor, would you care to restate the motion please? PCM 85-126 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Andress and passed by a 7-0 vote to recommend that the City Council establish a Committee to form planning standards for projects P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 24 that come before the Planning Commission to facilitate the entire planning function. Mr. Estrada - Vice-Chairman Hawkinson, we could include this item on the December 12, 1985 City Council agenda. PCM 85-127 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Andress and passed by a 5-2 vote to establish a Planning Department policy that when a Planning Commission item is appealed to the City Council, that each Planning Commissioner be notified of the date and time by telephone and in writing. Chairman Caouette and Vice-Chairman Hawkinson voted against the motion. Chairman Caouette - Any further business the Planning Commissioners wish to bring forward this evening. Commissioner Munson- You will be happy to know I attended the Planning Commission meeting at Desert Hot Springs, you didn't miss a thing. Chairman Caouette - Any other business to come before the Planning Commission? Mr. Trevino. Mr. Trevino - As the City Attorney suggested, we will appeal this to the City Council on the December 12, 1985, this will save a phone call and a letter. Secondly, I would want to be on record to say that several weeks ago I did appear at a workshop session to review the plans in detail, soliciting your ideas, comments, so that we could revise and make adjust- ments. At that time, there were no recommendations or considerations that were put forward to us so that we felt that after that meeting, what we were preparing was adequate and meeting your needs and those of the City Council as well. Because we do have a problem of people being able to afford housing and since my livelihood is dependant and since I have spent a great deal of time trying to provide affordable housing, it was my contention that action would burden unduly the individual, because we are trying to provide the most space at the least cost. I think that when we add parking spaces, we now that we are provide a certain number of units for seniors and most areas require only one parking space, we are providing two, and when you are taking green space away and adding over an acre of asphalt in an area where people are concerned about economics and heat reflection and so forth. These are some of the issues that I intend to discuss with the P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 25 City Council. And I must say very bluntly, this issue of fairness in the whole 2 years that I have been dealing with this a great concern to me. Commissioner Andress - Mr. Chairman I would like to respond to that. Mr. Trevino, I am not sure that your concept of reality is the same as mine. If I recall the time that you are referring to is when you brought this, you suggested that you could discuss it in 5 minutes, and it took 10 or 15 minutes. We had nothing in hand to study. We had a number of things that you suggested including the Edison property, which you have now eliminated at the request of the City Council. So, I think that some of your comments should be taken in context of that. Secondly, I agree with you as far as fairness is concerned, I think that is the important issue, I think it goes both ways. It's a two sided street. Chairman Caouette - Any further discussion. Being no further discussion, I will adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:38 p.m. , to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. on December 2, 1985. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: A EX E RADA, PLANKING DIRECTOR APPROVED: NORMAN CAOUETTE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN P.C. Minutes 11-18-85 Page 26