02/20/1992GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 20, 1992
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
209 1992 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Dan Buchanan.
PRESENT: Dan Buchanan, Chairman
Stanley Hargrave, Vice -Chairman
Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Jim Sims, Commissioner
Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner
Ron Wright, Commissioner
Patrizia Materassi, Planning Director
Maria C. Muett, Associate Planner
Maggie Alford, Planning Secretary
ABSENT: None.
PLEDGE: Jim Sims, Commissioner
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:39 P.M.
The Planning Director said she received a request from the Inland Empire
Design Institute (IEDI) for a survey of planning commissioners and council
members. She said the survey tells IEDI what types of issues the
commissioners and council members are dealing with. She said they are
proposing to give a workshop, and if the Planning Commission would be
interested, they could respond to the survey and request IEDI come and talk
about one of the items that is most important. She said that HCD is
requiring the City to build more affordable housing, and when they revise the
General Plan, they will be requested to balance jobs and housing. She
questioned how the City could provide more housing, rezone properties and
provide a balance of jobs and housing when they already have much more
housing than jobs. She felt it would be good if IEDI could discuss this issue.
She said other issues are alternatives for economic development in terms of
recruiting new businesses, which are not really planning or land use issues but
issues that the Planning Department needs to deal with. She said that
another issue is code enforcement of signs. She said the institute is just
starting, but they have good intentions and are not charging for the service.
She said they would try to fit the City's schedule with regard to the workshop.
She said they are a non-profit corporation licensed by the State and are trying
to get Federal status as well. She stated that they are funded by national
grants and agencies or developers, i.e. Lewis Homes. She said they
presentation would be about 45 minutes long.
Chairman Buchanan suggested scheduling a workshop session to start at 6:00
p.m. rather than 6:30 p.m.
The Planning Director clarified an issue from the last meeting. She said that
there were two conditions of approval brought in by the City Engineer after
the application was considered complete, and originally, she recommended the
Planning Commission approve them only if the applicant accepted them. She
said that she failed to see that these were code requirements. She said, in
case the conditions were not code requirements, the rule would be applicable,
however, the City Attorney interpreted this differently, and they need to
follow his recommendations. She directed the Commission to two sheets in
front of them, Sections 65943 and 65944 from the State Government Code.
She read Section 65944, which states, "After a public agency accepts an
application as complete, the agency shall not subsequently request of an
applicant any new or additional information which was not specified in the list
prepared pursuant to Section 65940". She stated that this section is a section
that requires them to have an application form that lists everything that is
required for a submittal. "The agency may, in the course of processing the
application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise
supplement information required for the application." She said that this is
saying that, once the application is complete, staff can not require the
applicant to submit any more new information. She said the City Attorney
interprets the words "new information" literally, and she did not at the last
meeting. She said the City Attorney feels, therefore, that the Planning
Commission and City Council have the right to set any conditions, otherwise
the public hearing doesn't make any sense.
Chairman Buchanan said that the purpose of these sections is to prevent, at
staff level, a developer from being postponed on the issue of completeness of
the application by ongoing requests for new items.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave said the legal seminars he has attended do give
Planning Commissions the authority according to court cases and precedents
that have been set, not according to interpretations.
2
The Planning Director said on larger projects, they may have problems, as
large developers know the power of the public hearings, but they also know
the project has gone through a very long review process, and by the time the
public hearing comes, they have submitted almost everything.
Chairman Buchanan said, according to Dan Curtin at a League of California
Cities meeting, one of the strongest things Planning Commissioners have is
the right by law to set conditions based upon facts and circumstances, but they
do not have the right to set conditions based upon whims.
The Planning Director said she follows all of Dan Curtin's guidelines and
manuals, and apparently she understood it differently. She stated a lot of
agencies use as an exception if more items are needed to meet CEQA
requirements.
The Planning Director said the other item is regarding the two additional
items to be reviewed at staff level. She said that she and the Associate
Planner did some research, and when they left off at the last meeting, she had
proposed that all the structures with 80% or more of the square footage of
the main residence, as well as room additions, be approved at staff level, and
the commission had agreed at 50%. She said that the yellow sheets before
them show staff had 10 cases approved last year, and if they keep the
percentage at 80%, the Planning Commission will only approve 3 out of 10;
if they keep the percentage at 65%, they will approve about 6 out of 10. She
felt they should keep it at 65-70% so staff could approve about 50% of the
cases. She said the Associate Planner reviewed the cases, and in the past,
most of the proposals were for smaller room additions. She said that the last
two projects submitted are both 80%, so most of the recent ones are much
larger than before, so they may get a larger percentage above 80%. She gave
an example of a citizen who came regarding a room addition, but he didn't
have the proper setbacks. She said the citizen didn't really listen and
prepared all of his plans to be routed. Staff sent him an incompleteness
letter, which stated that he needed to change his garage from 24' to 23', and
he became very upset, stating that staff should have talked to him earlier.
She said he submitted his application on January 21, the incompleteness letter
was sent on February 3, and he came in February 19 and finally agreed he
needed to revise his plans. She said he wanted to know the deadline for the
next meeting, which was March 4, so he would be on the April 2 meeting.
His escrow and loan were to be due on April 1, so he stated he wouldn't be
able to get the money if he had to wait for the public hearing. She said he
was proposing a 700 sq. ft. room and a 576 sq. ft. garage, and if they count
just his room, he is at 73% of his existing residence, so under her original
proposal, she could still review this case. She said that he is covering 37% of
the lot, and even though she doesn't like to add the garage, in this particular
3
case, the garage is very bulky. She said he is attaching a two -car garage to a
one -car garage. She said that, in this case, she would like to bring it to the
Commission no matter what.
Chairman Buchanan said that one of the thresholds they talked about was the
square footage of the addition, which was 1,000 sq. ft.
The Planning Director stated they would be reviewing 7 of 10 if the level was
65%.
Chairman Buchanan postponed the workshop discussion.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:03 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:03 P.M.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: None.
ITEM #1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 1992
MOTION
PCM-92-15
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 1992
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-92-15
Commissioner Sims made a motion to approve the February 6, 1992 minutes.
Commissioner Munson second.
Motion carries. 7-0-0-0.
4
ITEM #2
Z-92-01
HOOD COMMUNICATIONS
21496 MAIN STREET
G.T.
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 OF THE GRAND TERRACE MUNICIPAL CODE (THE
CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE). ZONING AMENDMENT TO ALLOW
MANUFACTURED/MODULAR UNITS TO BE INSTALLED ON A PERMANENT BASIS
TO HOUSE OFFICE ACTIVITIES IN THE CITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS (M2 AND
MR).
The Associate Planner presented the staff report.
Chairman Buchanan said that Attachment A, the ordinance, on the top of the
second page, refers to the February 6 Planning Commission Meeting.
The Associate Planner said this would be corrected.
Chairman Buchanan was concerned about the language in a portion of
Attachment A, the revised code sections, specifically Section 18.66.030 -
Permitted Locations. He felt it should say that it is a permitted use as a
single family dwelling unit in the R1-7.2 District and permitted with
Conditional Use Permit as business and office use in MR and M2 District.
The Planning Director agreed.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked what the legislative history is of this type of
ordinance in other cities.
The Planning Director said they are being somewhat of a vanguard. She said
in the past, there were not many applications for modular units, and now
there are more people pressing for this, so a lot of cities are dealing with
developing ordinances for this right now.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the Conditional Use Permit process gives
staff enough teeth into this ordinance to require that the business usage of
manufactured housing stay in compliance.
The Planning Director felt that it would, as projects will come to the Planning
Commission and they would have all the standard conditions that make the
modular structure aesthetically pleasing, and they have the Conditional Use
Permit that has a time period that can be set for review and reevaluation.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if there was a review process because of the
manufactured housing situation to make sure that it is in compliance with the
5
Conditional Use Permit as far as notification and the time period the property
owner would have of bringing the housing unit back into compliance based
upon the Conditional Use Permit.
The Planning Director said this is not in the code right now. She said the
Conditional Use Permits have a time to expire, and staff would send the
applicant a note at the time it is expiring.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he was brought up on the east coast where
manufactured housing is much more prevalent than the west coast. He said
that once manufactured housing was there, there was very little compliance
with keeping it up to where it was aesthetically pleasing.
The Planning Director said she had thought about setting some basic
standards, but the enforceability of the standards would be the same as
enforceability of the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman Buchanan said it boils down to a Conditional Use Permit
revocation process.
The Planning Director agreed. She stated that manufactured houses are
required per State Law in all the districts, so our code does not meet State
Law right now.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave said, if he came in for Conditional Use Permit for
manufactured housing which would expire in five years, and the State came
in with new health and safety regulations for manufactured housing, would
this ordinance grandfather this applicant from upgrading to the new safety
regulations, or would they have to come into compliance.
The Planning Director said, if the Conditional Use Permit expires, they would
have to come back to the Planning Commission.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked the Planning Director to assume the permit
has not expired.
The Planning Director said they would not have to come into compliance.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if the City has a safety and welfare ordinance
they could use.
The Planning Director said they do, and this would come under code
enforcement.
I
Commissioner Sims was concerned that someone could have a series of
buildings on one site.
The Planning Director said they are restricted to office uses, so in the
manufacturing districts, they can only be used for the headquarters of the
plans. She said they can not restrict this for housing as it is State Law.
Commissioner Sims said he is concerned that portable structures would
become permanent structures, and they may end up with rows of these
structures.
The Planning Director said they could include a standard in the ordinance
stating that this is for office uses. She said they could also add that the
Planning Commission has the right to deliberate on the amount of modular
units on a particular site, on a case -by -case basis.
Chairman Buchanan said the Commission would be watching for these things
anyway, through Conditional Use Permit process and Site and Architectural
Review. He said it makes him nervous when they start specifying the amount
of discretion they have where they have virtually unlimited discretion so long
as it is supported by evidence. He said that when they start defining the
scope of that discretion, they almost start narrowing rather than expanding the
discretion they would have. He stated they can accept or reject a proposal at
the hearing process. He said that, if the Planning Commission deems it
appropriate on a Site and Architectural basis and a Conditional Use Permit
basis, he would think this would give them appropriate control.
The Planning Director stated that Taylor Lumber has a permanent modular
structure, and it looks almost like a permanent structure. She said Hood
Communications has improved their modular structure significantly almost to
the point that it doesn't look much like a modular structure. She said the
Urgent Care Center on Barton Road is a modular structure, but you wouldn't
know this unless you were told. She felt they have significant power with the
Conditional Use Permit process and Site and Architectural Review. She said
that every time a modular structure is proposed, they could require that they
are secondary or subordinate to the main use.
Commissioner Sims felt there needs to be some restrictive language put forth.
The Planning Director said manufacturing uses can not be in modular
structures, and the U.B.C. and fire department would restrict them in several
areas, so they probably wouldn't have cases where the whole complex is
modular structures.
0
7
Vice -Chairman Hargrave said planning becomes important 10-15 years after
a decision is made. He said the Planning Commission and Site and
Architectural Review Board needs to be on their toes. He said that with
regard to revocation hearings, he has yet to see one in the seven years he has
served on the Commission. He said the Planning Department needs to keep
track of the Conditional Use Permits and review them to see if they should
come up to revocation hearings.
The Planning Director requested that the Commissioner's speak into the
microphone, as the secretary is having difficulty hearing the voices on the
tape.
Commissioner Hawkinson said he felt very comfortable with the Site and
Architectural process. He asked what the mechanics are in the City for a
Conditional Use Permit that is to expire on a given date.
The Planning Director said staff needs to keep track send the applicant a
letter.
Commissioner Hawkinson felt it was a mistake to create a Conditional Use
Permit that expires on a given date.
The Planning Director said that most Conditional Use Permits approved by
the Planning Commission didn't have an expiration date, and if no date was
set, they will not expire.
Commissioner Hawkinson didn't feel comfortable that there is a safety net
that rings a bell or blows a whistle that a Conditional Use Permit will expire.
He was concerned that there are Conditional Use Permits out there that may
have expired that no one is aware of.
The Planning Director said the only one she is aware of that has an expiration
date is the race track, as the City would like to keep checking on them.
Chairman Buchanan said they put an expiration date on Terbest's public
assembly room.
Commissioner Hawkinson said that 5-10 years from now, not everyone will
remember this. He said that the savings and loan at Barton and Mt. Vernon
is a modular structure, and that his been there longer than he has been in
Grand Terrace.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it is stated how many modular units are
allowed on so many square feet of land, to which the Planning Director
N.
responded in the negative.
Chairman Buchanan said it falls back on the Commission to make sure this
does not happen, as they have the discretion of saying they find that it is
detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and aesthetics of the
neighborhood to permit someone to add another modular unit, and if the
applicant wants additional office space, they can require the applicant to
design a permanent structure. He asked if the Planning Director was
comfortable making this recommendation.
The Planning Director said it would be difficult, but if they have a section in
the ordinance which states that the modular units need to be subordinate in
size and proportion.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave asked if they could have a standard condition that
any further additions are subject to a new public hearing or Site and
Architectural process.
The Planning Director said this is already required the way it is proposed.
Commissioner Sims said if there should be a plan for expansion, which would
help the Commission feel more comfortable.
Commissioner Van Gelder said these are modular units, which are very far
removed from portable, and she is sure there is no intent to ever take the
structure down and put up a more "permanent" structure.
The Planning Director asked how the Commission would feel about adding
a section to the ordinance that limits the number of units on a site, or gives
the Site and Architectural Review Board the power to do this.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave said that anything to help clarify the ordinance from
an enforcement standpoint would make staff and the Commission's jobs
easier.
Chairman Buchanan stated that sometimes, in trying to clarify authority, you
end up limiting your authority. He said there is a legal maximum, and what
it basically means is, that what is not expressly mentioned is impliedly
excluded, and when you try to make a comprehensive standard of
development, you are impliedly saying that these are all they have. He said
he would be cautious about adding language to this that would have the effect
of misleading applicants into saying, as long as they can comply with this,
including these specified standards, then they should have no problem. He
said he didn't think they want to create an entire code section on modular
E
unit site development standards. He felt maybe this should be an addition to
18.66, and stated they should either cover this issue thoroughly or leave them
as much latitude as they can have.
Commissioner Sims asked what would happen if they ended up with a mixture
of this type of environment, for example, a modular structure on one property
and a tilt -up on the next property.
The Planning Director said under Section 18.66.120, Site and Architectural
Review, which states, "All manufactured housing shall be subject to Site and
Architectural Review in accordance with Chapter 18.63". She suggested
creating another section for development standards and to give the Planning
Commission the right to deliberate on the number of units. She said that
Chapter 18.63 gives all to powers of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Buchanan said that 18.63 gives the Site and Architectural Review
Board the authority to consider the bulk of the proposal as well as its
compatibility with surrounding development.
The Planning Director said the section of the Zoning Code entitled "Scope"
states, "Where Site and Architectural Review is required, the Site and
Architectural Review Board shall consider the following issues: the proposed
site plan for the property shall be reviewed taking into consideration the
following - placement of structures and improvement, vehicular ingress/egress,
internal circulation, pedestrian and vehicular safety, landscaping, pedestrian
amenities, lighting, location of all service facilities, walls and fences, police
and fire protection, relationship to adjoining property structures, relationship
of existing or planned adjoining property within the general area, consistency
with this title and the General Plan; the proposed architecture of all structures
shall be reviewed taking into consideration the following - architectural style
and building design, proposed building materials and colors, height of
structures, design and location of all signs, size and bulk of the structures in
relation to existing and/or planned structures on the site, consistency with this
title and General Plan. She suggested increasing the scope by adding one
more item, that the Planning Commission can also deliberate on the number
of modular units.
Chairman Buchanan suggested that Section 18.66.120 read, "All manufactured
housing shall be subject to Site and Architectural Review in accordance with
Chapter 18.63, in non-residential districts or in MR and M2 Districts,
manufactured units are not encouraged and will be subject to strict review
based on compatibility with surrounding architectural styles and the
subordinate nature of the manufactured unit to other permitted uses on the
site".
10
The Planning Director felt this makes the whole ordinance very weak, as they
are trying to amend the code to allow them, so if they say "not encouraged",
maybe they should deny it. She said that they could word it in a way that they
allow them but that they are restricted in the number of units.
Chairman Buchanan said they could leave out "not encouraged", but could just
say that manufactured housing in the MR and M2 Districts will be strictly
reviewed for compatibility and appropriate, permanent appearance and
features.
The Planning Director suggested compatibility with other permanent
buildings.
Chairman Buchanan stated, in some cases, they will have situations where
they will have a modular unit for an office where there are no other structures
on the property, i.e. lumber yard or truck storage. He didn't want to limit the
manufactured housing to compatibility with structures on the site, but rather
compatibility with permanent permitted uses on the site.
Commissioner Van Gelder suggested including uses on surrounding sites.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave said on Attachment B, the M2 Zone, which is the
Southern California Edison parcel, doesn't have anything around it other than
an R3 Zone on the southwest side and freeway to the east.
The Planning Director suggested adding that modular units would be strictly
reviewed for compatibility with other permanent uses on the site and
surrounding areas and restrictive in number of units.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he doesn't like the word "restrictive", and felt
"limited" is a more workable concept.
Chairman Buchanan said they have all of this power anyway, and what they
are trying to do is come up with a concept that actually appears in black and
white in the code to give staff a better foothold for working at the counter
level.
The Planning Director suggested adding that modular units would be strictly
reviewed for compatibility with other permanent uses on the site and
surrounding areas and must be subordinate to those other uses.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave suggested "shall be" rather than "must be"
subordinate.
11
The Planning Director agreed.
Commissioner Van Gelder said that when they do the Housing Element they
will have to address modular units because of State Law. She asked if this
would affect what they are doing tonight.
The Planning Director said it would not. She said there is a specific section
on manufactured housing, which will need to be revised. She said they didn't
notice, so they can't act on it now. She stated that this is Section 18.66.030,
Permitted Locations, which states, "Manufactured housing is a permitted use
as a single family dwelling unit in the R1-7.2 District". She stated that they
need to include in this section "all residential districts of this city", as this is
what State Law requires. She said R1 is almost 80% of their residential
districts, but they still have R2 and R3, and they should include it in those,
too.
Chairman Buchanan asked if the noticing for tonight's item was broad enough
to include an amendment to 18.66 as well.
The Planning Director said they didn't notice anything related to the other
districts and sent notices only to the MR and M2 areas.
Chairman Buchanan said when he called this item, he only called Z-92-01.
He called E-92-02, the environmental review, at the same time as the same
staff report covered this item.
7:59 P.M. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Buchanan called up the applicant.
BRUCE CASH
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
HOOD COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
21496 MAIN STREET
G.T.
Mr. Cash said they recognize that the issue before them tonight is much
broader and carries with it a great deal of consideration beyond the scope of
Hood Communications and the permanent status they are seeking for their
office facility. He passed around photographs, stating that he hoped they
would give them a bird's -eye -view of the caliber of facility they have installed
under the current Conditional Use Permit, and how that facility has enhanced
the entire area they inhabit, with the Southern California Edison facility
adjacent to them on one side and the 215 freeway landlocking them on the
12
other side. He said Hood Communications has been in the community exactly
one year, and according to the City Manager, they are now the largest
employer in the City, and they fully intend to be here for a long period of
time. He said when he came before the Commission back in November of
1991, they tried to forecast a vision for the growth for the company and the
importance of retaining their corporate office and facility in Grand Terrace.
He said they believe they are still moving in that direction, and the
completion of this modular office structure has equipped them with the
necessary corporate office facility in order to do this. He said they intend,
within a two-year period, to construct a permanent office facility on their site,
and the only reason they have not gone through this painstaking process today
is because of finances and the current economic conditions. He said the
Commission's action in November was greatly appreciated, as it enable them
to do what they need to do, and they are following through with every aspect
of the conditions placed upon them, and he thinks, as the photographs
demonstrate, that they have certainly put together one of the finest
aesthetically pleasing facilities in that entire area of the City.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if he foresees the company wanting to add
other modular units to the facility.
Mr. Cash responded in the negative. He said that one year age, they took a
landlocked piece of property and found themselves after purchasing this site
not in compliance with the City and regional board, and they have spent the
last twelve months diligently walking the halls and doing what they need to
do to come into compliance. He said what they have on the site today is in
fact in compliance with the direction of this legislative body, the fire agency
and every other agency including the Department of Housing and other
regulatory agencies that dictate their type of business. He said it was never
their intention to build a modular office structure, but they always intended
to utilize the existing office trailers that were there, until such time that they
could afford to build a permanent building. He said that after finding out
that they were grossly out of compliance, they felt that some medium ground
needed to be adhered to, and this is how they came up with what they felt was
a financially reasonable exception to trying to build a permanent structure and
still be in compliance with the City standards. He said they have no intention
of expanding their modular offices or any other facility on that site that would
be of a temporary nature. He said their next step would be to build a
conventional, permanent office structure.
8:05 P.M. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Buchanan brought this item back to the Commission.
13
Vice -Chairman Hargrave stated he was ready to make a motion to approve
this item.
Chairman Buchanan stated that they first need make the individual items to
clean up the items.
MOTION
PCM-92-16
Z-92-01, E-92-01
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-92-16
Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion to correct the hearing date in the
ordinance to February 20. Commissioner Munson second.
Motion carries. 7-0-0-0.
MOTION
PCM-92-17
Z-92-01, E-92-01
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-92-17
Chairman Buchanan made a motion to amend Section 18.66.030 to insert,
"manufactured housing as a permitted use as a single family dwelling unit in
the R1-7.2 District, and permitted with Conditional Use Permit as a business
office unit in the MR and M2 District". Vice -Chairman Hargrave second.
Motion carries. 7-0-0-0.
MOTION
PCM-92-18
Z-92-01, E-92-01
Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion to amend 18.66.120 to include, "all
manufactured housing shall be subject to Site and Architectural Review in
accordance with Chapter 18.63, and MR and M2 modular units will be strictly
reviewed for compatibility with other permanent uses on the site and
surrounding areas and shall be subordinate to the other uses". Commissioner
Sims second.
14
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-92-18
Motion carries. 7-0-0-0.
MOTION
PCM-92-19
Z-92-019 E-92-01
MOTION
VOTE
PCM-92-19
Vice -Chairman Hargrave made a motion to approve Z-92-01 and E-92-01 with
conditions as noted in previous votes. Commissioner Hawkinson second.
Motion carries. 7-0-0-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP RECONVENED AT 8:10 P.M.
Chairman Buchanan stated they left off talking about staff level review. He
said the Planning Director initially proposed staff level review of all room
additions unless they exceeded 1,000 sq. ft. or involved more than 80%
enlargement of the existing structure or involved lot coverage exceeding 30%.
The Planning Director said now she is proposing to go from 80% to 65%,
keep the 1,000 sq. ft., and lower the 30% coverage to 25%, and this would
give staff about 50% of the cases if the sample is representative.
Chairman Buchanan said, if the current trend for larger additions continues,
then they will still be seeing the bulk of them. He said they wanted to make
sure the significant ones got reviewed by this body. He said he was
comfortable with this. He asked for a consensus from the Commission
regarding staff preparing a code amendment to incorporate the increased staff
level review of these types of projects.
ALL COMMISSIONERS ACCEPTED THE PROPOSAL.
Commissioner Wright said the building at the comer of Palm and Barton
15
came before them when the use change, and there was considerable debate
about landscaping. He asked where they stand on this.
The Associate Planner said she is dealing with this situation with the City
Attorney, and evidently, they brought it in under Site and Architectural
Review, but evidently, there were some administrative dealings prior to this
when they had the applicant submit landscaping bonds. She said there is
some question as to an agreement that went with those bonds and whether or
not they could call those bonds in to get these improvements done. She said
technically, under Site and Architectural, the applicant still has one year of
time for the building aspect. She said he has gone through the building
permit process, but has not continued with the permit processing for
landscaping.
Commissioner Wright asked if there was any tie-in to require landscaping to
his building permits.
The Associate Planner said he has pulled the building permits, but before
long, they will be expiring as there hasn't been any inspection to keep the
permit active. She said he has not submitted for landscaping yet, as this is a
separate permit. She said there were some landscaping bonds through an
agreement between the applicant and the City Manager. She said they are
trying to see if they can get this bond to start the process rolling or perhaps
attach it to the building improvement site as well, but she is waiting for the
City Attorney's interpretation.
Commissioner Wright brought up the advertising of alcohol in the windows
of Gourmet Deli & Spirits, and said he didn't know if this was the kind of
image the City wants to portray.
Commissioner Van Gelder said she was told that the reason all the Bud Light
signs appear in the windows is because Bud Light pays these people to put the
signs in their windows. She asked if the business decided on a name.
The Planning Director said they have chosen Village Foods, and once they get
the spirits, it will be Village Foods and Liquor.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked why he didn't use "Deli".
The Planning Director said he didn't want to use 'Deli" as people want to
have a place to sit.
Commissioner Van Gelder said there are two-hour parking signs on Mt.
Vernon across from the Advocate School. She asked who she should call
16
when someone parks there all day. She said someone parked there today
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The Planning Director said every Tuesday at staff meetings, she brings
complaints upstairs to the Sheriff's Department representative, so maybe she
can take this one, too.
Commissioner Wright said he would think the City has adopted a time -
limiting ordinance, and the contract law enforcement agency is the Sheriff's
Department. He said, realistically, he isn't sure they would want to come out
and shock tires. He said in the City of Riverside, they have their own parking
service people who write parking tickets, and perhaps some City employee
could be designated to go out and write parking tickets.
The Planning Director said she will take it to the City Manager for a decision.
She asked if the Commission has noticed that the parking for Towne &
Country Center is shaping up.
Vice -Chairman Hargrave said he had noticed.
Commissioner Van Gelder said she hasn't noticed, as they drove in the other
night and it was abominable.
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M.
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON MARCH 5, 1992.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrizia Materassi
Planning Director
03-11-92:ma
17
Approved by,
Dan Buchanan
Chairman, Planning Commission