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