Loading...
05/16/1991^ GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION (� MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 16. 1991 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 May 16, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Jerry Hawkinson. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Ron Wright, Commissioner Alan Burns, City Attorney Maria C. Muett, Acting Community Development Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer Brenda Stanfill, Deputy City Clerk ABSENT: Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner PLEDGE: Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to Planning Commissioners. Information from Planning Commissioners to staff. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1991 C 1 MOTION PCM-91-99 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 18, 1991 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-99 Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to approve the April 18, 1991 minutes. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Commissioner Munson abstained. ITEM #2 DU-91-01 SINGH/LA MANCHA DEVELOPMENT 22488 BARTON ROAD G.T. DETERMINATION OF USE FOR A TENANT USE IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL AREA OF THE BARTON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. JERRY DOWD M.S. PARTNERSHIP 22722 CENTER DRIVE EL TORO Chairman Hawkinson stated that their main concern is that this is a focal point of the Barton Road Specific Plan. Mr. Dowd said that he has been working on this project for 3 years, and they have evolved into a gorgeous building, and the type of tenants that have been calling are specialty -type stores. He said that they are neighborhood oriented, for example, beauty salons and gourmet coffee places. Chairman Hawkinson asked if they were working with staff on this particular tenant. The Acting Community Development Director stated that staff has worked 2 with this applicant and with the City Manager as well and this applicant has brought in more specialty -oriented uses as the report indicates, and this has met to the satisfaction of staff. Mr. Dowd said the applicant did own a specialty, gourmet, wine and cheese store, so he is familiar with this. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said he did not have a problem with the Determination of Use aspect of this, and he felt a wine and delicatessen -type store is a permissible use within the Barton Road Specific Plan. His concern was floor plan layout, as this is essential to the future development. He felt the building was gorgeous. He was concerned about not utilizing the corner cut location as an entrance, as he felt it critical that the comer be adequately used, maintained and presented to the City as it will be highly visible. He said this area is intended for people to park there vehicle, get out of their car and stroll. Commissioner Sims agreed with the primary entrance being the focal point at the comer. Mr. Dowd said they are willing to work with staff as far as two entrances, but one entrance at the comer would not be functional, just as one entrance for any other tenant in the center on the other side would not be functional. He said they would like to see the corridor grow to be pedestrian oriented. He said the biggest concern with two points of access is security. The Acting Community Development Director stated that the Commission could get assurances this evening for this Determination of Use as to the specialty use inside, and that it will be maintained and not become the convenience store atmosphere. Commissioner Sims asked if it is proposed that there be one or two accesses. The Acting Community Development Director stated that the project was approved with the two entrances. Commissioner Sims asked if there would be an access point at the front no matter what, to which Mr. Dowd responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Van Gelder felt it would be a lot less hassle for them if they would use the portion of the structure going north and south, and they wouldn't have all of these things in their way causing problems. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said that they had discussed at a workshop session CI 3 MOTION DU-91-01 PCM-91-100 that this kind of use seemed more appropriate at the north end rather than on the comer. Commissioner Sims said that perhaps they shouldn't close it in so much by putting the storage area so close to the entrance, creating a triangular box. Chairman Hawkinson asked if they could continue this Determination of Use pending receipt of a satisfactory layout. The City Attorney said this may be the last time they see this issue before them, and they are making a determination that it is a gourmet deli and spirits shop, and the applicant has described certain of the products he is going to sell, but there is no commitment as to what percentage of his stock will be these products. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they could wait until they see a floor plan that they could agree on before they accept the determination, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice -Chairman suggested moving the restroom and storage facility to the upper right comer. Mr. Dowd said this is the key visibility section of the center, and he didn't feel a restroom would be appropriate there. The Acting Community Development Director suggested, with regard to the percentages, they might establish some percentages and have it put in written form by the applicant. Vice -Chairman Buchanan suggested percentages be indicated and to come back with a second floor plan that reorients the emphasis on the access to the front while still providing everything that is required. Commissioner Van Gelder made a motion to continue DU-91-01 to the June 6, 1991 Planning Commission Meeting and, as per staffs request, the applicant work with staff using the recommendations of the Planning Commission in regard to the floor plan and product mix. Commissioner Munson second. �� 4 MOTION VOTE DU-91-01 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. ITEM #3 SP-91-01, GP-91-01: THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE BARTON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: III, B LAND USE CATEGORIES AND MAP - APN# 275-242-01 IS BEING REMOVED FROM THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, TO THE MDR DISTRICT (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) OF THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE. IV, I SIGNS - CHANGE TO ALLOW SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD GREATER DISCRETION IN APPROVING SIGNS, AND CHANGE MULTI -TENANT CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGNS' COPY LIMITATIONS. Z-91-02: THE CITY OF GRAND TERRACE IS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGING PARCEL APN# 275-242-01 IN THE BARTON ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE R2 ZONE DISTRICT. 0 E-91-02: NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SP-91-01/GP-91-01/Z-91-02 LOCATION: RELATION TO LAND USE CATEGORIES AND MAP - 22313 MC CLARREN RELATION TO SIGN CHANGES - ALL PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG BARTON ROAD BETWEEN THE 215 FREEWAY AND VICTORIA STREET The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. Vice -Chairman Buchanan, referring to Attachment C, Paragraph H, asked if it would be better to say, "Application may be made to the Planning Commission for minor deviations from these requirements". The Acting Community Development Director stated that staff originally was directed to look at this some time ago, and this is exactly what is in the current sign ordinance for the overall City, but was not at that time put into the Barton Road Specific Plan, but if they wish to rephrase it, that is a valid suggestion. 5 Vice -Chairman Buchanan said he would not recommend a change. He said that on the back part of Attachment C, he was uncomfortable with the language, "In certain circumstances, signage may identify center and three to six tenants, which shall be approved be the Planning Director". He suggested that it say, "In appropriate circumstances, signage may identify the center and three to six tenants. Appropriate circumstances shall be as determined by the Planning Director." The City Attorney said there should be a standard, and it could be as vague as, "As long as it is in harmony with neighboring properties". Vice -Chairman Buchanan said he wouldn't be opposed to the deletion of the proposed Table 2, but leave in the addition of Paragraph H, so they have the same guidelines in place but add some flexibility, so that if there is a situation that warrants that, then they can come before the Planning Commission and convince them of that. Commissioner Wright asked, without Paragraph H, if the ordinance was constitutional. The City Attorney said that if the question is, without a section that allows some flexibility is the ordinance constitutional, his answer would be yes, as ordinances are generally upheld if they are definite, and they are subject to being struck down as invalid if they are ambiguous. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION PCM-91-101 SP-91-01, GP-91-01, Z-91-02, E-91-02 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion with respect to SP-91-01, GP-91-01 and E-91-02 that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached as Attachment A with the following modifications to the proposed sign ordinance changes: The deletion of the recommended changes on Table 2 reflected on Attachment C, so that it continues to read as it presently reads and not as proposed, and with the modification of proposed, additional Paragraph H on Attachment C, to read that the Site and Architectural Review Board may approve a sign which does not strictly adhere to the provisions of this chapter, where such sign is compatible with the surrounding development and is in harmony with the general aesthetics and welfare of the area. Commissioner Munson second. 6 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-101 MOTION PCM-91-102 Z-91-02 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-102 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to adopt the resolution included as Attachment B. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. 8:25 P.M. TO 8:35 P.M. - RECESS ITEM #4 V-90-02; CUP-85-09R1 CDS ENGINEERING/BARTON 88 INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES 22325 BARTON ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR AN EXISTING RETIREMENT HOTEL IN A C-2 ZONE; AN APPLICATION TO REVISE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 85-09 FOR EXISTING RETIREMENT HOTEL IN A C-2 ZONE The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Munson asked what would happen if this project was denied tonight. The City Attorney said the applicant has the burden of proving his entitlement to the Conditional Use Permit, and if he fails to satisfy them that he meets the criteria, their denial will deny his use. He said that he can appeal to the City Council or submit a new application at a later date. Commissioner Munson said he would like to force them to cooperate with the City of Grand Terrace, and he said he would like to make a motion to deny it. Commissioner Sims asked what would happen to the use of the site itself and the people if it was denied. The Acting Community Development Director stated this would be the worst scenario, but staff had made earlier communication with the City Attorney's office, and a concrete solution had not been drawn up as yet. Commissioner Sims said the whole concern was emergency access, and he asked if the Fire Marshall has the right to go anywhere he wants if he has to. The Acting Community Development Director said she made contact with the Fire Warden's Office, and Erny Jones, the representative from the Fire Warden's Office, stated that they have that authority, and right now the land is vacant, so they would have that access. She said that this will be a question for the City Attorney once structures are put on that parcel. Commissioner Sims asked if there were other areas of the Conditional Use Permit that haven't been satisfied. The City Engineer said that condition was a requirement for a lot line adjustment; at that time, both of the properties were in the same ownership, and as a condition of approval, they were to follow through with a lot line adjustment which never occurred. He said the parking requirements and drainage patterns and emergency vehicle access required that additional area where the parking lot is, and that was the purpose of requiring the lot line adjustment. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant or a representative, to which there was no response. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawkinson brought this item back to the commission. MOTION PCM-91-103 V-90-02, CUP-85-09R1 Commissioner Munson made a motion to deny V-90-02 and CUP-85-09R1. Vice -Chairman Buchanan second. 8 QCommissioner Van Gelder asked what would happen now. The City Attorney stated that he does not have the zoning code in front of him, but he said that most zoning codes do make it a misdemeanor to operate a use without the proper approval, so possibly the owners could be prosecuted criminally, which would give an additional lever to bring them back before the commission. MOTION VOTE PCM-91-103 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. ITEM #5 TPM-90-03; E-90-09 L.A. WAINSCOTT AND ASSOCIATES, INC./HARBER COMPANIES VACANT LOT ON VAN BUREN (APN# 277-091-63, 277-091-64) G.T. AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE TWO PARCELS IN THE CM ZONE CONSISTING OF 8.7 ACRES INTO 8 LOTS ( The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims asked if was the intention that Commerce Way curb and gutter be installed with the Phase 1 portion. The City Engineer said there is a letter requesting that the improvements on Commerce Way be delayed, and he does not have a problem with that. He said that his problem is that they are now developing Phase 1, and they don't know when Phase 2 may develop, but the need for Commerce Way may be there before Phase 2 develops. He said that if the Planning Commission and City Council considered the request for delay of improvements on Commerce Way favorably, then he recommends that the dedication for Commerce Way be made at this time even if it is by a separate document, so that the right of way is available, and also that an agreement be signed between the City and Harber that, should Commerce Way develop to a point where that is the piece that is linking Van Buren, then at that time that would trigger the requirement of Harber to complete that portion of their improvement no matter where Phase 2 may be. He said he wants to be sure they have some way to have the right-of-way if they need it and that if the improvements are required by necessity, this can be completed. `�' 9 Commissioner Sims asked if they should be concerned about allowing a 01 development with only one way to get in and one way to get out. The City Engineer said the Fire Department has another requirement that the maximum length of any single cul-de-sac is not to exceed 600'. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they were only looking at Phase 1. The City Engineer said normally, when there is a parcel of land, it is generally subdivided and then the phasing could occur. He said that in this case, they are subdividing a portion of the property and leave one parcel as a remainder. He said that the Subdivision Map Act allows for the remainder parcel when it remains in the same ownership. He said from the Engineering standpoint and Map Act standpoint, he cannot say they must subdivide, but he thinks the Planning Staff and Planning Commission would like to see what is going to happen ultimately on the unsubdivided parcel. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what provisions there are to make sure what will happen in that area. The City Engineer said they have seen the original map, and if subdivided as shown, it would meet the Subdivision Map Act requirement, but with respect to whether or not the lot sizes with respect to zoning are conforming, he cannot answer. The Acting Community Development Director said they will see this again as the structures come back to them. The City Attorney said that their discretion tonight is to approve or deny whether or not what is before them is consistent with the General and Specific Plan and whether it is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development and whether or not it is likely to cause substantial environmental damage. He said the remainder will be dealt with at a later time. The Acting Community Development Director said that staff may ask for clarification on the conceptual plan, which shows 6 or 7 phases, and they would want to make sure the map is reflecting the correct quantity of phasing. Commissioner Sims asked about making sure they get the right-of-way for Commerce Way. The City Engineer said it would be easier to dedicate it right on the map if that is what they wanted to do. `' 10 Commissioner Sims said the difference he sees on the tentative map is that they have 8' dedicated and shows the solid lines, but at the Commerce Way area, all you see is a 44' offer of dedication with dash lines. The City Engineer said the applicant's thought is that they will go ahead and offer this on the map even though it is not a part of the subdivision. He felt they should dedicate it by a separate document if they are going to accept it. Vice -Chairman Buchanan was curious about the significance of designating five, numbered parcels, and then designating the sixth as a remainder parcel. He said under the Subdivision Map Act with respect to residential uses, if you have a piece of property and you are going to divide it into four parcels, you can do it by a parcel map instead of a subdivision map, but if you divide it into five or six parcels, then you get into the requirements for a subdivision map. He asked if they were only seeing five numbered parcels because the remainder parcel would kick them into some other requirement realm. The City Engineer responded in the negative. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked at what point in this kind of commercial subdivision would the applicant go from a tentative parcel map to subdivision map situation. The City Engineer said, for example, that in Riverside County, they had just done 26 lots, all 1 acre or larger, and it is a parcel map but industrial. Vice -Chairman Buchanan said, with respect to the applicant's May 15 letter, they have requested the clarification that says, "The fulfillment of construction requirements for improvements to Commerce Way and Van Buren Street shall be completed in accordance with the phase of development as shown on the tentative map". He asked if, by phase of development, they are referring to the conceptual grading plan they are seeing. The City Engineer said he thinks they are asking that the improvements, which are requirement # 1 on his staff report to dedicate and improve Commerce Way, be delayed until such time as the remainder parcel develops further. Vice -Chairman Buchanan questioned the reference to Van Buren Street. He said that his understanding of the City Engineer's recommendation is that Van Buren Street be improved as a condition of the map. The City Engineer agreed. C 11 Vice -Chairman Buchanan said they ask for a qualification regarding the Riverside Highland Water Company letter, although their comment sounds more like a suggestion that they have already satisfied with one of the conditions, and if that is the case, they don't need to change the condition, it is just a matter of compliance. He said that the requirement for Site and Architectural Review Board requests the conditions of approval be clarified to indicate the Site and Architectural Review Board requirements will be completed prior to issuance of building permits and asked if he heard staff correctly in concurring with that request. The Acting Community Development Director said that was correct in dealing with Phase 1. She also added reciprocal agreements between parcels to incorporate into that. Commissioner Sims asked if the remaining parcel would be graded also. The City Engineer recommended that everything be graded, but with the remaining parcel only to have rough grading. Chairman Hawkinson called up the applicant. KEITH DAGASTINO L.A. WAINSCOTT AND ASSOCIATES 21881 BARTON ROAD G.T. Mr. Dagastino said they were in agreement with staff s findings and the proposed conditions. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked for a brief explanation of the rationale for the remainder parcel. Mr. Dagastino said primarily it has to do with Commerce Way and the development plan for the owner to get the cul-de-sac in and get development underway around the cul-de-sac and to have some flexibility later related to Commerce Way. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked what was meant by their letter, which asked that the construction requirements for improvements to Commerce Way and Van Buren Street completed in accordance with the phase of development as shown on the tentative map. Mr. Dagastino stated that they are trying to divide the development into two phases, generally along the remainder parcel lot line, and their intent is to 110, provide the improvements for Phase 1, which would be A Street and Van Buren Street up to the westerly limit of A Street, and delay the improvements for Commerce Way and Van Buren to the time when they propose some type of building or a later action on the remainder parcel. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the City Engineer is comfortable with the notion of a present dedication but a deferral agreement for the construction of the improvements on Commerce Way, but that he wants to see the entire Van Buren Street frontage improved immediately. Mr. Dagastino said they are comfortable going that far as long as they keep some separation from Commerce Way. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawkinson brought this item back to the commission. MOTION PCM-91-104 TTM-90-03, E-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-104 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to amend the proposed conditions of approval, with Condition #1 to read that an overall design program shall be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board before issuance of building permits for any parcel within the parcel map; such program shall include but not be limited to everything that it currently says with the fourth aspect reading parking and access layout and reciprocal access arrangements. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked the Acting Community Development Director for the revised language for #2. The Acting Community Development Director stated this was a change in the sentence structure, and she was looking at the approval of this parcel map as per the proposed subdivision, Phase 1, as illustrated on the map. This does not represent current or future approval of the referenced proposed remainder parcel, Phase 2. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, the remainder parcel will require the filing of a tentative map and an additional, C' 13 overall design program shall be approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board for the development of the remainder parcel. MOTION PCM-91-105 TTM-90-03, E-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-105 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion that Condition #2 be amended to read as indicated by the Acting Community Development Director. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. MOTION PCM-91-106 TTM-90-03, E-90-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-106 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion that Condition #10 be added to state that it is the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Commerce Way dedication be made as a condition of the parcel map as recommended by the City Engineer, but that the City may enter into a deferral agreement with respect to the construction of Commerce Way improvements to such time as the remainder parcel develops or Commerce Way is developed, whichever occurs first, as recommended by the City Engineer. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. MOTION PCM-91-107 TTM-90-03, E-90-09 Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to adopt the resolution attached as Exhibit A as amended tonight, recommending approval of TTM-90-03 and adopting the negative declaration, E-90-09. Commissioner Sims second. 14 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-107 Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 9:30 P.M. ITEM #6 SA-85-09R1; SA-87-08R1 CDS ENGINEERING/BARTON 88 INVESTMENT ASSOCIATES 22325 BARTON ROAD G.T. AN APPLICATION TO REVISE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEWS 85-09 AND 87- 08 FOR AN EXISTING RETIREMENT HOTEL IN A C-2 ZONE The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING/CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawkinson brought this item back to the commission. MOTION PCM-91-108 SA-85-09R1, SA-87-08R1 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-108 Commissioner Munson made a motion to deny SA-85-09R1 and SA-87-08R1. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. 15 ITEM #7 SA-91-09 KENNETH COX 22720 BLUEBIRD LANE G.T. AN APPLICATION FOR SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A DECK AND PATIO FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R1-7.2 DISTRICT The Acting Community Development Director presented the staff report. Commissioner Sims asked if there were any responses from the 300 foot radius mailout. The Acting Community Development Director stated that staff received no response from surrounding property owners. Commissioner Sims asked if there had been any inspection of the deck by the City. The Acting Community Development Director stated that this came about as a code enforcement item, and this is what brought the applicant in to the City. Vice -Chairman Buchanan stated that the implication in the applicant's letter of March 29, 1990 suggesting that by advising the City that remodeling was necessary somehow put the burden on the City to let him know he needed a permit to build a patio cover and deck is inappropriate, and he doesn't put a lot of weight into such a comment. He asked with respect the deck guidelines what the maximum size is. The Acting Community Development Director stated 125 sq. ft. Vice -Chairman Buchanan asked about the setback. The Acting Community Development Director stated it is 15' from rear and side property lines. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if this was built before they prepared the guidelines, to which the Acting Community Development Director responded in the affirmative. Vice -Chairman Buchanan felt the item should be continued so the applicant can come back. Commissioner Van Gelder said someone needs to find out if it was 16 MOTION PCM-91-109 SA-91-09 MOTION VOTE PCM-91-109 constructed appropriately, and they need to figure out how to keep this from happening in the future. The Acting Community Development Director stated that staff can look at sending out a mailer. With regard to continuing this item, she suggested asking for clarification of elevation. Vice -Chairman Buchanan made a motion to continue SA-91-09 to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Munson second. Motion carries. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M. NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD JUNE 6, 1991. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, a4 c ' Maria C. Muett ��eaVm,, awkinson Acting Community Development Director ,n, Planning Commission 06-05-91 0 17