Loading...
11/21/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 21, 1988 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 November 21, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David Sawyer, Community Development Director Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT: Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner John Harper, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information presented by staff to the Commissioners regarding this evening's agenda. Discussion on date for Planning Commission Workshop dealing with the Hillside Overlay. The Planning Commission Meeting for December 19, 1988 will be held. However, the January 2, 1989 Planning Commission will be cancelled. Discussion by the Commission in reference to the De Silva project at the corner of Palm and Barton. Suggestion for some revision on the lighting by the monument sign on Barton, tends to blind oncoming traffic. Commissioner Hilkey presented a synopsis on the 1988 Palm Springs American Planners Association Conference. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. 1 Chairman Hargrave opened the meeting with the public participation for items other than those that were on this evening's agenda. Public Participation - No input from the public. Item #1 P.C. Minutes No minutes submitted for approval at this time. Item #2 v-88-2/California Spirits, Inc. Haden Architects Request for variance on parking code requiring one (1) space per 200 square feet of building, plus one (1) space per each employee on the largest shift. Item #3 SA-88-17/California Spirits, Inc. Stan Curatolo, President Location of project: 22125 Barton Road, G.T. Haden Architects Site and Architectural Review application for a commercial retail center of 8,450 square feet. The Community Development Director presented the staff report on the variance with the conditions of denial. The Community Development Director presented the staff report on the Site and Architectural Review with the conditions of denial based on inadequate parking under the Grand Terrace Municipal Code and this proposed center being a "strip commercial" development, which is of special concern -to the City and that area shall be designated for a special study to determine methods to prevent the "strip commercial" type of development under the General Plan. Chairman Hargrave opened discussion amongst the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Buchanan referred to a plan submitted in the packet dated October 17, 1988 which indicates a loading space. He asked if this was a modification. The Community Development Director explained that was originally on the plan but the dimensions show that the site has the correct dimensions but it is equal with the other spaces so it needs to be worked out as far as the actual dimensions and how it will sit on that corner. Discussion regarding the Riverside Highland Water Company's easement location on this property. 2 The Community Development Director stated that it has not been indicated where it crossed the lot. He did indicate that they received the plans and did not comment that it would be a hinderance. Discussion on the loading access and the location of the door. The Community Development Director explained that it would essentially be the same as the north door. It was not indicated in the plan but the applicant stated that there would be a door back there. Discussion on the current parking code and allowed spaces for the employees and loading spaces. The Community Development Director clarified that there is no strict guideline per the Code regarding how many loading spaces or square footage. Staff normally uses the guideline that one employee is necessary for every 1000 square feet of retail space because of that they come up with 8 employee parking spaces. The other guideline for staff is to look at the type of units that are going in and the design of the area and the type of building. There is a section of the Code that allows the Planning Director flexibility in the parking requirements where he does not have to go before the Planning Commission for a variance in order to vary from the parking requirements. Discussion on the handicapped parking per UBC requirements. The Community Development Director indicated for this size building, one space would be adequate, however staff will check the Code. The handicapped spaces are included in the total number of parking spaces required. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the City Engineer's memo and the requirement for dedication along Michigan. However, along Barton Road there was a requirement for construction of a standard sidewalk. He asked if this property was already fronting at the appropriate location along Barton Road. The Community Development Director responded that the Planning Department did not look into the width or dedication requirement on Barton Road, that was referred to the City Engineer. Since he has not included that on Barton Road but did include that on Michigan it looks as though the right of way is necessary for that but not the development of it. So the improvements would be required but there would not be any dedication necessary whereas on Michigan there would be dedication required. 3 Discussion on the western boundary line at the end of the driveway and if it was drawn at the current Michigan or if it took into account the 44' half street. The Community Development Director stated that it was not indicated. Discussion on whether or not another space was going to be lost. The Community Development Director pointed out that there was flexibility as far as sliding those all the way down to avoid any loss. Discussion on the General Plan and what would be permitted in regards to "strip commercial". The Community Development Director explained that "strip commercial" would be the type of development where every particular lot would develop on its own independently of other lots on each side of it. The effects are wasted space, incomplete architecture (180 degrees) and parking does not work out as well. Commissioner Hilkey clarified that it is not just an architectural problem but the concept as a whole is a problem. Discussion on the General Plan "Implementation Policy" section. Commissioner Hilkey asked if the parking and architectural problems were corrected this project still would not come close to meeting the General Plan requirements. The Community Development Director stated that this project would still not meet the intent of the General Plan. - Discussion on the Terrace Towne Center and the Conditional Use Permit which addressed parking issues back in 1983. Discussion on the Cal Trans recommendation that "consideration must be given to the culminative effect of continued development". The Planning Commission discussed what avenue could be taken to get some plan in place for Barton Road. The Community Development Director explained that the General Plan addresses the issues referred to by Cal Trans; is access being provided, is Barton Road wide enough to handle traffic generated by new sites. Also, the concept of a specific plan for Barton Road is being addressed. Staff is anticipating going to Council for approval to send out proposals for a specific plan on Barton Road. Discussion on the parking variance applied for based on the Municipal Code versus variance per land use. 4 Discussion on Municipal Code interpretations. The Planning Commission has the authority to create variances and the City Council has the authority to change the municipal code. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:30 P.M. 1.Richard Hickey Haden Architects/Stan Curatola Representative Mr. Hickey stated would like to the plead to the mercy of the Commission with respect to the parking variance of excessive parking requirement of 1 to 200 for general retail use. He presented the history of the project which started with building permits pulled in 1982 for a building in excess of 10,500 sq. feet with available parking spaces of 34, and one loading space. At that time the proposed use for the building was for a home improvement center. The applicant was asked at that time to wait on his project due to an incoming large development. After much delay and loss of money the applicant has now decided to go ahead with this new project. Discussion on the present Terrace Towne Center parking conditions. Commissioner Van Gelder asked Mr. Hickey how many tenants were planned for this facility. Mr. Hickey assumed at least two at the present with current discussion involving a third. Currently one is for an expansion of a current business (liquor store), and the other consideration is for Chief Auto Parts. 2. Kent Van Gelder Coordinator Colton Unified School District Mr. Van Gelder explained that the Colton Unified School District has advised the applicant that it will oppose the granting of an ABC license to any vendor in this project. He explained that the community is better served by its own representatives and asks them to act on their behalf. The district requests that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared to addressed CEQA issues and to provide an opportunity for all interested and concerned citizens to address this project. The Community Development Director explained that staff has reviewed this and feels that it is categorically exempt from CEQA. CEQA does require that if there are concerns from the community then that needs to be taken up. The Planning 5 Commission should allow staff to come back and analyze what the CEQA code says and confer with the City Attorney as far as the requirements of EIR. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the CEQA issue was directly related to the parking variance. The Community Development Director explained that would be tied in with the Site and Architectural Review. Discussion on the driveway that exits onto Barton Road and the alignment of the intersection of Barton Road and Vivienda Avenue. Discussion on Vivienda Avenue being the other surface road for the Grand Terrace Elementary School. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:45 P.M. PLANNING DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 7:45 P.M. Discussion on the building permits pulled in 1982 and the expiration of same. Commissioner Buchanan asked the Community Development Director for his input on the representative's comments on the Terrace Towne Center's variance. The Community Development Director explained that he was not with the City at that time. He has not reviewed the findings that were made at that time to produce the variance. He cautioned the Planning Commission not to compare variances since the findings would not be the same for each. The Community Development Director pointed out that there was too much building proposed for this site with our codes as they stand today. If the building size is reduced the necessary parking numbers is reduced also and they can be met. The site and shape is not hurting this development only the size of the building is causing the problem. Discussion of the Terrace Towne Center and this proposed project being in a C-2 Zone. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her concerns with three issues; the strip development, the parking and the location of a liquor store near the grade school. Commissioner Hawkinson expressed his opposition to granting excessive variances. 0 MOTION PCM-88-87 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson made the motion to deny V-88-2 as proposed by staff. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Chairman Hargrave appreciated the applicant's predicament. He does oppose variances. This project is not in line with the General Plan's consideration for this area and unfortunately the applicant falls victim in the political process. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-87 Motion carried. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Munson and Sims absent. The Community Development Director requested the Planning Commission to open the public hearing for a response from the applicant. PUBLIC BEARING CONVENED AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Hickey expressed his appreciation to the Chairman for his comments in respect to the political process and the realities of the matter in respect to the situation of the owner. (He presented a preliminary revision of their project as an alternative). Chairman Hargrave asked the Community Development Director if he has seen the prelimiary revisions. The Community Development Director explained that he was delivered a copy late this afternoon and had not had the chance to analyze it. He summarized the process that has taken place so far regarding this project. There was an action for denial of the variance, and the Site and Architectural Review is remaining. There are a few options available to the Planning Commission. First, to follow staff's recommendations to deny the Site and Architectural Review. Or secondly, the Commission can kill this item and have it brought back to the Commission and go over the alternatives that were presented. Also, this would enable the staff to further research the request from the school board for an EIR (after checking with the City Attorney) at the next meeting. Or thirdly, the Commission can approve the project this evening. VA The Community Development Director explained to the applicant that a decision has been made regarding the variance and there is a 10 day appeal period to the City Council. Chairman Hargrave suggested waiting for the General Plan Revisions before the applicant's project is decided upon. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL CONVENED AT 8:00 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-88 Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to deny SA-88-17, based on the parking and conflict with the General Plan. Chairman Hargrave second. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that he could not support this motion. He was more in favor of a continuance after the Community Development Director has had more time to review the revised plans. The Community Development Director summarized the possible directions indicated by the Planning Commission. One was whether or not the Site and Architectural Review of this project be denied. If that occurs in order for the applicant to come back to the Planning Commission he either has to wait one (1) year to resubmit or he has to make significant changes to the project. The other alternative is that this item can be continued. The Community Development Director clarified that the issue is whether the applicant is being led down the road or not. He feels that after the December 8th, 1988 City Council Meeting, the Planning Commission and staff may have a better idea whether or not the Barton Road Specific Plan would be feasible. It may be worth it to wait for the City Council's Meeting to see if that is an issue that staff and the Commission need to take into consideration or not. Commissioner Hilkey asked if there would be an economic hardship to the applicant if this project was denied or a decision was made to postpone. The Community Development Director stated to the affirmative and the applicant would have to reapply with a significantly changed project. The changed project would still come under the $550 fee whereas if the project is continued there would be no additional fee. MOTION 8 PCM-88-88 WITHDRAWN Commissioner Hilkey withdrew his motion. Second concurred. MOTION PCM-88-88 Commissioner Hilkey made the motion to continue SA-88-17, until the December 19, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Chairman Hargrave and Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Mr. Pippy, the applicant's representative, stated that would be two weeks longer than he would like. He stated that they would be more than flexible, to a certain extent, to make adjustments to the project. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M. Commissioner Hawkinson asked the Community Development Director if he felt there was a chance that the General Plan would be adopted at the December 8, 1988 City Council Meeting. The Community Development Director explained that it would hopefully be around that time approximately. He stated that he did not feel the adoption of the General Plan has alot of bearing on this issue. The existing General Plan has the same guidelines and the same implementation policies as the proposed for this particular parcel. Commissioner Buchanan clarified that the reason the Community Development Director was recommending after the December 8, 1988 City Council Meeting is at that time he would be anticipating the City Council to make some decision on the feasibility of a Barton Road Specific Plan. The Community Development Director responded to the affirmative because staff would be requesting the City Council at the December 8, 1988 Meeting approval to send out requests for proposals on a Barton Road Specific Plan. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the City Council considering whether or not a Barton Road Specific Plan is feasible would make any difference. He could understand if on December 8, 1988 that they would vote on a Specific Plan that would make a big difference but to simply be authorizing the Community Development Director to go out and ask people to submit proposals for creating a Specific Plan he questioned where that would make a difference. 9 The Community Development Director explained that would delay the process because if RFPs were not sent out because the Specific Plan was not feasible then that implies that the current codes are sufficient in carrying out the General Plan implementation policies, then the Commission can act based on that. However, if the City Council says to go out for bids then the issue would be dealt with but what direction would be taken if they go the other direction then they would answer the question. Commissioner Buchanan asked how that would answer the question. The Community Development Director explained that the issue of a Specific Plan is not an issue. He clarified that was what is holding up the Planning Commission. It is seen that this is in conflict of the General Plan guidelines for the development for Barton Road. The General Plan says to designate a plan and have something to implement those policies. The Council then says lets not do a plan or is not ready to do that right now, then they have to deal with the fact that there are people in town who want to go forward with commercial ventures and they are being stalled. The Planning Commission, staff and the Council will have to react to that indepently. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the Site and Architectural Review is denied on this project, would the applicant have the same 10 day appeal period as the variance denial. The Community Development Director stated to the affirmative. Commissioner Buchanan stated that it seemed to him that the Planning Commission is looking towards the City Council for direction. Chairman Hargrave responded that this should be the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hilkey stated that his motion was intended to simply save the applicant the problems of resubmitting. He did not think this project was close to the General Plan or close to being passed by the Planning Commission. MOTION PCM-88-88 VOTE Motion carried. 3-2-2-0. Chairman Hargrave and Commissioner Buchanan voting noe. Commissioners Munson and Sims absent. 10 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson warned the Planning Commission that if this is denied then they are passing their responsibility of the conditions to the City Council. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she realized the problems faced by developers relating to time and finances. She questioned how staff could give any viable aid to the applicants in cases like this and to know what the City does want when the City does not know itself. The Community Development Director explained that he has been working with the applicant on possible alternatives. He pointed out that the revised plan submitted this evening represented action towards those ends; a scaling down. of the building and an increase of parking. Perhaps the code is not being met exactly but it is within that flexibility range where he can present it to the Commission and state that he feels comfortable with the parking issue on this. He has no answer in regards to the General Plan or Specific Plan and can only wait and see for action by the City Council. Chairman Hargrave moved to the next item of the Site and Architectural Review Board. ITEM #4 SA-88-19 ADDITION BETWEEN TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS ROBERT LEE D.D.S. CORPORATION 22575 BARTON ROAD G.T. The Associate Planner, Jeri Ram, presented the staff report with the conditions and recommendations of approval as presented by staff, the City Engineer, and the reviewing agencies. Chairman Hargrave asked if the addition was for the purpose of continuing Dr. Lee's dental practice. The Community Development Director explained it would be for a continuance of the existing use. Chairman Hargrave asked if staff was anticipating any major structural changes for the buildings that were already there. The Community Development Director explained that the changes would be basically for the connection of the two independent buildings with the front decorative block facial treatment that is existing. From the rear it will be noticed where the addition comes in and that is where the landscaping issue needs to be addressed. The addition will create a solid block wall of building and some of the atrium landscaping can be transferred to the parking area. That can be done and still 11 meet the parking requirements. They may lose a couple of space but it is overparked at this point with the proposal. Chairman Hargrave asked what the dotted line indicated on the proposal. The Community Development Director explained that the dotted line was existing parking spaces. He had an idea that some of the landscaping could be extended into those stalls, #1 and #2, and perhaps over into stall #6, coming out away from the building out into the parking in order to soften the effect of the wall building extension. He felt that could be done on a staff level with the Commission's approval. There are no detailed landscaping plans submitted at this time. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the dotted lines on parking areas #1 through #6 indicated a covered parking area. He questioned what the dotted line designated. The Community Development Director responded that the applicant could answer. Commissioner Buchanan asked if stall #11 was handicapped parking. The Community Development Director explained that was an existing handicapped parking stall, but it may need some extension to meet the current handicapped parking code. Commissioner Buchanan asked for elevation drawings on this project. The Community Development Director explained that, in considering the application, staff accepted the alternative of photos of the existing building. The extension will match the existing architecture. Discussion of the entrance to the current and proposed buildings. The majority of the entrances will be from the front. There will be an entrance from the rear. Commissioner Buchanan asked if staff had any concern with the parking being in the rear of the entrance and the front from a safety standpoint. The Community Development Director clarified that the bulk of the traffic will come in from the rear entrance unless the interior is designed to where that is blocked off from access. He said there was sufficient sidewalk along both sides of the building to provide access to the front of the building. He suggested asking the applicant. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. 1. Grover Taylor, Architect Robert Lee, D.D.S. Corporation 22575 Barton Road Grand Terrace, CA. He explained that the dotted line is the outline for the proposed covered parking; the six spaces would be covered. The employees would be coming in through the doors to the parking lot, most of the patients would be coming in around to the front because of the reception area. In response to the question on elevations, he stated that approximately 17' feet would be on the northside, front of the building; would be covered by the spring block which goes up to the roof that is existing. From the parking lot it would only be the middle section and there are no side elevations to it because it is in between the two buildings. They will comply with the request for additional landscaping in the parking lot. He suggested that they put some of the landscaping on the southwest corner, seen from the Barton Road side. Chairman Hargrave asked if they had provided staff with any specifications for their covered parking. Mr. Taylor responded to the negative. He explained that it will be solid roof and masonry columns for support. Chairman Hargrave clarified that it will be an open parking area and a support extension on both ends (east and west). Mr. Taylor explained that there will be four, along the south and north side. They will be divided into three spaces under which two cars could be parked. Discussion on the existing storage and trash unit. The space between the storage area and the proposed east side of the covered parking is approximately a 3' high planter box and is 18" in depth of existing shrubs. Chairman Hargrave asked if the Fire Warden's Office had any specific comments on the overhang parking structure, as far as getting into the building from the southend. The Community Development Director explained that he did not think the Fire Warden's Office had any comments on that. Staff was not aware that was going to be covered parking. Staff interpreted the plans as indication of striping of the area. He did not think covered parking would be a problem. 13 He would suggest, if the Commission allowed, that he add a condition that " staff would recommend approval of the concept of covered parking area not to exceed the area as proposed on the plans, which shall match the existing architecture style of the building and submit for any comments from the Fire Warden's Office". MOTION PCM-88-89 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to add a' third condition, " staff would recommend approval of the concept of covered parking area not to exceed the area as proposed on the plans, which shall match the existing architecture style of the building and submit for any comments from the Fire Warden's Office" as recommended by the Community Development Director. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-89 Motion carried, all ayes. Sims absent. MOTION PCM-88-90 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Munson and Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-88-19, subject to the three conditions recommended by staff, with additional comments from the Fire Warden's Office on the proposed plans. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. MOTION VOTE PCM-88-89 Motion carried, all ayes. 5-0-2-0. Commissioners Munson and Sims absent. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:30 P.M. 14 Barbara Pfennighausen Councilmember City of Grand Terrace Councilmember Pfennighausen provided information to the Planning Commission regarding Phase II of the Barton Road Improvement Project. The project is now being extended to the west of Mt. Vernon Avenue. She expressed her concern with the first project on the agenda, SA-88-17 California Spirits, that the improvement project would be taking place with the widening of Barton Road to its ultimate 100 feet. At the same time curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street lighting are going to be installed. Through cooperation with the overhead utility companies the City has managed to underground utilities from Canal to the other side of Michigan. All of those power poles will be removed on both sides. She stated that a multitude of projects will be coming in, if not on the south side possibly on the north side. The City making some concentrated effort to beautify the area in a master plan, it would be advisable to ask all applicants if they have met with the City to see if their frontage plans are meeting with the plans that the City has for beautification. The Community Development Director explained that one of the items discussed if the Site and Architectural Review had been addressed this evening (SA-88-17 California Spirits) would have been the landscaping in the front would fit in with the beautification improvements along Barton Road. The improvements referred to by Councilmember Pfennighausen do not include a detailed plan for the landscaping improvements along Barton Road. From a staff's point of view going through an RPF proposal process in order to get a plan adopted that does show the detailed landscaping. The overall process of widening and undergrounding is going forward. Chairman Hargrave asked if there was a mechanism for the Commission to advise Council that they take under advisement the widening of Michigan to its desired width or improvement, rather than waiting for applicants to come in and widen in certain spots only. If that is part of the General Plan then it seems to him that it is this body's and the Council's to see that the General Plan is implemented. Perhaps the Planning Commission can suggest to Council to consider some mechanism to start the improvement of Michigan so it does get to its ultimate width quicker, rather than with individual property owners coming in. The Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission could adopt a resolution that would encourage the City to step forward and take some action on its own. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson referred to previous history of the 15 City Council and the Planning Department. He stated that the economics as suggested has prohibited this from taking place because the developer will pickup the cost of his portion of development. Those parcels not being developed are going to be borne by the City. Discussion on the mechanisms available to the Planning Commission for recommendations to the City Council regarding certain areas of concentration of the General Plan for Planning Commission decision making process which could aid the Commission, staff and the applicants. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Planning Commission could pursue a beautification theme for Barton Road and make recommendation to the City Council. This has been asked before but no recommendations had been developed by this body. She was concerned with the landscaping but more concern with the building structures along Barton Road. She was not in favor of the hodge podge accumulation of mini malls. The Community Development Director explained those concerns can be addressed by a consultant for the Specific Plan, if approved by Council. If not approved by Council then the options would be to look at specific design guidelines. Chairman Hargrave reminded the Planning Commission of the December 12, 1988 Workshop regarding the Hillside Overlay Zoning. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, c S� om:en ,:--- David R. Sawyer, Community Development D rector Approved By, 16 P.C. Mtg. 11/21/88 17 Stanley Harg We, Chairman = Planning Co ission