Loading...
02/17/2005I Community and Economic Development (ALHORNIA Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 (909) 824-6621 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING February 17, 2005 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, California, on February 17, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Doug Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Brian Whitley, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Jeff Gollihar, Planning Technician Jo Verhelle, City Manager's Secretary ABSENT: None 7:00 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Whitley • Roll Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE ITEMS: 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 20, 2005 MOTION PC-05-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve the minutes of January 20, 2005 Commissioner Whitley Seconded the motion MOTION VOTE ,f PC-05-2005: Approved 5-0-0-0 2. SA-05-01, CUP-05-01 E-05-02: Construct an approximately 3,000 square foot, fast-food Mexican restaurant with a drive-thru and outside patio eating area. APPLICANT: MJSC Holdings, L.L.C., Mr. Javier Vasquez, CEO LOCATION: 22317 Barton Road in the City of Grand Terrace RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive the Staff Report and testimony, close the Public Hearing and Approve the Resolution calling for the approval of SA-05-01, CUP-05-01 and E-05-02 based on the findings in the Resolution of Approval and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his Staff Report. Three Applications have been submitted for a Miguel's Jr. Restaurant. The request for Site and Architectural Review is for the design and layout of the restaurant. The Conditional Use Permit is for the drive-thru, and the Environmental Review Application is for the required CEQA Review. The proposal for Miguel's Jr. fast food restaurant was previously heard by the Planning Commission on December 18, 2003. The site for the particular area was located about 750 feet westerly of Barton Road adjacent to the business known as Hair Benders. Miguel's was asked by the Developer of the new center to move the new site to minimize potential conflicts that the proposed new commercial development for the area. The subject site is approximately one acre in size and is located on the south side of Barton Road, westerly of the extension of Canal Street and the driveway that leads to the Terrace Assisted Living Hotel. The site will have a 205 foot frontage on Barton Road with an average depth of 200 feet. The westerly half of the site is currently vacant where the "round house" was located. The easterly portion of the site is the landscape lawn area for the Terrace Assisted Living Hotel. A Lot Line Adjustment has recently been filed to adjust the property lines of the area to create the subject site and to adjust the parcel to the immediate west of the subject site and the property line at the Hotel. The proposed condition of the Public Hearing is that the Lot Line Adjustment be processed to create the subject parcel and that the Lot Line Adjustment be recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project. The surrounding area is developed to non -conforming residential uses along Barton Road. The properties in this area are Zoned General Commercial under the Barton Road Specific Plan; however, many of the parcels are developed to non -conforming residential uses. A conceptual drawing has been submitted by the Architect of the subject site and the surrounding area. A driveway will be located along the westerly side of the restaurant. In addition, there will be another driveway that is currently accessed by the retirement hotel. This driveway will provide additional access to the proposed drive thru. One of the recommended changes of the Conditions is to include the Lot Line Adjustment provide a 2 60-foot wide width in the location for sufficient access to the site along the driveway that presently serves the retirement hotel. The Conditions of Approval recommend that there be proper reciprocal access of the parking agreements between all parcels in the area to assure there is proper agreements for access of parking. The site plan shows the location of the 3,000 square foot restaurant in the northeasterly quadrant of the subject site. Pedestrian entrances will be from the south vestibule and another entrance for customers on the west side of the restaurant. The proposed drive-thru entrance point will be located in the southeast quadrant of the site that will wrap around the building. A pre -order and menu board will speed up the ordering process. The serving window will be located on the north side of the building and will be covered by a small six foot overhang. The exit for the drive-thru will be crossed by a pedestrian walkway leading to the sidewalk along Barton Road. Restaurant parking will consist of 45 parking spaces with 3 handicap stalls. The overall design and number of parking spaces does meet the requirements of the City's development code for a fast food restaurant of this size. An additional loading area and trash enclosures will also be provided for the site. The interior floor plan consists of a vestibule, seating area, salsa bar, serving counter and window, restrooms, kitchen and various storage areas. The preliminary grading plan was prepared by the engineers for Miguel's Restaurant. A biofilter will be provided for the NPDES Requirements. The plan check process will still have to be done before they can obtain grading permits for the site. The preliminary landscape plan shows that one fifth of the site has been set aside for landscaping. The parking area will have landscaping as well as the drive-thru area. The number of trees and amount of landscaping exceeds the minimum standard as required by the Barton Road Specific Plan. In addition, the staff report made recommendations with regard to the landscaping. All of the trees along Barton Road be a minimum of 36 inch box in size. The landscaping along Barton Road will be sufficient to screen the drive-thru from the public view along Barton Road, not only to visually screen, but to screen or block any stray light coming from vehicles using the drive-thru during evening hours. A requirement for additional landscaping on the walls possibly vines on the easterly fagade of the building to additionally screen the service cabinet of the building to make sure that it will not be readily visible from outside of the site. Lastly, landscaping within the public right of way be re -done to match the landscaping of the proposed restaurant. The elevations of the proposed building shows that it is the exact building that was approved in 2003. The building will be using neo mission style with tiled towers and architectural guidelines of the Barton Road Specific Plan. f At the original approval, the west elevation of the building was facing north. The building has been turned 90 degrees to face the west. The last change was that the canopy over the drive-thru window has been replaced by a six foot overhang. 3 Per the California Environmental Quality Act this project is considered to be categorically exempt as a Class 32 Infill type of project. The Applicant has requested to change the hours of operation. It is Staffs opinion that operating hours for the proposed fast food restaurant shall be between 10:30 am to 10:00 pm except for Fridays and Saturdays in which the operating hours shall be 10:00 am to 12:00 am. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his Staff Report by recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Miguel's Jr. fast food restaurant to the proposed new location. Chair Wilson asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff prior to opening up the Public Hearing. Commissioner Whitley wanted to know what the intent of the proposed 60-foot easement was and is it going to run the entire length of the property. Planning Director Koontz replied that there has been an agreement between the Applicant and the retirement hotel to take the driveway and use it as a main access point to the entire shopping center. At this point, it is unknown what the traffic issues may produce, so it will be safe to consider a 60 foot easement for possible additional left turn pockets and two lane in and out access. If the additional lanes are not needed, additional landscape will be added into that area. Commissioner Whitley asked if the lot lines will be shifted slightly from what is presented. Planning Director Koontz replied that it is the intent to shift the lot line another 10 feet to the west. Vice Chair Addington asked with regard to the 60 foot Conditions. Should the wording for the lot line contain easement or right of way? Planning Director Koontz replied that it should be worded as an easement. Chair Wilson asked how the CEQA exemption fell upon the project. Planning Director Koontz replied that back in December of 2003, a traffic study was not required for the project. Once an entire project as far as a shopping center comes before the Commission it would be advisable to perform a traffic study at that time. Chair Wilson opened up the Public Hearing Javier Vasquez 1920 Barton Road Mr. Vasquez greeted and thanked the Commission. It is the objective of Miguel's Jr. to continue to be a functioning business in the City in which they have been for 20 years. Mr. Vasquez feels that the movement of the restaurant will be much better than the previous location because of the drive-thru and what problems the previous location would have caused with regard to the cars "stacking" on Barton Road, waiting for drive-thru access. Jo Stringfield 4 22273 Barton Road Ms. Stringfield is a customer of Miguel's and feels that there is a concern with noise, emissions and lighting and radios that will be playing loud while awaiting their food in the drive-thru section. Ms. Stringfield also had a concern with someone putting survey stakes through her property and had not asked for permission to do so. Chair Wilson wanted to clarify that the lighting, noise ordinance, emissions have all been addressed in the proposed Resolution that was presented. A lighting plan will have to be submitted and approved to try to address the issues. Jeff Timbers -Jacobsen Family Holdings 21800 Burbank Blvd. Woodland Hills Mr. Timbers stated that Jacobsen Family Holdings has been working diligently with the City of Grand Terrace and with Miguel's Jr. Restaurant. At this time a transaction with regard to the Retirement Hotel to swap the parking area in front of the retirement hotel for the property that runs along the Canal Driveway. All landscape improvements will be paid for by Miguel's and the developer. Rosalyn Baucom 12778 Dutch Street Ms. Baucom has concerns with the drive-thru that will be placed at the Miguel's Jr. Restaurant. She feels that the exhaust emissions and noise and late night drive thru hours will affect the residents of the retirement hotel where in which her mother currently resides. Ms. Baucom feels that the restaurant location will also be considered a safety hazard with the proposed traffic in that area and the seniors who ride around in their motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Patricia Farley 12513 Michigan Street Ms. Farley feels that the senior citizens have not been treated in a considerate manner. Ms. Farley feels that even if the noise level would not be considered to be hazardous to the City, it would be unfair for the seniors to have to be exposed to such noise that will be generated at the restaurant. The sharing of the road will also be detrimental to emergency vehicles that will need to approach the retirement hotel. Helen Pitsaros The Terrace Retirement Hotel INAUDIBLE Stan Cooley The Terrace Retirement Hotel INAUDIBLE Barney Karger 11668 Bernardo Way 4i Mr. Karger agreed that the 60 foot easement will be needed for the site to accommodate traffic from the restaurant and the retirement hotel. Mr. Karger feels that an abundant amount of shrubbery should not be located in the front of the building so as to not cover such an aesthetically appeasing building, but the shrubbery should be located at the rear of the building to assist the retirement hotel from pollutions, lights and noise. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Vice Chair Addington asked with regard to the Categorical Non -Exemption. It is to his understanding that the size of the project would consider it as exempt. When the shopping center is presented, will the shopping center as a whole need to go through the entire environmental process. Planning Director Koontz replied that the shopping center, when it is presented, will have to go through the entire environmental process with the addition to a traffic study, air study and noise study. Commissioner Comstock wanted to clarify if this project was a separate parcel from the shopping center. Planning Director Koontz replied that the City of Grand Terrace currently owns the west half of the area. As part of the disposition development agreement that had been approved by the City Council through a Public Hearing a few weeks prior. It was a contingent that Miguel's become the first phase of the project, and it was the Miguel's Jr. developer that wished to relocate their site to what is presented. The property in which the City of Grand Terrace currently owns will be sold to a developer in which will enter into a lot line adjustment with the retirement center. A potential developer will have to apply for a lot line adjustment and go through the Planning Commission process. Commissioner Comstock asked if it is possible to obtain signage to warn the public that there are senior citizens in the general area and to use caution. Chair Wilson wanted to know when the overall concept will be provided for this project. What has the City Council seen in so far as the overall project? Planning Director Koontz replied that all the City Council has seen is a development agreement which states that there are four parcels that the City Redevelopment Agency owns. If a developer were to present a viable shopping center, the Redevelopment Agency will sell the developer the land. At this time, a formal application for a shopping center has not been received. It has been the history of the area since the city's inception, that the area south of Barton Road has been designated for commercial development. Commissioner Bidney wanted to know if a left turn will be made onto the project from Canal Street and if a vehicle is headed eastbound will that traffic have to contend with the westbound traffic headed into the restaurant and retirement hotel. Planning Director Koontz replied that the existing signal will be utilized for the restaurant. The traffic engineer has made comments with regard to the right in and right out portion of the traffic. A Vice Chair Addington asked if a median will be proposed for that portion of Barton Road to ease any traffic problems. Planning Director Koontz replied that it is being discussed with an additional traffic signal for the area. The existing driveway will not be considered the primary access into the overall project by any means. Chair Wilson invited the developer up to provide additional information for the project. Jeff Timbers -Jacobsen Family Holdings 21800 Burbank Woodland Hills Mr. Timbers stated that the rendering that was presented was specifically designed so that the restaurant will have two points of access, so that it may function independently. It is the intent to also incorporate all of the circulation and grading issues into a master plan. The shopping center has not been locked in as yet, and are hoping to have a submittal to the Planning Commission and the City Council in a short period of time. At current, the traffic and noise studies are being conducted. At this time, there are no specifics because there have been no tenants that have signed anything. Chair Wilson asked if it is to his understanding that there may be a market tenant that may be included in the area or possibly Stater Bros moving into this area. Mr. Timbers replied that at this time, he does not wish to deny anyone's confidence, but it is his sincere wish to move Stater Bros. into the project area, but there are no guarantees at this time. Chair Wilson asked why the categorical exemption under CEQA would be deemed appropriate for this project. Associate Planner Lampe replied that CEQA has 32 different categories in which those types of projects would meet the criteria in exemption for the full environmental review process. In review of this project, it meets the criteria for a Class 32 Project in which the project is consistent with the General Plan and with the applicable zoning standards. The project does concur within the City limits. The project site is no more than five acres, in which this project consist of less than an acre. The project has no habitat value for rare or endangered species, and the piece of property has been used for residential purposes for the better of 30 to 40 years. The project has no significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water. Chair Wilson asked with regard to environmental studies, they would be performed by independent contractors or engineers. Planning Director Koontz replied that the City does not have an acoustical engineer, so when an acoustical study is needed, an independent engineer is hired, as well as for traffic or any types of studies that are required. 7 MOTION PC-06-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to Condition the project to shift the project to the west to the satisfaction of the City to allow a 60-foot ingress/egress easement to the satisfaction of the City. Commissioner Comstock seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-06-2005: Approved 5-0-0-0 MOTION PC-07-2005: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to approve SA-05-05, CUP-05-01 and E-05-01 with the approved conditions. Commissioner Comstock seconded the motion. Chair Wilson felt that an amendment to the resolution should be included with regard to the "right in, right out" driveway entrance off of Barton Road should be stipulated. Vice Chair Addington amended his motion to amend Condition 7 to add the wording to the satisfaction of the staff, the wording similar to "except Friday and Saturday, 10 a.m. to midnight. Commissioner Comstock concurred MOTION VOTE PC-07-2005: Approved 4-1-0-0 Chair Wilson Voting No 3. TPM-04-05, E-04-10: Divide an existing parcel into two (2) separate parcels with Parcel 1 of approximately 1.6 acres and Parcel 2 of approximately 3.4 acres. APPLICANT: W. J. Mc Keever, Civil Engineers on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino. LOCATION: 12745 Oriole Street (Approximately a 5 acre site located on the easterly side of Oriole Street between Pico Street and Raven Way. RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing; receive the Staff Report, presentation and Public Testimony; close the Public Hearing and Approve the Resolution calling for the approval of TPM-04-05 by the City Council supported by the required findings and subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. Prior to the presentation of Item Three, Vice Chair Addington wanted to state that he is a parishioner of the church. After speaking to the City Attorney with regard to the Item, the City Attorney does not feel that it would be a conflict of interest for Vice Chair Addington. Associate Planner Lampe presented his staff report. The Applicant on behalf of the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino is requesting approval of the proposed tentative parcel E:3 map to divide the subject site into two parcels. Parcel one will be an acre and a half, Parcel Two will consist of 3.39 acres. Parcel one which is the southerly part of the subject site is presently developed as the Parish Hall, Rectory and church for Christ the Redeemer Church. The northerly portion of the property consists of a new seminary that was dedicated late last year. The Applicant did provide a Letter of Intent stating the reasons for the application. The applicant is seeking to separate the Serra House Seminary from the church ownership for financial/managerial reasons. The subject site is a five acre parcel located southerly of Pico Street and easterly of Raven Avenue. The surrounding area is developed Single Family Residential with the exception to the immediate east where the Sisters of St. Benedict Convent is located. Oriole is a fully improved local street which is located in front of the subject site. Pico Street is fully improved collector street. The site is Zoned R1-7.2. The proposed parcels will be much larger than any of the parcels in the immediate area. The proposed parcels do meet all of the development standards of the R-1 Zone, including the 50% limitation of building coverage. Parcel one consists of about 28% parcel coverage, and Parcel Two, about 1 %. Parcel One will contain the Seminary and a 182 foot frontage on Oriole, and over 340 feet on Pico Street. Parcel Two will contain existing sanctuary of the church. It is Staffs recommendation that a reciprocal agreement be made between both parcels to insure access to the five parking spaces located in between the parcels. Staff feels that this project does qualify for a categorical exemption and does meet the definitions of a Class 15 Categorical Exemption and is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. The Staff prepared a Resolution for Approval to be brought before the City Council. There will be another Public Hearing at the City Council and they will be the body that will approve the Tentative Parcel Map. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his staff report. Vice Chair Addington asked if both properties still complied with all the building setbacks. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the setbacks are ambiguous because the area is designed for residential type of development. Both parts of the property were subject to a site and architectural review by the Planning Commission and the setbacks were a part of the analysis. Chair Wilson invited the Applicant to speak on behalf of the project. Bill McKeever McKeever Engineering Mr. McKeever greeted the Commission and had no objections to the conditions as they stand. Chair Wilson opened up the Public Participation. 9 Bamey Karger 11668 Bemardo Way Mr. Karger wanted to know why the property needs to be split. Mr. McKeever replied that it is the due to the church ownership. All properties within the Diocese that are used for parishes, the title is held in the name of the Bishop of the Diocese. The Seminary is a completely separate operation from the parish and church function. From both the management standpoint, and from a financial standpoint, they desire to split the property up. Chair Wilson closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission MOTION PC-08-05: Commissioner Whitley made a motion to approve TPM-05-05 and TPM-04-05. Commissioner Bidney seconded the motion. Chair Wilson opened the item up for discussion Commissioner Comstock commented that it was customary for a church to do what the applicant is proposing to do and it makes perfect sense to do so. MOTION VOTE PC-08-2005: 5-0-0-0 ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8:40 pm CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners Workshop Item: Workshop Item 1 Administrative SA-05-02, an application for an Administrative Site and Architectural Review to construct a 380 square foot second story room addition over an existing garage on a .32 acre lot located in the R1-7.2 Zone. (Single Family Residential minimum 7,200 square feet). Planning Technician Gollihar greeted the Commission. The application being presented is an Administrative Site and Architectural Review that was initially done at staff level. There were some concerns with regard of changing the scale of the nature of the cul-de-sac. The location of the application is at 12740 Garden Avenue. The applicant would like to put a second story addition onto the garage portion of the residence. At this time all of the development to the west and to the north does not contain second story additions. `t$] The Applicant's architect had presented a sketch to Staff so that an idea of what the addition would look like and to make sure that the scale would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Because the addition is a second story addition, the Zoning Code requires that a second story addition be reviewed as an Administrative Site and Architectural Review. A land use application has been submitted by the Applicant in which Staff informed the Applicant that the project could be denied. It was at that request of the Applicant to continue to proceed with the application to submit construction drawings with the Building and Safety Department to be plan checked and concurrent with the Administrative Site and Architectural Review. The applicant has already been through one plan check from the Building and Safety Department. The addition would be located over the garage portion of the residence and will also contain a balcony. There was a concern with having a balcony in the front portion of the residence, and there have been conversations about having the balcony located at the back of the second story addition. At this time, the deck has been the topic of whether or not the proposed deck would be considered a violation of the neighbor's privacy. Another concern was with regard to the garage, there is a requirement within the City Municipal Code that requires two covered parking spaces for every residence be made available. By placing the stairwell inside of the garage, it would shorten the parking space inside of the garage, which would only leave for one covered parking space. At this time, Staff is requesting guidance from the Planning Commission on how this Application should proceed. Vice Chair Addington commented that he does not have a problem with the balcony being placed at the front of the residence or the second story addition. Should the stairwell that will be located in the garage, and will keep one of the two cars parking in the driveway, he was not in favor of violating the Zoning Code. Would it be possible to move the stairwell into the house or at the exterior of the residence. Planning Technician Gollihar replied that the option of moving the stairwell outside was not discussed. The setbacks would be an issue for placing the stairwell at the exterior of the residence. Commissioner Bidney wanted to know how many square feet the residence consisted of. Planning Technician Gollihar replied that it is an 1,800 square foot home. Commissioner Bidney reported that there is an area of Colton where there are cul-de-sacs that contain single story homes with one two-story homes within the cul-de-sac, it is his opinion that the second story home distracts from the rest of the neighborhood of single story homes. Mr. Bidney stated that he is not in favor of the second story addition. Commissioner Whitley added that he is in agreement with Commissioner Bidney. While the addition is properly designed, it seems that the house would look lop sided in the front portion of the home. Commissioner is also in agreement with Vice Chair Addington with regard to the Zoning Code and its' requirements in which this residence would not be following the Zoning Code. 11 Commissioner Comstock wanted to know how long the driveway was. Should there be adequate space in the driveway, could the applicant file for a variance to add a few feet to the garage to take care of the parking issues within the garage itself. Commissioner Comstock does not have an opinion for or against the project. Chair Wilson commented that there was an application that was approved by the Commission that involved a home at Observation and DeBerry Streets in which the residence did not appear the way the Commission thought that it would been and as they had approved, and it became extremely over burdened and turned to be out of character with the surrounding area, which could end up happening with this application. The stairwell being located at the exterior of the residence would not be visually appealing. Vice Chair Addington asked if this application would fall under Conditional Use Permit. Planning Director Koontz replied that it is considered an Administrative Review at Staff level. At this point, a consensus needs to be met for each of the items presented. Chair Wilson asked if there was a consensus with regard to the front balcony being placed at the front of the entrance and whether the front balcony would impede on the neighbors privacy. Commissioner Bidney was not in agreement with the balcony issue, while the rest of the Commission did not have an issue with it. Chair Wilson asked for a consensus with regard to the second story addition be out of scale and be inconsistent with Garden Court. Commissioner Whitley felt that at the current design, the project is considered out of scale. Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Addington, and Commissioner Comstock did not have an issue with the design, and Commissioner Bidney abstained. Chair Wilson asked for a consensus for the stairwell reducing one parking space in the garage, which is not presently allowed per the Zoning Code. The Commission agreed that it would not be acceptable. Workshop Item 2 Request for Zoning Ordinance Compliance: Determine electrical power generation and support facilities are acceptable land uses within the M-2 Industrial Zone. Planning Director Koontz reported that a request had been received from AES, Inc., the owner of the Highgrove Power Generation Station. The power plant has not been operating since 1998, and at this time AES is currently evaluating the potential to knock the existing plant down and build a 3 megawatt plant. It will be a smaller state of the art facility with a new system. The permission of a power plant is legislated, reviewed and approved by the California Energy Commission. They are solely responsible for the permitting and CEQA Process. These projects are considered to be exempt from local jurisdiction, except that the Energy Commission will come to the City and ask for consultation with regard to land use or environmental issues. liim Consistency of a site with local zoning is imperative to the company. The site is Zoned M2 Industrial. The adjacent Edison Power Station is also Zoned M2 Industrial. The current Zoning Ordinance does not state that a power plant or power support service is an allowable use in the M2 Zone. It is Staffs obligation to make a finding that a power generation and support facility is an allowable use within the M2 Zone. Planning Director Koontz reported that there is a power plant in the City of Palm Springs. There is a similar facility as this one and is located in the City's industrial zone. Commissioner Comstock asked if the schools expressed any concerns on the power plant being located across from the high school. Planning Director Koontz reported that he had advised the power plant company to speak with the Colton Unified School District representatives. At this time, the School District does not have a problem with that, and are addressing the issues between each other. There is a strong possibility that Cage Park will be purchased by the City to accommodate this project. The site will not require the entire area, but a much smaller footprint will be needed. Staffs biggest concern with the facility will be noise. The School District has also shared the same concerns as the City. There will be a full EIR for the project. Chair Wilson felt that the project could be grandfathered into the Zoning. Vice Chair Addington wanted to know if the new state of the art system would reduce pollution. Planning Director Koontz replied that half of the facility would consist of air pollution control systems. Chair Wilson asked if there was consensus as the area being and M2 Industrial Zone. All Planning Commissioners agreed. Update on Colton project Planning Director Koontz reported that there is 123 acres of land that have been in discussion for some time. Their proposal is to build 127 condominiums, with a proposed park area and an Edison easement going through the middle of the project. One of the key issues is not wanting the traffic to tie into Glendora Drive or Westwood Street or anywhere into the City. Should the project go through, the general concept will immediately require a full EIR on the project, and the Staff will be reviewing and will be actively involved with. Chair Wilson had an issue with the traffic, and if there is any way that the City of Colton can keep the traffic from passing through the City, he would be happy with it. Commissioner Comstock asked if there was any discussion of widening Barton Road at Washington Street. 13 Planning Director Koontz replied that he would bring the issue up at the meeting. At this point, the hillside of Barton Road into Colton is of great concern to the City. As well as mass grading for the project. Chair Wilson would like for Planning Director Koontz to pay attention to the City's Lighting Ordinance for their project. Planning Director Koontz commented that he is concerned with the proximity line of the existing houses with the proximity of the proposed condominium project is extremely close. Information from Commissioners Commissioner Bidney wanted a status on the proposed Sav-On store, the proposed office building next door to City Hall and the proposed dental office on Mt. Vernon and Britton Way. Planning Director Koontz replied that Sav-On is currently in the San Bernardino County Fire Department's plan check process. The rest of the project is ready to be built. The City Manager has called the Fire Chief and were told, that they are currently in plan check. Once fire approval is obtained, they will be ready to break ground. Planning Director Koontz reported that the four suite office project is currently in plan check. There was an issue with regard to renting out the existing house to a tenant, but it has been resolved. Edison has been contacted with regard to the existing power poles, and the existing residence should be ready to be demolished soon. Planning Director Koontz reported that the proposed dental office never re -filed and the approved permits have expired. Vice Chair Addington reported that he will not be attending the meeting of March 17, 2005. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 9:34 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 17, 2005 Respectfully Submitted, Gary K ontz, PI&6ng Director C', 14 Approved y, Doug Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission