Loading...
12/16/1985 12-8.1047 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16, 1985 The adjourned regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324 on December 16, 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 Alex Estrada, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary ABSENT: John McDowell, Commissioner - Excused PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Vice Chairman Hawkinson I. MINUTES A. Minutes of November 18, 1985 PCM 85-128 Motion by Commissioner Andress and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 6-0 vote to approve the minutes of November 18, 1985 as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS A. Sign Variance, Union 76 located at 22483 Barton Road Chairman Caouette moved to Item IIA, the Union 76 Sign Variance Request, and asked staff to make the presentation. Mr. Alex Estrada, Planning Director, presented the staff report. Mr. Estrada informed the Planning Commission that the sign variance request was basically the same as previous sign variance requests. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Sign Variance request permitting the non-conforming sign to remain for the life of the sign or until the business changes ownership. Commissioner Cole asked if change of ownership meant Unocal changes to Texaco or changes ownership for that specific station. Planning Director Estrada indicated that change of ownership meant that particular station. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson asked staff to name those signs that were still in violation. Planning Director Estrada said 5 signs were still in violation as of last Tuesday, however, he did not have the list of names. Commissioner Munson asked the City Attorney a hypothetical question "Joe own's it and sells it to Adam or Union Oil sells to Texaco, what's to say that going by what we have here, could the new owner also ask for a variance?" City Attorney Ivan Hopkins indicated that the new owner would have to make a specific application for the sign variance request. Mr. Hopkins read the four findings that the Planning Commission would have to make prior to approving the variance as specified in Title 18, Section 18.75.040. After some discussion among the Commissioners, Commissioner Collins made the following motion. PCM 85-129 Motion by Commissioner Collins seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 6-0 vote, to make the following findings: A. The strict application of the provisions of this title deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. Any variance shall be conditioned, if necessary, to prevent the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications; and P.C. Minutes 12/16/85 Page 2 B. The proposed variance will be consistent with the latest adopted General Plan; and C. The proposed variance does not allow any land use which is not in conformity with the regulations specified for the district in which the land is located; and D. Conditions necessary to secure the purposes of this section, including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions, are made part of the variance approval, and to approve the sign variance by Union Oil Company, permitting the Non-Conforming Sign to remain for the life of the sign or until the business changes ownership, whichever occurs first. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CUP 85-13, Pacific Bell Telephone Switching Center, located at 21994 Van Buren Chairman Caouette asked staff to make the presentation. Planning Director Estrada indicated that the property applicant/owner was James and Robert Harber, and the project location is on the north side of Van Buren Street and the zoning is C-2, CPD. The applicant, which was represented by C.G. Engineers was previously granted a Determination of Use that allowed the proposed project to be consistent with the existing zoning. The Commission determined that this project would be consistent with the current zoning subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is now requesting a Conditional Use Permit so that they can proceed with the next step, which would be to submit a Parcel Map and also submit plans for Site and Architectural Review. At this time the public hearing for the Parcal Map and Site and Architectural Review are tentatively scheduled for January 6, 1986, provided the applicant submits all the necessary information for processing. The staff report is self-explanatory and staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing on this item and recommend approval of this Conditional Use Permit 85-13. Chairman Caouette opened up the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or against P.C. Minutes 12/16/85 Page 3 this project. Mr. John Starner is with the Civil Engineering firm of C.G. Engineering located at 2627 South Waterman Avenue in San Bernardino. Mr. Starner represented the applicant and indicated that he had reviewed the conditions of approval and found them to be acceptable. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor or against this project. Since there were no more public comments Chairman Caouette returned this item to the Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Collins felt landscaping was better suited for this project rather than a 6 foot block wall as called for in the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Cole felt the project should have a chainlink fence or block wall for security reasons. Planning Director Estrada indicated that the applicant may ask for a waiver of the wall requirement during the Site and Architectural review process. Being no further comments Chairman Caouette entertained a motion. PCM 85-130 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson and passed by a 6-0 vote to approve Conditional Use Permit 85-13 subject to the Conditions of approval. Chairman Caouette moved on to item IIIb which was added to the agenda by Planning Director Estrada. This item was for the designation of two Planning Commissioners to be part of the Title 18 ad hoc review committee. Planning Director Estrada made a presentation to the Planning Commission. Planning Director Estrada gave a brief presentation on the background of this ad hoc committee. At a previous Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission requested that an ad hoc committee be formed to review and revise the Site and Architectural Standards contained in Title 18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff felt that it would be of benefit to both the Planning Commission and City Council if the entire Title 18 was revised and updated. The staff recommended that the entire Title 18 Zoning Ordinance be reviewed and revised and also that the Council appoint two Council members to this ad hoc committee. The City Council designated Councilman Evans and Councilman Petta to this committee and P.C. Minutes 12/16/85 Page 4 also requested that a citizen be part of this committee. The Planning Director will work with the City Clerk in advertising for this voluntary position to give everyone an opportunity to apply and be on that committee. One person would then be selected from those applications to be part of that committee. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission select two of its members to become part of this committee. Chairman Caouette asked staff if a meeting schedule had been established and who would be the chairman of the committee. Planning Director Estrada indicated that those issues should be resolved at the first ad hoc committee meeting. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Cole expressed an interest in being part of the committee. PCM 85-131 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 5-1 vote to approve the selection of Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and Commissioner Cole as members of Title 18 Ad Hoc Review Committee. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson abstained from the motion. Chairman Caouette felt the Commission had already covered item 4a during the workshop which was a report on the Mt. Vernon Villas appeal. Before the Planning Commission was ready to adjourn, Mr. Ivan Hopkins wanted to inform the Commission on certain actions that took place at the last Council meeting. Mr. Hopkins informed the Planning Commission on the proposed noise ordinance. In the past, the City had a noise ordinance that was part of the County Code. A noise ordinance was not included in the Code. The Council directed staff to come up with a Noise Ordinance and we have come up with several versions. It was up for 2nd reading at the last Council meeting, the Council directed us to prepare an alternate ordinance which would elminate any reference to decibal readings to measure any nuisances of noise and noise pollution. We did that and we have before the Council at their next meeting, the 2nd reading of this revised noise ordinance and if you would like, we would see that each of you receives a copy. At the last Council meeting the Council indicated that they would prefer an ordinance that eliminated the ability of properties that are zoned manufacture/industrial to operate between the hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. in any way whether they do or do not emit nuisance noises. This ordinance P.C. Minutes 12/16/85 Page 5 as currently drafted would simply indicate that if they created loud and excessive noises between those hours in their operation, then this was a nuisance and it would be stopped under that and they would be cited. The proposal, although it's not in the ordinance proposes that no operation would be allowed between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on those manufacturing properties. There are some real legal constitutional problems, if you don't allow somebody to use their property in a manner in which it is zoned, unless you can show that their use is offensive to surrounding properties. The one proponent has indicated that Palm Springs and Riverside, both, use that type of ordinance and he is right they do have a similar type of ordinance. Mr. Hopkins indicated that he would send a copy of the noise ordinance to each of the Commissioners. The other item that came up at the last Council Meeting was an agreement that was proposed by the City and Southern California Edison Company. This agreement was for a park site on Edison Property, north of the Pico Site and west of Van Buren Street. Mr. Hopkins then proceeded to read the City Council Staff Report. This agreement was approved by a split vote, however nothing will be done until 1987 because of the current tenant. Planning Director Estrada informed the Commission that the City Council directed the staff to prepare an outline to update the General Plan, which at this time will include the new noise ordinance and new noise standards for the City. The City Council also requested staff to prepare a schedule for the Barton Road Master Plan and the Master Plan for the C-2 CPD district along the freeway. Also, the Council directed staff to begin negotiations on a total of five crossings across the Gage Canal. Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney, informed the Planning Commission that the City Council also approved Multi-Family Revenue Bonds for the area within the triangle bounded by Mt. Vernon Avenue, Canal Street and Barton Road. Chairman Caouette thanked staff for that information. Being no further discussion Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commision meeting at 7:35 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. on January 6, 1986. RE PECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ALEX E TRADA, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVED: NORMAN CAOU E PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN P.C. Minutes 12/16/85 Page 6