Loading...
01/20/1986 12-8.1049 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 1986 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 January 20, 1986 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 Randy Anstine, Community Services Director Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Vern Andress I. MINUTES A. Minutes of January 6, 1986. PCM 86-12 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote to approve the minutes of January 6, 1986, as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS IIa. Sign Variance request for two (2) roof signs located at 22524 Barton Road. Applicant is Anthony's Market, Inc. Chairman Caouette moved to Item IIa, and asked Staff to make the presentation. Mr. Alex Estrada, Planning Director, presented the staff report. The two signs in question includes a sign that sits from the ground up thru the roof over Greg's Market, the other sign is a beer-wine and Greg's Market sign that is located at the western part of the building. The Applicant applied and received a sign permit for the Anthony's Xtra sign. The City does not allow any roof signs which is why the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a sign variance until such time that the ownership or the use changes. Miss Karen Kredo, the applicant, is here to answer any questions. Chairman Caouette asked the applicant to address the Planning Commission. The Applicant, Miss Karen Kredo, resides at 7134 Central Street, Highland, CA 92324. My father, Joe, still owns the market, it's just Anthony's Markets, Inc. instead of Greg's Market, we named it after my Grandfather. My father also has a market out in Lancaster. Commissioner Munson - On the back side, one side you have beer and wine on the other side you have Greg's Market, are you going to replace the Greg's Market sign? Karen Kredo - I am not sure whether we are going to replace the Greg's Market sign, we might just be popping the letters right off. I know we can't leave Greg's market, because that's not the market anymore. Commissioner Munson - I have a problem with the market sign on top of the roof. I would like to see something done to make it presentable, because you have 2 letters that are lit on the back side and I see the backside of that big sign quite frequently and I would like to see something done to clean it up. I am also concerned about what you are going to do to the backside of the sign on the corner. Ms. Kredo - We are going to take those letters off. Commissioner Munson - But, then you have got a blank sign. So, you don't need the sign on the corner. Ms. Kredo - If nothing else, I would like to put beer and wine back on the other side, because, we do not have a liquor license, all we do is sell beer and wine. Chairman Caouette - Since there is no further questions for the applicant, we will open the public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in favor or against the proposed sign variance. There being no one, I will return it to the Commission for discussion. P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-20-86 Page 2 Commissioner Collins - Mr. Chairman, I am not necessarily in favor of the sign, but we have generally although not consistently have been allowing these non-conforming signs for the life of the sign or for the life of the ownership, so it seems only fair to do it for this one. Commissioner McDowell - I would vote as Staff recommends, which is to leave it alone for the time being. I thought it had changed ownership, which is the reason I first intended to vote against it. Chairman Caouette - Entertained a motion. PCM 86-13 Motion by Commissioner Collins seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 7-0 vote to approve the findings in the Staff Report and the sign variance requested by Anthony's Market, Inc. , permitting the non-conforming sign to remain for the life of the sign or until the business changes ownership, whichever occurs first. The Planning Commission had the following discussion on the enforcement of signs that were not in compliance with the City Code. Chairman Caouette - I think there was a question of maintenance and enforcement relative to a variance that was granted to the Keeney Building. Mr. Randy Anstine, Community Services Director - In regards to the enforcement concerning maintenance, what Staff will do is upon inspection if the sign is bound to be in a deteriorating state we will send a notice of violation to the owner of the sign making them aware that it is their responsibility to maintain in an acceptable manner to the City at which time, they are ordered to comply. In regards to Mr. Keeney's sign, I added that to the list because I was present the evening that this Commission attached that stipulation to his sign variance and I wasn't sure what the deadline was on that, so I went ahead and added it because I know that sign hasn't been corrected yet to conform to that use, that you as a body, placed upon it. Mr. Estrada - I believe we gave Mr. Keeney 60 days to correct that non-conforming sign and I think that has since passed. Mr. Anstine - I will verify the date and if it has expired, he will be receiving a notice of violation on it. P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-20-86 Page 3 Commissioner Collins - Mr. Chairman, in light that there are only 6 people left, actually 5, that have sign code violations, which have not made applications, looks like 3 of them are not the type that would have a variance. Maybe the Planning Commission should direct Staff as to some sort of deadline as to which the Commission will no longer be so benevolent in their thinking in granting conditions, not that they are guaranteed, and then let the City go ahead with whatever means they have to enforce compliance. I think that was supposed to be done in December wasn't it? Randy Anstine - That's correct. At this point in time, 5 out of 6 businesses on this list (current list of sign violators was passed out) have received notices of violations and have received their order to comply, the next step for Staff to take is to file a criminal complaint against 5 of them. There was no further discussion on the sign variance. IIb. Chairman Caouette requested staff to make the presentation on Item IIb Determination of Use for a Distribution Center located at 21801 Barton Road. Mr. Estrada - We have a request for Determination of Use for a distribution center. The main determination for this request is whether or not a coffee shop is allowed in an M-2 Zone. This use is not listed as under permitted uses or under permitted uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Staff has reviewed the proposed uses as specified under Phase I and Phase II and Staff does not have any problem with any of the proposed uses. The only thing that I am requesting is that the Planning Commission also determine that a coffee shop is an allowable use in that M-2 zone. If approved tonight as recommended in the Staff Report, the applicant would have to come in with a conditional use permit and also a site and architectural review plans to be reviewed and approved by the Commission. Chairman Caouette opened up the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or against this project. Mr. Ed Fuhrman, 2021A Third Street, Riverside, CA represented both the owners and the applicant. We have studied the Staff Report, we concur heartily with the staff recommendation, we believe, in reference to the coffee shop, that this should be a permitted use subject to a conditional use permit. In view of the proposed use of the property, it is under the same arguments and reasoning and rational for restaurants and coffee shops for example in your M-R light industrial manufacturing zone, which is permitted with a conditional use permit. The applicant is here in the audience and we would be very happy to answer any questions. P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-20-86 Page 4 Chairman Caouette - Based on the information in the Staff Report, it appears that this will eventually be some sort of a truck stop operation or is it mostly for repair and maintenance. Mr. Fuhrman-It is invisioned as a warehousing and distribution operation with also truck storage, which is being used on the property at the present time. The office use and the coffee shop will be a logical part of that operation. There being no one else wishing to speak in favor or against this project, the public hearing was closed and Chairman Caouette returned this item back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. After a brief discussion the following motion was made. PCM 86-14 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson seconded by Commissioner Andress and passed by a 7-0 vote to specify that coffee shops be a permitted use in the M-2 Industrial District, subject to obtaining a conditional use permit; and that coffee shops be classified under Section 18.39.020(D) of Title 18 governing the "M-2 Industrial District" as "any other uses which , in the opinion of the Planning Commission are similar in nature." Chairman Caouette moved on to Item IIc, which was amendment to Title 18 - Parking Requirements and Minimum Square Footage for apartments and asked Staff to make the presentation. Mr. Estrada - This item is amending the Title 18 Parking requirements and the minimum square footage that came up at the last Council meeting on January 9, 1986. The reason for this is Council felt that an interim ordinance had to be passed in order eliminate any future conflict for any other multi- family residential uses or single family uses in the City of Grand Terrace. The City Attorney and I put together the revisions that you have in your staff report. If you have any other changes that you might want to suggest, we can have them included prior to going to the City Council meeting on January 23, 1986. Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney, No, we would propose that if you are in concurrence with this, we will set a public hearing for our next meeting, that gives you time to advertise and it will come back to you at a public hearing for amendment of the Zoning Ordinance and it would then go back to the City Council after the public hearing. P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-20-86 Page 5 Commissioner Collins - Mr. Chairman, on Part A, I believe the Ordinance says that you are required to have parking spaces and they go on to say that one shall be covered. It seems to me that this should be changed instead of saying one parking space will be a single car garage to say at least one parking space shall be an enclosed garage, so that we don't eliminate the fact that if someone wants to make both the parking spaces a 2-car garage they may. The other one is on the last item you have here, where a minimum size of residential structure, I don't know what the exact legal language of a residential structure is, but I would be inclined to guess that most people would interpret a four plex unit as a residential structure and I don't think that's what we really mean. I think we mean that any occupied living space for a single family be a minimum of 900 sq. ft. Chairman Caouette asked Staff if these amendments need a motion by the Planning Commission. City Attorney Hopkins responded that a motion was not necessary, and these amendments could be taken up at the public hearing. Chairman Caouette - The last item of discussion was the minimum size of residential structure. Did the Planning Commission want to change the wording on that? Commissioner Collins - Well, I think the wording should be changed, because I think there is too much interpretation in this wording as to what a residential structure should be. What somebody is trying to do here is limit the minimum size of living area within a residential structure. City Attorney Hopkins - It should be per unit, rather than per structure. Chairman Caouette - Can we change it accordingly and see what happens at the public hearing? City Attorney Hopkins - Yes. Chairman Caouette asked if there was any other discussion on Item IIc. Being no further discussion, he informed the Planning Commission and the public that this item would be discussed at a public hearing to be held on February 17, 1986. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anymore business to come before the Commission. Since there was no more business, Chairman Caouette indicated that this was Mr. Estrada's last Planning Commission meeting and he will not be at the February 17, 1986 meeting. He asked Mr. Estrada if he had any final words for the Planning Commission. Mr. Estrada - Yes, I really enjoyed working with a fine group P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-20-86 Page 6 of people as you, the Planning Commission. I think things are really beginning to shape up now. I felt it was an honor and privilege to work with you, maybe we will work together in the future. Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. on February 17, 1986. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ALP,X ES RADA, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVED: i JERRY HAWKINSON, VICE-CHAIRMAN ACTING AS CHAIRMAN P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-20-86 Page 7