Loading...
05/05/1986 12-8.1054 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 5, 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 May 5, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner John McDowell, Commissioner Sanford Collins, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, City Engineer Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary EXCUSED ABSENCE: Ray Munson, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Vice-Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of April 21, 1986 PCM 86-41 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 5-0 vote to approve the minutes of April 21, 1986, as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS IIa. Determination of Use located at 22060 Commerce Way. Chairman Caouette moved to Item IIa and ask Staff for presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented the staff report. He noted that auto repair, which is one of the items proposed in this development, is a prohibited use in C-2, CPD Zone. However, there is no mention, of retail auto parts sales, in the Zoning Code, either as a permitted or prohibited use. Asked the Planning Commission to make a determination of the use in C-2, CPD Zone. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of Staff. Being none, asked the Applicant if he wished to address the Commission. Mr. Coffin, C-Y Development, noted that these plans were entirely preliminary. The layout presented is a combination of retail auto parts sales and auto repair and servicing. The plans, (Plans were passed out to the Planning Commissioners at this time), show only 16000 square feet of building area. He noted that there is a drainage easement that traverses the property, plus the encroachment by the offramp of the freeway. They are attempting to be very sensitive to the exposure of the service bays to view. Their intention is to design the building in an attractive manner, using tilt-up concrete construction, some exposed block, and/or masonry, or perhaps a tile covered walkway. All service bays would be facing the rear and use restrictions would be strictly enforced to properly maintain a clean and orderly service area. Discussion took place between Commissioner McDowell and the Applicant regarding the amount of sales tax expected to be generated for the City. The Applicant responded that in his experience 30-50% from the sales of parts would be expected. Also, Commissioner McDowell asked if this would be under one leasee, or if the applicant would sublease to various operators. Applicant noted that this would have one auto repair leasee. Further discussion as to whether there are several stores or just one, took place between Commissioner McDowell and the Applicant. It was noted by the Applicant that there would be auto repair bays; and in front, would be small retail shops. Parking would be behind the bays for cars waiting for service and repair; and to the right of the building would be a waiting area. A small park was also indicated on the plans, for a possible play area. These would be retail or service oriented businesses. Destination businesses that do not require foot traffic. Discussion continued between Commissioner McDowell and Mr. Coffin, the applicant, regarding the visibility of parked vehicles awaiting service, from the freeway and the offramp. The applicant indicated that a 6' masonry wall would be around the entire perimeter, with exception of the front. Commissioner McDowell asked the applicant if anyone would be affected by the noise factor. The applicant didn't believe there would be an adverse impact from the uses proposed. In response to Commissioner McDowell's inquiry of the drainage easement, Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that it ran through the center of this parcel. Within that easement, is a P.C. Minutes 5-5-86 Page 2 pipe that takes the drainage from Barton Road. He further explained, that it is an open channel along the freeway, then it goes into a conduit and ties into a storm drain that goes down to DeBerry. Mr. Coffin, C-Y Development, proposes a mixed use of retail facilities. In response to Vice-Chairman Hawkinson's question regarding landscape near the freeway offramp, Mr. Coffin replied that they have proposed a wall, as well as, landscaped strips and- to heavily landscape with shrubbery. In the front, would be a 15 foot landscaped area on Commerce Way, in accordance with the CPD requirements, plus the park area. Further discussion took place among the Commissioner's and the applicant regarding the 6' masonry wall. It was noted by the applicant that it would be used for screening the service bays from view. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, reminded that the Planning Commission was being asked only to interpret the Zoning Code. The use, specifically auto repair, is prohibited in this zone. Chairman Caouette asked the City Attorney, if on a variance process, can be pursued for development standards. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that this zone has uses permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Caouette asked if it wasn't really a zone change issue, since C-2 permits these uses. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that yes, C-2 is the proper zone, but, since it has CPD Overlay the use is prohibited. Noted that a variance, zone change or an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance would be possible. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that there are two (2) items addressed here. One is a retail operation and the other is repair and service. The repair and service are the uses prohibited. Commissioner Collins asked Staff if CPD Overlay did not require acreage for development. He was advised that it was once considered; however, was not included in the ordinance. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that was a separate ordinance adopted and not part of this code. Chairman Caouette suggested that the Planning Commission make a determination that noted this is not consistent with the C-2, CPD zone. Remarked that the only remedy would be a change of zone. Asked if they needed a motion. P.C. Minutes 5-5-86 Page 3 Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that if the Planning Commission wanted to initiate something, they would need a motion. Otherwise, Staff or the Planning Director could tell the applicant the process to start a zone change in the General Plan Amendment. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that the General Plan is correct, CPD Overlay would have to be deleted from that area, then the Conditional Use Permit process could begin, which would be a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Chairman Caouette first addressed the determination of this use in C-2, CPD. Commissioner Collins noted that he would make a strong motion that the Planning Commission allow this use with a Use Permit in a C-2 Zone. Commissioner McDowell noted that he would not be willing to agree to a change for one use on some prime land, and that he would hope that development of valuable uses that will generate sales tax for the City, could be planned for that. He would vote against the motion. Chairman Caouette noted that the design that went into the property was commendable. However, given the nature of the area and recent discussion relative to tying together a theme or good plan for the area, would find this type of use inappropriate for that particular site. Commissioner Cole expressed concern regarding the overlay, in whether the next developer would require similar concessions. Felt the CPD overlay should be maintained. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson thought it was an opportunity to create a stimulus for sales tax. Thought it was a good way to get some commercial development going in this area, without compromising the bulk of the land. He would be supportive of this sort of proposal. Mr. Coffin, CY Development, thanked the Commissioners. Remarked that he would study their comments and possibly submit something and request removal of the CPD overlay. III. PUBLIC HEARING IIIa. Conditional Use Permit 86-2 and Site & Architectural Review 86-4, for proposed retail hardware store in C-2, CPD Zone. P.C. Minutes 5-5-86 Page 4 Chairman Caouette moved to Item IIIa and asked for the Staff Report. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report. Noted that the developer originally proposed on this site, a 6" setback along rear lot line. Through discussions with staff, it was felt that the setback from the freeway fence and the property line on the westerly side should be minimum of 5 feet, to provide for proper maintenance of the building. The Staff feels that this particular project with the conditions, as stated on the Conditions of Approval, would meet all of the conditions of the C-2 CPD Zone. And therefore, recommended that after the public hearing, if the Planning Commission so desires, approves of the Conditional Use Permit 86-2 and Site & Architectural Review 86-4. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of Staff. Commissioner Collins asked staff why the Planning Commission can approve this use and not the previously discussed item. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that hardware stores are a specific use permitted with a use permit in a CPD Zone. Chairman Caouette asked if the parcel was 1.4 or 1.04 under Staff Analysis. Joseph Kicak clarified that it was 1.04 acres. Discussion among the Planning Commissioners and Staff continued regarding parking space length and the proposed setback. It was noted, by staff, that the 17' length and 2' overhang was adequate and does not encroach on the landscape area. Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if he would care to address the Commission. Dick Quinn, Woodland Construction, noted that they would be the builder for Orco Tool & Equipment. Orco Tool & Equipment are a regionally oriented hardware store and it is for industrial and commercial trades. Discussion between the Planning Commissioners and the applicant took place. It was noted, by the applicant, in response to questioning, that Orco Tool is a wholly owned corporation. And, that they do not sell lumber. In addition, they would not sublease. In response to further questioning, it was noted that they are a retail operation and would sell to the general public. But, they typically would supply the construction industry. Mr. Quinn noted that they have 2, each 3/4 ton trucks for small deliveries. P.C. Minutes 5-5-86 Page 5 Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted as a matter of record, that there would be no equipment rental out of this facility. Mr. Quinn concurred with this. Further discussion continued among the Planning Commissioners and the applicant. In response to Chairman Caouette's question regarding aisles vs. counters, Mr. Quinn noted that there would be a counter for ordering and a display area. Continued discussion, by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson, clarified that the question regarding license for State Board of Equalization was to determine if this use would generate sales tax to the City. Mr. Quinn indicated that yes, they would generate sales tax. Commissioner Cole questioned whether they would have any outside storage or large items stored outside in bins, such as rebar. Mr. Quinn replied that everything is stored inside. Chairman Caouette asked how many vehicles would be stored outside. Mr. Quinn responded 2, each 3/4 ton trucks. Chairman Caoeutte asked if there were further questions of the applicant. Being none, opened the public hearing on this item. Asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of this item. Mr. Coffin, CY Development, spoke in favor. Thought the use would be a compatible use with his lot. Mr. Ellison Estry, representing Donna Borell, spoke in favor. Noted that Ms. Borrel has no objection to this use. She owns the body/paint shop across the freeway from this use. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to this project. Being none, closed the public hearing and returned item back to the Commission for discussion. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, made 2 points. One that the City has been having a problem with some commercial establishments with regard to parking and thought that the Planning Commission might consider including a condition, if they were going to approve the item, that would screen trucks from view. The second, if they approved it, they must approve pursuant to Section 18.66.040 and make the three (3) findings that are required for use permit. A) 1)that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working within the neighborhood of the proposed use or within the City; 2) injurious to property or P.C. Minutes 5-5-86 Page 6 improvements in the neighborhood of the proposed use or within the City and; B) the proposed use will be consistent with latest adopted General Plan and; C) the conditions necessary to secure the purposes of this section including guarantees and evidence of compliance with conditions are made a part of the use permit approval. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson noted that the City has been looking for something that would generate sales tax revenue. Commissioner McDowell noted that this proposal has two things going for it. One is ownership that is big enough and has other facilities. The other is that it brings sales tax. He would be in favor of it. Chairman Caouette noted that he was having trouble with whether this was strictly a retail operation or if it has some ware- housing connotations. Noted that the Planning Commission had not looked at the architectural renderings. Believed that the it looked very much like a warehouse and that he would have a hard time approving the architectural renderings that were submitted. Also expressed concerns about large trucks passing through that area. Asked staff if there were plans to bring back detailed landscaping plans, since the plans show the landscaping as conceptual. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, noted that Planning Staff would require an additional plan for that particular area. PCM 86-42 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 4-1 vote, to add Condition #11, that prior to issuance of building permit, a detailed landscaping plan and irrigation plan including size of plantings and ground cover, shall be approved by Planning Commission. Also, said plan shall include screening for the property perimeter and any vehicles operated by the establishment. Commissioner Collins voted against the motion. As stated previously, Chairman Caouette again noted that the Architectural renderings are similar to a warehousing situation. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson noted that he thought a hardware store, by it's nature, is to some extent a bit of a warehouse. The size of the building is adequate for a hardware operation. Commissioner Cole addressed the architectural detailing, felt P.C. Minutes 5-5-86 Page 7 the Planning Commission needed to note a couple of things that might help the applicant. Add some additional reveals or something along the walls, need something to break up the flat concrete slab. Chairman Caouette suggested they take the Conditional Use Permit 86-2 first and deal with the architectural element on separate motion. The Conditional Use Permit 86-2 would be the type of use itself and the conditions that would be attached. PCM 86-43 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 5-0 vote to approve CUP 86-2, subject to the conditions of approval as amended and the findings in accordance with Section 18.66.040, as stated. Chairman Caouette asked for discussion of Site & Architectural review. After discussion among the Planning Commissioner's and Chairman Caouette reiteration expressing his suggestion that the Planning Commission not approve that portion of this project and the developer come back with revised plans for approval by this body, a motion was made by Commissioner Collins. PCM 86-44 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 3-2 vote, to approve the Site & Architectural 86-4. Chairman Caouette and Commissioner Cole voted against the motion. A brief recess was called at 8:20 p.m. Chairman Caouette reconvened the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:35 p.m. to clarify motion on Approval of Site & Architectural Review 86-4. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, noted that since this is a 7 member commission it takes 4 votes, a majority vote, on any given item for approval. Therefore, the previous motion failed. Discussion between the Planning Commissioner's and applicant with regards to clarifying what the Planning Commission would like to see come back on a revised Site & Architectural plan. It was noted, by Chairman Caouette, that maybe a break up of the wall, some sort of architectural treatment that would break up the monotony of a large wall. Commissioner Cole noted his concern of the 2 blank walls, felt maybe a double reveal separated, so that we could get a sandblasted band, a color band. Also, P.C. Minutes 5-5-86 Page 8 concern was noted that portions around the building be considered and not just in front. Woodland Construction, the builders, noted that they would not decrease the size of the building, since they are now at 12,500 square feet building for a 45000 square foot lot. Noted that there was no problem with regard to color. Chairman Caouette noted that this item is being continued until the next Planning Commission Meeting or until they come back with a revised Site & Architectural Plan. Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:45 p.m. until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Respectfully submitted: JO EPH KICAK, PLANNING DIRECTOR Approved: T� CINAN, PLANNING COMMISSION /lh P.C. Minutes 5-5-86 Page 9