Loading...
04/21/2005 Community and Economic Development (ALIFORNIA Department 22795 Barton Road Grand Terrace California 92313-5295 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION (909) 824-6621 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING April 21, 2005 The reaular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planninq Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace. California, on April 21. 2005. at 7:00 p.m., by Chairperson Douq Wilson. PRESENT: Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Brian Whitley, Commissioner Robert Bidney, Commissioner Tom Comstock, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe, Associate Planner Michelle Boustedt, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson 7:05 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Bidney • Roll Call PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE ITEMS: 1. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 17, 2005 MOTION PC-14-2005: Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve the minutes of March 17, 2005 Commissioner Bidney Seconded the motion MOTION VOTE PC-1 4-2005: Approved 3-0-1-1 Vice Chair Addington Abstained Chair Wilson Absent 1 i. 2. SA-04-21, CUP-04-10 E-04-12: Continuation of the project that will consist,of a completely new auto service station with convenience market, car wash, and delicatessen. The convenience market will have a deli, a walk- in cooler, beer and wine sales and convenience goods. Also proposed will be freeway signage identifying new service station and other businesses on the site. The existing service station building, existing signs and landscaping will be removed and replaced with a new service station building, new signs, including new freeway sign, and a new car wash. The existing fuel canopy will be retained and extended. The new station may be operated as a Valero Station. APPLICANT: RAMCAM Corp., on behalf of business owner, Mr. Fahim Tanios LOCATION: 22045 Barton Road (Approximately .66 acre parcel located on the south side of Barton Road just east of the 1-215 Freeway off- ramp. This site was operated as a Texaco and Shell fueling station in the past.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the Public Hearing, receive the staff report and public testimony, and Continue the project to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to allow for further revisions. Or - Deny the proposal, which will require the matter to be continued so that Staff can prepare the proper findings to support the denial. Associate Planner Lampe greeted the Commission and presented his staff report. The item had been continued from the March 17, 2005, meeting in order for the Applicant to provide additional information and revised drawings and exhibits for the new Valero Gas station at the southerly side of Barton Road immediately east of the 1-215 Freeway. Staff met with the Applicant on March 24th to discuss the additional items that were required to make a positive recommendation on the part of the Staff for this project. An issue was raised with regard to the exit of the drive thru of the car wash being too close to the right-of-way of the property line of the most westerly driveway off of Barton Road that could create a traffic situation. The City Traffic Engineer proposed some solutions to the problem. One was to reverse the direction of the drive thru, or to increase the throat distance which is the distance from curb face down to the entrance of the drive thru to a minimum of 40 feet. The Applicant chose the latter of the two alternatives. In order to accommodate the relocation of the exit of the drive thru, the propane tank had to be relocated to the south east corner of the property. The overall landscaping of the site did not change. The Applicant provided additional information with regard to the elevations. The Applicant included additional information with regard to colors of the building and additional architectural features showing masonry caps, roof eaves and other details with regard to windows. 2 The east elevation shows individual window panes to make the window design compatible with overall architectural approach of the building. The building will utilize the dark green standing seam type of metal roof. The use of dark brown sashes will be used around windows, accentuating the various reds and browns of the architectural features. The stone veneer around the base has been extended into the west elevation of the building. The south elevation will not be seen, but the stone veneer has also been added to the southerly part of the building. Samples of the roof material, copper awning, rock veneer and the stucco have been provided for the Commission to review. One of the issues that the Staff had with this project was with regard to the corporate colors of the Valero Station. Eight Valero Stations were visited in which they all had the same "Valero Blue" and "Valero Gold". The Corporate Office was contacted to find out if this particular project would be required as a part of the project. The Staff was then contacted by a company that is responsible for the Valero Station Imaging in Southern California in which the Applicant was sent a letter with various drawings of the canopy. Based on the drawings, the canopy is required to be treated with the Valero Blue and Valero Gold. The earlier design that was presented contained a mansard type of roof made up of metal panels to match the architecture of the building. One of Valero's stipulations is that the fascia of the canopy be a vertical fascia. The canopy will be changed in color and design. The west elevation shows the canopy of the gas station as well as the extension that will be added to the canopy at the southerly end. - The Applicant provided a revised rendering that would be realistic in terms of the proposed landscape that was submitted at the previous meeting. The Applicant has indicated that he has additional drawings to show the Commission. In terms of the proposed freeway sign and its compliance with the stipulations of the sign code; Staff believes that the sign could be improved. The individual signs that will be placed on the sign board itself will not exceed 100 square feet. At this time, Staff feels that they cannot make a recommendation for this project. The major issue is that the color and design of the fuel canopy as stipulated by the Valero Corporation does not match the architectural design and color of the building itself. The dark blue color of the fuel canopy clashes with the dark green color of the standing seam roof of the building. The last submitted rendering does not show the details of the browns and reds that have been utilized for the building. The proposed browns and reds do not match with the blue and gold.corporate colors. Therefore, it is Staffs opinion that the Commission may consider four options on how to proceed with the project. The first option would be to continue the Public Hearing to the next Planning Commission Meeting of May 19, 2005, in which it would allow the Applicant time to prepare a new color scheme with the building which would be compatible with the required color scheme of the canopy. The second option would be to approve the project _ subject to the Resolution of Approval, but with instructions to Staff to work with the Applicant to revise the color schemes of the building to be compatible with the canopy. Option three would be to approve the project with no particular instructions to the Staff. The 3 final option is to deny the project and continue it to the next meeting to prepare the proper findings for denial. Associate Planner Lampe concluded his presentation and welcomed any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Bidney asked with regard to the color scheme, could the building be redesigned to have the same corporate blue for the roof of the building? Associate Planner Lampe replied that the Applicant may have some variations of color schemes that he may wish to elaborate on during his presentation. Commissioner Comstock asked if there were any roof colors as presented for the roof portion of the building. Associate Planner Lampe presented the sample provided for the roof of the building. Vice Chair Addington opened up the Public Hearing Alex Irshaid - Ramcam Corp 670 E. Parkridge Ave #101 - Corona Mr. Irshaid greeted the Commission and reported that he is the architect for the project. Mr. Irshaid presented his color renderings for the project to the Commission. Mr. Irshaid reported that the first color rendering is what the Staff had presented to the Commission. A rendering of the canopy illustrates that the canopy is proposed to be white in color so as not to clash with the roof color of the building. When the Valero color was proposed to match the color of the canopy, Mr. Irshaid felt that the building was not an attractive,looking building with the corporate colors used. The third illustration has been the closest color compared to the corporate colors and would like to use the third rendering as the final color rendering and would like for the Commission to approve the colors as presented in the third rendering. Should a green teal be used for the canopy, then it is the opinion of the Applicant that the color will blend better with the proposed building roof color. Another one of the renderings illustrates the green color of the canopy to match the roof color of the building in which the Corporate Office rejected. The last pictures submitted to the Commission by Mr. Irshaid illustrates that everything blends together. Mr. Irshaid pointed out the sign dimensions in which he has measured the square footage of each sign face to be 47.28 square feet for each section which will total about 94.56 square feet; which is considered to be under 100 square feet of total sign footage. Mr. Irshaid felt that the first option to continue would put a burden on the Applicant due to finances and approvals for Shell Corporation to purchase the land and close escrow. The second option seems to be the most acceptable and the Applicant is willing to work with the Staff to resolve any color issues. _. Commissioner Whitley asked Mr. Irshaid if the Applicant was still in discussion with the Valero Corporation about alternatives. 4 Mr. Irshaid explained that the canopy must be presented in the Valero Corporate colors, but the building does not have to be the same colors. Fahim Tanios -Applicant 11525 Pecan Street Alta Loma Mr. Tanios thanked the Commission and is in the hopes for approval of the project as presented. At this time, he is experiencing financial hardship because the station has been closed for such a long period of time. Mr. Tanios feels that the issue of color should not hold up the project. He would like to submit his plans as soon as possible. Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Irshaid what had happened to the handicap path from Barton Road that was presented at the previous meeting. Mr. Irshaid found from the Building Official that it was not necessary. When it was moved, it was forced to be removed because of the 40ft throat for the exit to the car wash. Vice Chair Addington asked why the Tudor architectural style was used'for the project. Mr. Irshaid replied that the style was chosen because of the area. The whole community showed that it was a mountainous area, in which they felt it matched with the community. Vice Chair Addington felt that the project did not match with the Barton Road Specific Plan. Mr. Irshaid felt that the Specific Plan was not followed because they felt that the property was further out and away to where it was not needed to be followed. Commissioner Comstock felt that the proposed illustrations did not show the window style consistency that was asked to be followed at the previous meeting. Mr. Irshaid replied that the previous elevations showed one solid sheet of glass. The new proposed elevations show individual pane windows would look more like store front, in which the Applicant did not want or like. Commissioner Comstock asked if there were still 14 parking spaces. Mr. Irshaid answered that there are still 14 parking spaces proposed. Commissioner Comstock felt that the proposed building should meet the Barton Road Specific Plan or as a California Craftsman design as required by the nearby Outdoor Adventures Center Specific Plan. Vice Chair Addington closed the Public Hearing. Vice Chair Addington asked Staff with regard to the sign ordinance square footage requirements seems to be different than what is proposed. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the sign code defines the area of the sign is the area that you can draw a rectangle that can be drawn around the sign message itself. The applicant has shown that each individual sign on the overall sign structure would be the 5 limit of no more than 100 square feet used. A Condition can be proposed with regard to any sign within the sign structure would have to comply with the definition. Vice Chair Addington asked would it be easier to review the sign code to resolve the sign issue. Associate Planner Lampe replied that he has the sign code and will find it to present to the Commission. Vice Chair Addington asked if the architecture is approved which does not match the Barton Road Specific Plan or the overlay of the Outdoor Adventures Center Specific Plan, will this project set a precedence for other projects in the future or could there be some sort of liability back on the City. Planning Director Koontz replied that it could set a precedence where a proposed applicant may come and say that this project is approved, so why can't they do the same. Should the project be approved with the current design of architecture, the Commission will basically be saying that they are comfortable with approving similar architecturally styled projects such as this one in the future. Associate Planner Lampe replied that this particular project is in a transitional area, and it was felt the overall guidelines of the architectural style do meet the outlines of the desirable architectural elements of the Barton Road Specific Plan. It is the Staffs interpretation that no specific style is called out in the Barton Road Specific Plan that illustrates rustic type of architecture. Commissioner Comstock asked what about the architectural guidelines for the Outdoor Adventures Center. Planning Director Koontz replied that the Outdoor .Adventures Center is California Craftsman and is laid out in that fashion to portray a rural design to fit its theme. At current, this project does meet the standards of the Barton Road Specific Plan. Vice Chair Addington asked if the Fire Department had any issues with the relocation of the propane tank. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the relocation of the propane tank was never given'to the Fire. Department because it would be difficult to get a response back in time for the meeting. There is a Condition that states that prior to any building permits being issued to the property; all requirements have to meet with the Fire Department. Vice Chair Addington commented about the proposed copper awnings, and their initial appearance, however, in time the awnings will anodize to a greenish color. Associate Planner Lampe replied that the Applicant is aware that the awnings will become anodized in time, and feel that it will further approve the appearance of the site. Commissioner Bidney likes the design of the project and feels that the color scheme will need to be worked out. Mr. Bidney is also in favor of the building and that the project would make an aesthetically pleasing welcome into the City. 6 Planning Director Koontz replied that should the Commission wish to make the motion, the Staff will abide by such a motion. However, if there is any opportunity to bring the item back before the Commission for one final review, it will be done. Commissioner Bidney agreed with Planning Director Koontz and felt that would be a good and fair alternative to all parties involved. Associate Planner Lampe read the definition of the Municipal Sign Code for the City of Grand Terrace. Vice Chair Addington feels that the sign as proposed exceeds the sign ordinance as read by Associate Planner Lampe. Should the project be approved, does the sign also get approved as larger than what the ordinance allows or does the sign go back and meet an administrative sign review process. Planning Director Koontz replied that the definition of the sign area at this point would have to be left up to the City Attorney. MOTION PC-15-2006: Vice Chair Addington made a motion to proceed with the Staffs recommendation Number One to Continue the Item to the next Planning Commission Meeting to allow for a new color scheme of the building which is compatible with the canopy and a revised freeway sign that complies with the sign code and redesign the building to reflect the California Craftsman style o the Outdoor Adventures Center. Commissioner Comstock seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-15-2006: Approved 3-1-1-0 Commissioner Bidney voting No Chair Wilson Absent 3. SP-04-01-Al E-05-10: Request to the City Community Development Department to remove approximately 7.8 acres of property from Specific Plan 04-01 (the Outdoor Adventures Center Specific Plan) and return it to its former M-2 Zoning status. The site is currently designated as a portion of the Planning Area 6 of Specific Plan 04-01. APPLICANT: The AES Corporation (dba Riverside Canal Power Company) LOCATION: Northeast corner of Pico Street and Taylor Street Assessor's Parcel Number 1167-151-63. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of Amendment #1 to Specific Plan 04-01 to the City Council. Planning Director Koontz presented his staff report. An application for Specific Plan Amendment 04-01 for the Outdoor Adventures Center Specific Plan. The subject site is located at the northwest corner of Pico and Taylor Street. The area encompasses about 7 7.8 acres at the very southwest corner of the Outdoor Adventures Center. South parcels of the site are designated as Industrial under the General Plan and Zoned M2. The old power plant site is designated which as Industrial M2 Zoning. To the east of the property is MR Zoning and to the North is Zoned C2. Per the Outdoor Adventures Center Specific Plan Land Use Map, it encompasses about half of Planning Area 6. This area is not visible from the freeway and has access from Taylor Streets and Commerce Way, once Commerce Way becomes extended. The site was originally the tank farm for the diesel fuel tanks that supplied energy to the plant before it was converted to natural gas. In February of this year, the Planning Commission was asked to make a determination of consistency for power generating facilities in the M2 Zone. At that time, AES was looking at converting the old plant into a new peeker plant. It was the consensus of the Commission that power generation and transmission facilities are deemed appropriate uses within the M2 Zone. Since the meeting in February, the AES Corporation has approached the Staff to consider possibly constructing a new power plant on the subject site. This will allow them the opportunity to present two alternatives sites to build a new plant. Meetings have been held with the City Manager with regard to this application, in which he has agreed to evaluate this site and submit an application to the CEC. The City of Grand Terrace currently owns the property until CEC makes a decision on whether they feel that this site would be deemed appropriate for a power plant and issue permits. In the event that a permit is issued for this request, there will be a swap for a portion of the land for the old power plant site. At this time, the Application is exempt from CEQA. Once the project is submitted to the CEC, they will perform a complete CEQA evaluation. Planning Director Koontz concluded his Staff report. Vice Chair Addington opened up the Public Hearing. Julie Way - AES Corporation 690 N. Studebaker Long Beach Ms. Way introduced herself to the Commission. Approval of the application does not in any way grant the company approval to build a power plant, since that jurisdiction resides solely with the energy commission. By approving this amendment, it will allow the CEC to assess the environmental impacts of a power plant on either of the two sites to determine which one has fewer. Ms. Way welcomed questions of the Commission. MOTION PC-16-2005: Commissioner Whitley made a motion to approve SP-04-01 A-1 and E-05-10. Commissioner Comstock Seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE PC-16-2005: Approved 4-0-1-0 Chair Wilson Absent 8 ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8:08 om CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information to Commissioners None • Information from Commissioners Vice Chair Addington asked what the status was with regard to Sav-On. Planning Director Koontz replied that construction bids have been received and they should be breaking ground in three to four weeks. Commissioner Bidney asked what the status was for the Outdoor Adventures Center. Planning Director Koontz replied that the master developer is moving through the due diligence process. A draft development agreement should be sent to the City Council by September of this year. Commissioner Comstock asked what the status was for Miguel's Restaurant. Planning Director Koontz replied that a new application will be submitted within the next two to three weeks. ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION 8:10 PM NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON MAY 19, 2005 Respectfully Submitted, Approved By, Gary Koontz, Planhrfig Director Doug Wils& , Chairman Planning Commission L 9