Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2002 CITY BRAND TER R CE Community Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 2002 The regular 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 4, 2002, at 7:05 p.m., by Vice Chairperson Matthew Addington. PRESENT: Matthew Addington, Vice Chairperson Mary Trainor, Commissioner Brian Whitley, Commissioner John Lampe, Interim CDD Director Jerry Glander, Building & Safety Director Michelle Boustedt, CDD Secretary ABSENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson 7:05 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner-Trainor • Roll Call- Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: NONE i A 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • (909) 824-6621. ITEMS: r 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION: PC-1 0-2002 Commissioner Trainor made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 21, 2002. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: Approved 3-0-0-1. PC-1 0-2002 Chair Wilson absent. 2. Z-02-01, E-02-02 Proposal to change the zoning of a vacant .34 acre parcel from R1-10 (Low Density Single Family Residential — 10,000 Square foot minimum required area) to R1-7.2 (Single Family Residential — 7,200 square foot minimum required area). APPLICANT: Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Preston Street and Victoria Street (11891 Preston and 22920`Victoria). RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing and approve the proposal from R1-10 to R1-7.2. Interim Planning Director Lampe reported that as was stated by the Chairman of the Commission, the matter has been continued from the previous Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2002, to answer questions with regard to the proposal by the City's Redevelopment Agency to rezone the northeast corner of Preston and Victoria Streets from R1-10 TO R1-7.2. The area north of Victoria Street and east of Preston Street is located in an Agricultural overlay. As requested by the Commission, Staff performed zoning research in the area to find that based on an action that was taken by the City of Grand Terrace 13 years ago, the area is located within an Agricultural overlay. This Agricultural Overlay extends south from Arliss Street, which was identified from the 2 prior hearing as being the southerly limit of the Agricultural area; it does extend south to Victoria Street. The map in the Planning Department will be modified to show this area in the Agricultural overlay. Even though the property is located in the Agricultural overlay,-staff does not feel that it precludes the property from being R1-7.2. The provisions of the Agricultural Overlay have been provided in the Staff report, which states that a large animal must be kept at least 70 feet from a dwelling. This indicates that it would be very unlikely that a large animal could be kept in close proximity to the site once it has been developed. In addition, one of the Commissioners asked what would be the financial situation for the City if the zone change were not to be approved. The City Redevelopment Agency had purchased and cleared the site, which incurred some expenses. Jerry Glander of the Redevelopment Agency had included his financial breakdown cost analysis in the staff report in which the Redevelopment Agency would suffer a financial loss should the City build only one home. It is staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the change of zone from R1-10 to R1-7.2 and recommends the City Council adopt the Ordinance changing the zone. Vice Chair Addington opened up the Public Hearing. { " Debbie Burrows 22954 Victoria Street Mrs. Burrows has been a resident of her property since 1991 and is in opposition to the zone change. Mrs. Burrows received the list of residents that were noticed for the Public Hearing. Mrs. Burrows presented a petition to the Commission signed by residents with regard to opposition of the zone change. Mrs. Burrows expressed her concern with the re-zoning of the property and the building of two homes on the site. The two properties on Victoria Street contain corrals, and if the subject property was split into two sites, then the existing properties on Victoria Street will no longer be allowed to have a horse or any large animals. Mrs. Burrows stated that the houses within the immediate area are all on larger properties. Her lot is 17,000 square feet. If the zoning is changed to R1-7.2; she feels that the value of her property will be decreased. Mrs. Burrows says that she understands the City's need for first time home buyers and feels that first time homebuyers will not be able to afford these homes, especially if they are priced at $168,000. Vice Chair Addington asked Mrs. Burrows what the current value of her property was. 3 Mrs. Burrows replied that the appraised value of her property is $130,000. She has a 1,200 square foot workshop to the rear of the property, which does not have a final permit and was not included into the appraisal. Once the workshop is finalized and permitted, then the workshop will be included, which will increase the appraised value of her property. Sandy Jimenez 11970 Preston Mrs. Jimenez has lived in Grand Terrace for 42 years and is in opposition to the zoning. Her current property value is at $178,000. She enjoys living in this neighborhood because the homes are set on larger parcels of land spread further apart. She feels that two small houses will not look uniform in comparison to the houses in the immediate area. Vicki Doyle 11970 Preston Street Mrs. Doyle feels that this proposed rezoning will set precedence for additional rezoning within the immediate area. If the proposal to rezone is approved, this will open the door to rezone existing surrounding properties. She also feels that the Gordon Fields housing tract west of Preston Street is not comparable to the neighborhood in question, which would be east of Preston Street. Mrs. Doyle says that she understands the reasoning by the City to accommodate first time homebuyers but doesn't feel that the lot split would be _reasonable for the neighborhood. Tony Petta 11875 Eton Drive Mr. Petta lives on the opposite corner from the subject property. Mr. Petta assumed that other residents would welcome newer homes built within the neighborhood. The subject site has not been maintained and is considered a high visibility corner. Mr. Petta felt that by building these two homes, the corner would get cleaned up, and the addition of curbs and gutters would get installed, which would make it a more visibly appealing corner. Mr. Petta feels that if the site would be split into two lots, the lots will still be larger than his own lot. Mr. Petta reported that the house just north of the subject property was a house that the City had purchased and refurbished. The couple that purchased the home have maintained the home perfectly. Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Petta if he knew what the average value of the properties are within the tract. 4 - Mr. Petta replied that he would estimate the average value at $175,000. Mr. Petta reported that his house is 1,600 square feet and is considered median sized for this tract. Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Petta if the proposed homes were to be built, what would the value of the homes be. Mr. Petta replied that the value of the homes would be about $160,000. Vice Chair Addington asked if anyone else would like to speak with regard to the item. Leo Doyle 11970 Preston Street Mr. Doyle stated that.his house was estimated at $180,000. Mr. Doyle feels that the City's sole interest is to recuperate the money that was invested in the subject property thus far. Mr. Doyle wanted to know if this type of home was going to be a two-story home or a ranch style home. Mr. Doyle also feels that there should only be one home instead of two on the site. Vice Chair Addington asked the applicant to make his comments to the Commission. Jerry Glander Building and Safety Director Grand Terrace Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Director Glander reported that one Planning Commission member had a question with regard to, the proposed property owners possibly wanting to put a horse on the site, which would not be feasible. The property is not large enough for a horse to be put on the site. The property just north of the subject site was bought by the redevelopment agency and refurbished and was sold to a first time homebuyer. The proposed residences proposed to be built on the subject site will be identical to the houses that were built at the corner of Van Buren and Mirado Streets. Both homes are 1,350 to 1,360 square feet in size, with three bedrooms and two baths, and with a two car attached garage. Both homes sold for about $140,000 two years ago. With the current trend of the rapidly rising real estate market today, the same homes would currently sell for about $160,000 to $170,000. Mr. Glander reported that all first time homebuyers must meet the City's financial criteria, and applicants will be required to maintain the exterior of the home. Should the first time homebuyer fail to maintain the home and landscaping properly, the homebuyer will receive a letter from the City. 5 ( Mr. Glander reported the interior parcel of the two properties would measure 7,217 square feet; and the corner lot would measure 7,641 square feet. Nearby homes on Brentwood Street are all 8,000 square foot lots on the north side. Homes in the city that have been recently built were on approximately 7,200 square foot lots, and were sold for $200,000 to $235,000. Recent sale comparables within the immediate area of the subject site range from $130,000 to $175,000. Vice Chair Addington invited the public to come up and address the Commission. Lynn Groves , 22940 Victoria Street Mrs. Groves states that her parcel is the largest parcel on Victoria Street, consisting of 34,500 square feet. Mrs. Groves states that she .has animals and has two separate homes on her,parcel with a 16 X 32 in ground swimming pool with an 800 square foot garage. The parcel was purchased in 1987 but she has lived in the City of Grand Terrace for 32 years. Mrs. Groves feels that if the site is rezoned, she will not be able to have her animals on her property. Debbie Burrows 22954 Victoria Street Mrs. Burrows explained that the value of her property would rise from $130,000 to $175,000 once their workshop permit has been finalled. Mrs. Burrows wanted to make a comment with regard to a statement that was made by Mr. Glander with regard to the second silent. If the City were to take back the second silent from the first time homebuyer, then the payment on the property would be $840 per month. If the median income census information of $47,400, even with a silent second, the piece of property would take about 28% of the borrowers income per month. If the city puts the pieces of property together, and offers them at $160,000, the first time homebuyer family will be put into financial jeopardy. By putting a first time homebuyer into financial jeopardy, the first time homebuyer will not be able to maintain the property properly. Tony Petta 11875 Eton Drive Mr. Petta wanted to let the Commission know that not all of Mrs. Burrows comments could be considered true. The homebuyers located at 11881 Preston Street were first time homebuyers; they are upstanding and hardworking citizens of Grand Terrace, and have kept their house in good condition. 6 I Leo Doyle 11970 Preston Mr. Doyle reported that he has looked at the back yard of the people that live at 11881 Preston Street and they have nothing but dirt in their backyard. Mr. Doyle feels that a $250,000 home should be built on the subject site instead of two smaller homes. That way everyone in the neighborhood will benefit from the sale of the proposed home. Eloyce Jacobo 11843 Eton Drive Ms. Jacobo stated that there are many people who are moving out of Grand Terrace because of the public school system and other issues. Ms. Jacobo feels that putting small houses on small lots will aid in the detriment of the whole City. Vice.Chair Addington closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion. Commissioner Whitley asked if Staff knew what the lot sizes are of the immediate adjacent properties, for example, 11881 Preston Street. Interim Director Lampe replied that 11881 Preston Street consists of a parcel of 8,680 square feet. Commissioner Whitley asked if the lot is 8,680 square feet in size, then why is it that this property is zoned at R1-10 Zone? Interim Director Lampe replied that the site was probably subdivided or parceled out before it was zoned as R1-10. Commissioner Whitley asked what is the square footage of 11871 Preston Street, and 22940 Victoria Street; and what are the square footage of the homes in the immediate area are? Interim Director Lampe reported that 11871 Preston Street is 9,328 square feet in size. The parcel at 22940 Victoria Street is 28,920 square feet. A typical one-story home in Grand Terrace averages out to about 1,600 square feet. Commissioner Whitley wanted to know about the corral at the back of the residence of 22940 Victoria Street. What would be the measurements of the corral location if the two homes were to be built? 7 Interim Director Lampe reported that the property owner stated that there has not been a horse located in this corral for the last 7-8 years. The Health Department and the Zoning Code indicates that a horse is not allowed within 70 feet of a dwelling. In effect, the Code is saying that a horse will not be allowed in the rear of 11881 Preston Street to the immediate north of the subject site. A horse could not be kept in the front of 22940 Victoria Street, because the horse cannot be located within 70 feet of the residence. So no horses can be kept in close proximity of the subject site. The residents at 22940 Victoria Street can have a horse on their property, so long as it is at the northerly most portion of the property, not near the subject site. Commissioner Whitley asked if a horse were to be put on the northerly most portion of 22940 Victoria Street, would it have an effect on the proposed subject site. Interim Director Lampe replied no, that it would have no impact on the subject property. Commissioner Trainor asked why the homeowners of 22940 Victoria Street could not put a corral in the front of their residence. Interim Director Lampe replied that the front of the property does not have enough space for a corral. Commissioner Trainor asked if the subject property were undivided could it possibly have a horse on it. Interim Director Lampe replied that it would not be feasible to keep a horse on that property. It may or may not be possible; because once the building setback requirements are performed; a 70 foot separation would make it difficult to have a horse on the property. Based on mathematical findings, once you allow for a front yard setback, which is 25 feet, then add a residence, and then subtract the 70 foot separation between the proposed house and the horse corral, it would not be possible to have a horse on the property with the 70-foot separation requirement. Commissioner Trainor asked if it was conceptually possible, to be able to maintain one horse, should the overlay allow it. Vice Chair Addington replied that in looking at the subject parcel, and performing a simple math formulation, that there would not be enough room for a horse corral, except if a residence were planned or built around a corral. Vice Chair Addington asked Interim Director Lampe that if the lot is split, how will the homes affect the rest of the area as far as property values? And how would they affect the commercial property to the south of the site? 8 ! Interim Director Lampe replied that Staff believes that this project will improve the site that has been considered an eyesore for a number of years. The City plans on building two visually appealing homes similar to the homes that were built on Van Buren and Mirado Streets. The proposed moderate income homes will also assist in meeting the City's Housing Element needs by providing moderate income housing within the City.: Moderate type housing is needed in the City over the next five years. In building these homes, it will help the City to meet this requirement as assigned by the State in its approval of the Housing Element. No adverse effect is anticipated on the commercial property to the south of the subject site. Vice Chair Addington called for a motion on the Item. Commissioner Trainor moved to reject the proposal as offered and urge the Redevelopment Agency to place one moderate to higher end home on the subject of property. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion. MOTION VOTE: Approved 3-0-0-1. PC-11-2002 Chair Wilson absent. 3. SA-02-01-01 & E-02-01 Proposal to renovate the Richard Rollins Community Park (Terrace Hills Community Park). This renovation project will consist of the modification of the site to serve primarily soccer fields to accommodate organized youth leagues. The fields will also accommodate baseball activities. Additional picnic areas, restrooms and support facilities will also be provided. APPLICANT: City of Grand Terrace, Community Services Department LOCATION: 22745 De Berry St. (The subject site is the Richard Rollins Community Park which is located north of Cardinal Street, south of De Berry Street and west of Whistler Street within the city limits of Grand Terrace.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the Public Hearing and approve the proposal to renovate the Richard Rollins Community Park. Interim Director Lampe reported that the subject site, Richard Rollins Park, is approximately a 12-Y2 acre site, located east of Terrace Middle School. 9 The City of Grand Terrace which owns five of the 12 Y2 acres and the Colton Unified School District, jointly own the site. The park site contains soccer fields, an existing baseball diamond, picnic shelters, and a tot lot on the northeast corner of the subject site. Also, a parking lot accommodating 50 cars for off street parking, a restroom facility, and a communication building with a flagpole/monopole that is utilized for wireless Internet communication. The surrounding area is developed as single family residential to the north, east and south of the park site. Homes to the east and south back up to the park. To the west is Terrace Hills Middle School. Vehicular access to the park is located on DeBerry Street, which is a 66-foot wide collector street, which is shown in the City's Circulation Element. The site is located in the Public Facilities land use category of the City's General Plan which does allows for school sites, a civic center, fire department facilities and parks. It is also zoned as Public Facilities District, which includes public parks and recreation facilities as a permitted use. This project, therefore, is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Zoning Code. The City is attempting to receive a grant application for this project. However, there is a deadline to submit this grant application, which is May 1, 2002. One of the requirements to receive this grant is to complete and approve a Negative Declaration for the project. The matter was reviewed by the City Council last year and the Council recently approved an architectural firm to draw up the detailed plans and drawings for the renovation of the park. Interim Director Lampe completed his report and invited the Community Development Director Steve Berry to address the Commission. Community Development Director Berry thanked the Commission and introduced himself. The current condition of the park appears to be run down; and he feels that it would be in the best interest of the community to update the park. Mr. Berry introduced Gary Koontz, the Project Manager for the park renovation project. Contract Project Manager Gary Koontz introduced himself to the Commission. In the Year 2000, the City had approved a contract with the technical design team and prepared a variety of concept plans for the park. These concept plans were present to the City Council in 2000. In January of 2001, the City Council reviewed and approved the plan that has been presented before the Commission. Since the Council's approval, there have been some issues with regard to funding that have arisen. A few months ago, the City made an agreement with the School District to allow the City to use redevelopment funds that were earmarked for the School District to improve facilities within the School District. Currently, the park is home to the local soccer league and is currently in disrepair. Monies are available to renovate this site with the Year 2000 City Parks Bond and additional money will be earmarked through the 2002 City Parks Bond. A contract 10 has been approved with cooperation with Community Design Works who will begin the work on the actual plans of the park within the next two-week period. At current, the subject site consists of three terraces. The terraces will remain as they are, and the school will utilize the fields during their physical education program. The building that was used for a meeting room has been removed from the proposed facility because of the access and security issues that have occurred in the past. If the multi-purpose building were to remain, it would have to be redesigned, and would have to go through the State Architects Office, which could result in a very costly building. The concession stand and restroom building is being proposed to move further to the west of the park in-the picnic area between the upper and lower terraces. It will be a much smaller facility, and will primarily be used for the soccer league, which plays on the weekends. The restroom facility will also be downsized. The terraces along the right side of the picnic area will be used for spectator use, even though they will be difficult to maintain. A wrought iron fence is proposed to be installed further down along the DeBerry property to increase security. The parking lot will be expanded, remodeled, and improved to meet ADA Standards. The number of spaces in the parking lot will also be increased by 50%. Vice Chair Addington asked if this Item which is presented as a Site and Architecture Review gives an opportunity for the Commission to.make comments and direct Staff with regard to the site, or has this already been done by the City Council? Interim Director Lampe replied that the purpose of the presentation of this item is to consider both the site/concept plan as the Zoning Code requires and the environmental documentation which were not done when the matter was reviewed by the City Council. Vice Chair Addington opened up the Public Hearing to receive testimony. Mike Avila 22690 Cardinal Street Mr. Avila lives to the south and rear of the park and has a concern regarding the possible obstruction of his view of the valley below Grand Terrace. Mr. Avila is in favor of the proposed wrought iron fencing due to security reasons in the past. Lastly, Mr. Avila wanted to know what type of lighting would be installed in the park, because the current lighting is extremely bright and is sometimes a hindrance because of the glare. r ' 11 Ms. Beebe was present to represent the local soccer league. Ms. Beebe has seen the proposed concept plans at the meetings and has discussed them with Dan Nagle. The soccer league has a few concerns, however, regarding the costs from when the original plans were drawn to the current. It is also the soccer league's concern with regard to the snack bar. The current park of the snack bar is beneficial to the park because of the bathrooms. When the kids are playing at the bottom and middle levels, they have to go up the hill to go to a bathroom. Another concern of the soccer league is the eradication of the meeting room. Rudy Galvez 22642 DeBerry Street Mr. Galvez is a local resident that lives across the street from the park and had a concern with regard to the security of the park and the conceptual plan. Mr. Galvez feels that if a large amount of trees will be planted, the security issue for the park will become much worse with little or no visibility within the park at night. Mr. Galvez also feels that there should be options in the park where both baseball and/or soccer should be allowed to play. Julie Beebe 22646 Lark Street Ms. Beebe had heard that the fields for little league will be located at the site behind Pico Park. Soccer has not utilized the subject park for anything but night games over the past year. The park has never been able to be used by the soccer league because it was mainly used for baseball games. Vice Chair Addington closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to Commission for discussion and action. Commissioner Whitley wanted staff to address the questions that were raised by the public. The first question being the trees. What types of trees are being proposed to be planted? Mr. Berry replied that the drawing that has been presented to the Commission is for conceptual purposes only. It is not in the City's budget to plant as many trees that have been illustrated. Mr. Berry also mentioned that he had met with Mr. Avila, one of the residents who is present at this meeting. To answer Mr. Avila's question, the residents to the south of the park will continue to have access to the park. Mr. Koontz reported that the lighting will be replaced with up to date lighting that will keep a minimal glare away from the residents, and will be concentrated more into the fields. Mr. Berry mentioned that the building that currently exists is structurally unsafe and has been vandalized a repeated amount of times, where the City and the School 12 Mr. Koontz reported that the lighting will be replaced with up to date lighting that will keep a minimal glare away from the residents, and will be concentrated more into the fields. Mr. Berry mentioned that the building that currently exists is structurally unsafe and has been vandalized a repeated amount of times, where the City and the School District does not have enough funds to continually to refurbish it each time it becomes vandalized. The restroom issue has been resolved by proposing that when the soccer leagues are in season, portable restrooms will be available in the other fields that do not have the restrooms at a convenient location. The City is currently working with the School District in adopting a surveillance program where surveillance cameras will be installed to aid in the security of the park on a continual basis. The cost of the meeting/conference room would be very costly to build. The City feels any of the soccer leagues' or baseball leagues' have the opportunity to meet in the Community Room located at City Hall. Vice Chair Addington asked Mr. Berry regarding the process why it went to the City Council first instead of to the Planning Commission? Interim Director Lampe explained that the City Council had approved the item in concept. The site and architectural review process had not been performed as '-- required by the Zoning Code, and that is why the item is before the Planning Commission. Mr. Berry added that the applicant would be more than happy to work with the community to take into consideration any types of concerns that the surrounding homeowners may have. Vice Chair Addington asked what would happen with the existing baseball field? Mr. Berry responded that he had met with Dan Nagle and agreed that the baseball diamond was no longer going to be in existence 'because the proposed park was going to be utilized primarily as a soccer park. Pico Park will be used primarily as a baseball park. The land that has been purchased next to Pico Park will also be utilized as part of the baseball park, but will not be built until the City has enough funds to build it. Vice Chair Addington asked if Staff has any plans on having a Community input meeting. Mr. Berry responded that there is a time constraint with regard to the submittal of the grant application for this project and was not planning on having a Community meeting. 13 Commissioner Whitley asked Mr. Berry how many homeowners did he meet with? i Assistant City Manager Berry reported that out of all the homeowners who were noticed, only two homeowners had come into City Hall to see the conceptual drawing, and seemed quite satisfied with it. Commissioner Trainor had concerns with regard to the approval process and feels that she is being pressured into making a quick decision with regard to this project. Commissioner Trainor also feels that the community should be more involved with the concept of the subject property. Mr. Koontz responded that he was not involved in the original process that involved the City,Council during the previous year. However, it is to his understanding that there was a planning process performed last year. It is not the intent to pressure the Commission into voting for or against the project. The main concern is the deadline for this proposed grant, in which the application is due on May 1, 2002. There will be a meeting that will be held within the next couple of weeks involving the Soccer League, and the School District. The lighting issues have been resolved in Condition Numbers Nine and Ten. All lights will be shielded by a specialized lighting standard, which will be controlled to specifically stop light rays at the property line. Vice Chair Addington asked if the current site and architectural plan as presented include any structures in the approval. Interim Director Lampe replied that there is a condition which indicates that all plans must be consistent with what will be approved by the Planning Commission. Condition Number 5 indicates that the general architectural design of new structures will be compatible with what is on the subject site at the present time, and will be approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the building permits. If the Commission desires, the Condition could be reworded. Vice Chair Addington asked if the subject site was going to be graded. Mr. Koontz replied that the general elevation of the three terraces will remain constant. The only grading that will occur will be along the picnic area, between the upper and middle terraces, and the parking lot for ADA purposes. Vice Chair Addington asked if the parking lot will be increased to relieve the parking problem on De Berry Street. Mr. Koontz replied that the parking will be increased by 100%, by increasing the lot from 50 to 100 spaces. 14 Vice Chair Addington asked if the subject site will have to give up land due to the storm water requirements and the "first flush issue". Mr. Koontz replied that there is an NPDS Requirement that the Landscape and Architect Engineers will have to follow, and has been included in Condition 21. Vice Chair Addington asked if everything other than the restroom facility will be removed. Mr. Koontz replied that the existing restroom facility, two picnic shelters behind the restroom facility, and the new tot lot will remain. The grass and turf areas will be removed and replanted, along with new lighting and irrigation systems. A new jogging trail will also be constructed. MOTION: Vice Chair Addington moved to reword Condition Number Five to read: "Prior to issuance of the building permits for any new structures the Planning Commission will have a chance to review and approve the architectural layout of those buildings." Commissioner Trainor seconded the motion MOTION VOTE Approved 3-0-0-1. PC-12-2002 MOTION: Vice Chair Addington moved to direct staff to have a public meeting with the residence of the area to receive input on the design and landscape of the park. Commissioner Trainor seconded the motion MOTION VOTE Approved 3-0-0-1 PC-13-2002 MOTION: Vice Chair Addington moved to approve SA-02-01, and E-02-01 with the motions to amend the recommended conditions of the Staff Report. Commissioner Whitley seconded the motion MOTION VOTE Approved 3-0-0-1 PC-14-2002 r 1 15 ADJOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9:20 P.M. 4 CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION • Information from Commissioners Vice Chair Addington was happy to see that the Chevron Station project was moving forward. Interim Director Lampe reported that the Chevron Station is on schedule and plans to open sometime in May. Vice Chair Addington asked if there was any status of the former Rite Aid site. Interim Director Lampe replied that the City had been in contact with the developer in providing information to him with regard to the Spring Mountain Ranch project, which should make the site more attractive for development. It is hoped that this information will attract some type of commercial activity to .the site. • Information to Commissioners Interim Director Lampe reported that the Second Family Unit Ordinance had been approved by the City Council on March 28. A few applications and inquiries have been made with regard to the existing vacancy in the Planning Commission. The applications -are due April 19, 2002. If the Commission knows of anyone that would be a good Planning Commissioner, please inform them of the opening. Interim Director Lampe asked for the Commission's assistance with an application that has come to Staffs attention. Interim Planning Director Lampe wants to know how the Commission would receive an application that proposes a modern type of architectural design rather than the typical rustic type of architecture that has been a general policy of the city. It was agreed that the Commissioner's would give this some thought and that the Interim Director would contact them within the next few days for their thoughts. La Mesa RV has found a site in San Bernardino where the former House 2 Home store was located just next to Camping World. r' 16 ADJOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION AT 9:32 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE HELD ON MAY 16, 2002 Respectfully Submitted, Approved B , i J�f'i Lampe, Interim Planning Director Doug Wilson, Chairman C/ Planning Commission 17