Loading...
12/05/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 51 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 December 5, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David Sawyer, Community Development Director Jeri Ram, Associate Planner Maria Muett, Planning Secretary ABSENT:: Herman Hilkey, Commissioner John Harper, City Attorney Joe Kicak, City Attorney Pledge of Allegiance: Chairman Stanley Hargrave WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information/presented by staff to Commissioners Information/Discussion by Commissioners WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Chairman Hargrave opened the Planning Commission Meeting with the first item. Item #1 CUP-88-15 Fernanda Douglas/Second Family Unit 11821 Kingston Street Grand Terrace, CA. 92324 The Associate Planner presented the staff report 1 with the recommendations and conditions of approval by staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. The Community Development Director added one condition #3 approved by staff. Condition #3 - "shall include that an agreement between the property owner and the City stating that CUP-88-15 is approved subject to the condition that the subject second family unit shall not be used for rental property anytime in the future." Discussion on whether the condition remains the same if the property is sold. The Community Development Director referred to the application as a second family unit. He mentioned the existing 1980 State Legislature Act, which states that a City must have an ordinance which provides for a single family owner to provide a second family unit, "granny flat", on their property in an R-1 area. The City of Grand Terrace does have that ordinance and there are certain findings which have to be made per that ordinance in order to make that acceptable. The City can put a condition that it only be used by family members and not be used for rental purposes. The issue is to prevent any usage of it for rental and that is why it would have to be recorded at the County Recorder's Office so that when the property is sold that agreement goes with it. Discussion on where the one parking place would be located. The Community Development Director pointed to the plans and the proposed parking space next to the garage area. Discussion on the existing room and the contents of the addition of the second family unit. The Community Development Director pointed out that the entryway into the second family unit would be from the north. Any entryway into the existing room as it stands now would be removed and it would be replaced by a closet. Discussion on the minor variance for the sideyard setback reducing it from the required 10' to 81. Commissioner Buchanan asked if it was considered in knowing it was going to be the access route and the entry faces the narrow area. He asked if staff was 2 satisfied knowing it was going to be the entryway into the second unit. The Community Development Director explained that it met with staff's approval. Discussion on any potential interferrence of view or visibility of the second family unit to the surrounding neighbors. The Community Development Director explained that the unit would not be visible from the street. The City code does not require additions to second family units currently to come before Site and Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Buchanan asked, since this is the last time the Planning Commission would be addressing this project, should they be looking at additional conditions such as roofing materials matching. The Community Development Director explained that one of the requirements of the second family unit is that the architecture matches the existing. Additional conditions are not required but it could be maintained on a staff level. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:25 P.M. 1. Andy Brummer 11785 Kingston G.T. Mr. Brummer expressed his opposition to the second family unit in the R-1 zone. He presented a petition signed by residents in the area who were also opposed to the project. He expressed his fear that it would be used as a rental similar to one existing on the block already. 2. Mrs. Fernanda Douglas 11821 Kingston Avenue G.T. Mrs. Douglas referred to the entryways for the second family units. She explained that on the south side there was a double sliding door which �J opens into the room. She understood and accepted the additional condition #3. The purpose of her second family unit is for her 92 year old mother. She understood that the second family unit must match the existing structure. 3. Ray Munson 11809 Kingston G.T. Mr. Munson expressed his approval of the additional condition #3. He asked what would occur if Mrs. Douglas moved into the addition and rented her house, would the same condition apply. The Community Development Director explained that the intent would be that the second family unit would be used for a family member of those that are residing in the main residence. The concern that needs to be put into the agreement is that she does not move into the back house and rent out the front house to a non -family member and that could be included in the agreement. Discussion on the standard size for a parking space in the City of Grand Terrace. Her proposed parking space of 8' wide would be an acceptable deviation from the parking code requirement. The Community Development Director explained that a variance would not be required on the parking space because he has the ability to have the flexibility in the parking code. Mr. Munson asked what the minimum lot according to code. The Community Development Director explained that it was 100' in depth and the minimum rear yard setback in that area is 151. Mr. Munson questioned this stating he understood the code to read 1501. The Community Development Director stated staff would check on this but he did not feel it would make a difference on this application. He explained that the only time a lot depth requirement came into play was when a lot was being created. This project C has a legal lot now and meets the setback requirements. Mr. Munson referred to Section 18.54.060 of the City of Grand Terrace Municipal Code. Discussion on the Municipal Code and its effect on this current project. The Community Development Director stated that it now becomes an issue for the City Attorney whether or not legally that comes into play with an existing unit on a existing lot or not. Mr. Munson expressed his concern that this project does not follow the rigid specifications of the city ordinance and does cause hardships to the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Buchanan proposed that this item be continued until the City Attorney could give his advice on the issues. He asked the Community Development Director if the state law gives the City authority to restrict occupancy to blood relatives. The Community Development Director explained that it did not specifically. He stated that there must be proof that it is a detriment to the entire neighborhood according to the Code. He suggested at this point this item should be continued in order to allow the City Attorney to deal with the issue of the 150' lot size. 4. Nancy Lynn 11798 Kingston Street G.T. Mrs. Lynn expressed her opposition to the project. She stated that the petition represented the neighborhood from Kingston Street between Eton and Arliss. She provided to the Planning Commission a status of those that signed the petition and those that were not available or did not sign. She reiterated the statements of Mr. Brummer and Mr. Munson. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 7:50 P.M. Chairman Hargrave asked Mrs. Douglas how many 5 MOTION PCM-88-91 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-91 bedrooms she had in her current residence and number of people in the home. Mrs. Douglas stated that her daughter, her husband and two grandchildren live there. One daughter is away at college and does not reside in the home full time. Discussion on the issue of renting the second family unit whether it was an issue of monies being exchanged or living of blood relatives there. The Community Development Director referred to the state law that states, "...if the unit is for the sole occupancy of one adult or two adult persons who are 60 years of age or over and the area of the dwelling space does not exceed 640 sq. feet." Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to continue this item until the City Attorney address the issues. Commissioner Buchanan second. 5-0-1-1. Motion carried. Commissioner Munson abstained and Commissioner Hilkey absent. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 7:55 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:55 P.M. Item #7 SA-88-18 Muhtaseb/Single Family Residence 22780 Vista Grande G.T. The Associate Planner presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions of approval presented by staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. 6 Commissioner Buchanan questioned if this item or any other item on the agenda was in the Kangaroo Rat Zone. The Community Development Director explained that there were not. Commissioner Van Gelder asked when the Planning Commission could expect a soils composition report for this project. The Community Development Director pointed out that was one condition the City Engineer had on the project. It would be required before building permits could be issued and met staff's approval. Discussion on the abstaining policy for Planning Commissioners. Discussion on drainage for this project dependent on the upcoming soils report. The Planning Commission expressed their concern with drainage from south to north direction then that would cause erosion on the slopes. The Planning Commission felt the erosion and potential excavation for such a large project would cause a safety problem. Chairman Hargrave stated that he did not feel fencing on the east side was necessary due to a natural barrier already existing. The Community Development Director explained that the fencing should go around the perimeter of the property. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 8:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:05 P.M. No comments from the public. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:05 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 8:07 P.M. Chairman Hargrave opened the discussion. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how much space there would be on the side and rear yards before the fencing started. 7 MOTION PCM-88-92 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-92 The Community Development Director pointed out the perimeter lines including the lower areas for fencing. Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to approve SA-88-18 subject to the conditions listed. Commissioners Ray Munson and Jerry Hawkinson second. Commissioner Sims expressed his concern that the soils report should be seen before voting. The Community Development Director explained that the City Engineer requests the soils report after the project is presented to the Planning Commission. He pointed out that the Planning Commission can request that the soils report be submitted before the approval of the project. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what relationship there was between this project and the proposed hillside overlay zone. The Community Development Director explained that this project would be in the area of concern but would not be effected by it. As far as the development potential it would stay the same. He pointed out that the area has already been graded. 5-1-1-0. Motion carried. Commissioner Sims voting nay and Commissioner Hilkey absent. Item #8 SA-88-20 Shimel/Single Family Dwelling 22226 Van Buren Avenue G.T. The Associate Planner presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions of approval 8 from staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. Chairman Hargrave opened discussion for the Planning Commission. Discussion on the material board and concrete roofing materials. Discussion on the fencing recommendation from staff of stakewood fencing similar to the surrounding areas. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:20 P.M. 1. Gary Robinson Stonewood Construction 22145 De Berry Avenue G.T. Mr. Robinson presented their project. He asked the procedures on submitting the landscaping and irrigation plans. The Community Development Director explained the condition regarding planting and submittal of the irrigation plans. It would allow staff to work with the applicant on the materials, sizing of the materials, the spacing of the materials. Discussion on the automatic sprinkling systems per the City standard. Mr. Robinson mentioned if there would be any problem with changing to the gray slate look with red tile. The Community Development Director referred to the condition that staff would have to approve the color selection if it differs from what is being presented this evening. Discussion on the Fire Warden's recommendation of building a 1500 gallon GPMs. Currently there is one under construction in the lot next door. The applicant asked if the recommendation had been fulfilled by either the water district or someone else. 9 The Community Development Director directed the applicant to contact the Riverside Highland Water Company to obtain a will serve letter. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 8:30 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-93 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-93 Chairman Hargrave opened the discussion for a motion. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson made the motion to approve SA-88-20 with the inclusion of the five conditions as recommended by the Planning Department. Commissioner Van Gelder second. 6-0-1-0. Motion carried. Commissioner .Hilkey absent. BREAK AT 8:30 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECONVENED 8:40 P.M. Chairman Hargrave opened the discussion with item # 6. Item #6 SA-88-15 SA/Industrial Center Robert Wessels (Owner) 21516 Main Street G.T. Item #3 CUP-88-13 Central City Recycling Center 21516 Main Street G.T. 10 Item #4 CUP-88-14 Domtar Gypsum Products 21516 Main Street G.T. Item #5 CUP-88-17 American Modular Structures, Inc. 21516 Main Street G.T. The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions of approval by staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. He explained the history on the property and future plans by the applicant. He explained that they should first look at the Site and Architectural Review on the site itself and then three individual Conditional Use Permits for the Site and Architectural features. The conditions and recommendations are similar for all three CUPS. He also explained that earlier a Negative Declaration report was to have been prepared. However after further study determined that a categorical exemption was acceptable under the Class I Subsection E CEQA. Chairman Hargrave opened the discussion on the Site and Architectural Review. Discussion on the Fire Warden's recommendation for signs to be installed that would be seen from the street. The process would be to meet the requirements of the sign ordinance and approved by staff. Commissioner Sims asked what type of independent landscaped treatment would be applicable for Domtar Gypsum. The Community Development Director explained the entry treatment needed similar to Golden Aluminum's project (SA-88-10). The only difference being a public right of way with residential property across the way. Discussion on the property owner (Domtar Gypsum) who has an easement capability with the railroad to 11 allow access from this property. Commissioner Sims asked if the Community Development Director was proposing a landscaped area on the railroad side of the Domtar Gypsum side. The Community Development Director stated that was not necessary however work needs to be done with the fencing. Discussion on entry treatment along with oleander style integrated with fencing to help the visibility issues. The Community Development Director mentioned that the wall along with some of the requirements from the City Engineer have been things that the City in the past has worked out in deferrment agreements. Discussion on the uses of the three applicants and traffic circulation from company trucks and private vehicles. The Community Development Director cautioned the Planning Commission to look closely at the applicant/Central City Recycling to insure plenty of visual blockage between their operation and the public street. He referred to their San Bernardino Operation. Commissioner Buchanan asked the Community Development Director to clarify if he saw problems with the circulation pattern and entrance at the eastend of Central City Recycling. The Community Development Director stated that he would prefer to see all of the entrances on the west end of the property away from the easements. He stated that if the owner of the property could show that they have a legal easement which has been recorded, per the request of the City Attorney, then the Planning Commission could grant access across this. Discussion on the alignment of the fencing which needs to be changed and concerns over the parking area. These issues could be addressed on a staff level. Discussion on traffic circulation and access to the three different sites. 12 The Community Development Director explained that the Central City Recycling does not need access to the spur only Domtar Gypsum. Domtar Gypsum indicated that they have access by the railroad. The City Attorney mentioned that he needs to see a legal document that has been recorded and indicates that it is an actual easement. This would be necessary before the permits are issued. Discussion on business hours and proposed condition to address evening hours of operation for pickups by Central City Recycling. Commissioner Sims asked how the entrance area for the general public would be policed to prevent delivery trucks from access. The Community Development Director explained that the entrance would be gated off after normal business hours and the truck traffic would be redirected. Chairman Hargrave inquired if there was verification from the title holder that the 30 foot private road on the westside of the property was a valid easement. The Community Development Director explained that was not an easement but private property. Discussion on the Fire Warden's Letter initial letter dated November 23, 1988 with the fire hydrant requirement. Commissioner Buchanan referred to the subsequent letter dated November 30, 1988 indicated a revision, "... 50 ft. unobstructed opening gated access to fire hydrant delete original #1, " and asked for clarification. The Community Development Director explained that there were existing fences which had been put in for the purpose of subdividing. The orginal intent was to have gates which would have fire access. The fire department originally rejected that and did not want obstructions. Since that time the applicant met with the Fire Warden's Office and as a compromise the Fire Warden's Office indicated that the fences could remain however that singular fire hydrant must have 50' gates and access in all directions for all property lines. Commissioner Buchanan asked if the larger access would not require most of the proposed parking. L 13 The Community Development Director explained that it would not. Discussion on the grading and drainage on the property. The City Engineer indicated that if there is any grading he would need to see the grading plans and one of his areas of concerns is to make sure the drainage pattern would not be disrupted. Discussion on the blacktop areas of the project. One of the proposed conditions is that the area be resurfaced and that the striping be brought up to standard. Discussion regarding the standard sidewalk condition as proposed. In response to Chairman Hargrave's question it would be similar to the one on Main Avenue. Discussion on the discrepancies on the plans regarding the fence lines and gate entryways. The Community Development Director directed the Planning Commission to refer to SA-88-15 for accuracy in the dimensions. Chairman Hargrave asked the Community Development Director for direction in proceeding further either into the public hearing or addressing each CUP's conditions for the benefit of the Site and Architectural Review. CUP-88-13 Central City Recycling CUP-88-14 Domtar Gypsum Products CUP-88-17 American Modular Structures The Community Development Director presented the CUP conditions, including the additional request to prove legal railroad access by Domtar Gypsum. Commissioner Sims referred to the modular structure for SA-88-15 and if it would be the same structure as indicated in the renderings. The Community Development Director suggested asking the applicant since they had not indicated the 14 elevations of that structure. Discussion on the existing buildings on the property and need for improvements. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 9:30 P.M. 1. Adam Ornelas 16 Highland Avenue Riverside, CA. Mr. Ornelas is a property owner across the street on Main Avenue. He expressed his concern with the Central City Recycling Center and the maintenance problem. He referred to problems with the Santa Ana winds blowing the papers around and the need to secure the materials. He stated that years earlier the Riverside County had taken an official noise level registration and confirmed that the previous recycling center had surpassed the legal noise level. He also pointed out another problem from earlier projects, that of parking on the southside on Main Avenue. He stated that he is not opposed to the project but would like more environmental and health control on the recycling center. The Community Development Director explained that was the reason for the condition. The public business would be required to cease at 6:00 p.m. and the applicant could have their pickups or deliveries until 10:00 p.m no later similar to the noise ordinance. 2. Frank Garza 44 Highland Avenue Riverside, CA. Mr. Garza stated that he was a neighbor, two doors down, by Mr. Ornelas. He agreed with Mr. Ornelas but did want to add a concern about the height requirement of the wall to prevent debris and newspapers from littering his property and causing a fire hazard. He suggested that all of the materials should be under enclosures or roofs. He referred to the applicant's proposal to use slag in the area that did not have asphalt. He cautioned the Commission to be aware that slag, after much is use, causes a health hazard. He had worked with the material for 19 years at the Kaiser Steel Plant in Fontana. Chairman Hargrave explained that the proposed wall would be 6' feet. Discussion on the easements and the canal that run through the property. The Community Development Director explained that staff did not receive any comments from the Gage Canal and the Health Services Department on the proposed project. However, staff will make contact the Health Services Department regarding the newly addressed issues. 3. Robert Wessels 3890 Swenson Avenue Las Vegas, NV.89119 Mr. Wessels has been the property owner since 1974. He stated that the original modular business was his and all of the buildings that were put up, with the exception of two, were permitted under the County of San Bernardino. He mentioned that the curb and gutter were permitted under the County of San Bernardino. He stated that there were three driveways to the property; one of which he gave to Golden Aluminum Recycling. One is close to the office that does have a gate for ingress and egress. The third site cuts back on the curb and is adjacent to his property going to the railroad property. Mr. Wessels expressed his concern with the conditions and the costs of the proposed. He referred to building permits pulled from one of his tenants back in 1986. At that time the City required him to place a special fire hydrant and required the oleanders and the rearrangement of the fencing. In regards to the Fire Warden's Office requirement of the 50' gate he felt it needs to be addressed. He asked for a waiver on the requirement of a 6' block wall along the front of the property due to the high costs. He described the existing intermittent fence with barb wire that reaches 7' in height. He questioned the need for putting the interior landscaping within the property itself at the entrance. He asked for a waiver on the resurfacing requirement due to the reduction of 16 employees by the new tenants thus less parking needed. In reference to the easement along the railroad track, there exists a team spur which will be used by Domtar Gypsum. There is property outside the fence which belongs to them and could be used for an egress. Mr. Wessels mentioned that the structures 'on the property are coated with a 20 year baked enamel. He stated that the office buildings were repainted approximately two years ago. He presented a description of the site and architectural features of the existing structures. Discussion on the eastend of the property and the legal right of access across the railroad property. Mr. Wessels stated that originally when he built the property he deeded to the railroad a reciprocal use situation. It was never recorded. Chairman Hargrave requested the three CUPs to address the Commission. 4. Central City Recycling Ron Glass (Manager) James Fagelson (District Manager) Bob Rios (Local Manager) (Owners -Garden State Paper) 21516 Main Street G.T. Mr. Glass presented Garden State Paper's recycling procedures in areas of operation across the United States. He stated he wanted to describe their background to ease some of the earlier concerns expressed by the residents surrounding the project. Discussion on the number of pickups and deliveries of recycling materials. Mr. Fagelson explained that their own trucks that come from the mill would average about 4-5. They will be parked inside the facility. Discussion of the recycling procedures for the newspapers, aluminum cans and the shipping out of the processed materials. Commissioner Van Gelder asked what would happen to the leftover materials at the end of the work day. 17 Mr. Fagelson explained that newspapers would be stored inside the warehouse in large containers ready for shipping. Discussion of what types of recyclable materials (high grades of glass, plastic containers) they will be handling at their plant. Discussion on their business opening at 7:30 a.m. for their company trucks and public use at 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Sims reiterated Commissioner Van Gelder's concern with any loose materials at the site. Mr. Fagelson explained that there would be loose paper leftover everyday but they do have a cleanup policy to take care of debris. Discussion on the noise level at the site. Mr. Fagelson explained that the loudest piece of equipment would be the can flatteners which is run only during the day. Discussion on the number of employees which averages at 8. Discussion on the public traffic which will average 10% of the recyclables. Commissioner Munson referred to the fence along Main Street which had been modified to allow for parking. Mr. Glass mentioned that there would be a truck turnaround from the northside. Also, they would store their containers away from visible view from the street. Chairman Hargrave asked if the legal access issue through the railroad property on the eastside cannot be determined did the applicant see a problem with public traffic entering on the westside entrance. Mr. Fagelson mentioned that they would prefer to see it on the eastside because they wish to place their scale on the office side. They wanted to keep the northwest area free of customer traffic because that would be their area of operation. Another reason is that the westend is much narrower and difficult to negotiate the turns. 18 Discussion on similar recycling plants in other areas and other cities enclosure requirements, i.e., chain link, block walls. Discussion by the Planning Commission stating they would prefer to see a block wall treatment for aesthetics and debris control. Discussion on the hours public 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 sometimes need to operate company trucks to unload. of operations, for the p.m. The facility would until 10:00 p.m. for the Chairman Hargrave pointed out that the City does have a noise ordinance until 10:00 p.m. and if their facility was in operation after that time they would be in violation. 6. Frank Garza 44 Highland Avenue Riverside, CA. Mr. Garza expressed his concern with the time factor. His property is next to a commercial area, Riverside County, and the businesses operate past a 10:00 p.m. deadline. He felt an earlier time restriction should be placed on this project. Item #5 1. Bruce Bushore (President) American Modular Structures 21516 Main Street G.T. BREAK AT 10:40 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD RECONVENED AT 10:50 P.M. Mr. Bushore presented his project and described the manufacturing process for the sheet rock at American Modular Structures. He mentioned that the nosiest piece of equipment would be an air compressor. Their employee parking will be inside near their facility. 19 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if the existing fencing inside the site were to come down so that they could share the parking, would that present a problem. Mr. Bushore explained that it would present a problem for the employees at all three sites. Discussion on the Fire Warden's recommendation for the fencing and gates. Discussion on the proposed modular building to match existing structure on the site. Discussion on the manufacturing and shipping process of the product. They do not maintain a large inventory. They will use the northern entrance to bring the framework onto the manufacturing site. There will be a small amount of sales tax. Item #4 Alan Ziegler Domtar Gypsum Products 21516 Main Avenue G.T. Mr. Ziegler expressed his confusion with the conditional use process and requested the Planning Commission to ask the questions. Discussion on the facility to be used for storage of materials from their mill by rail. They will move approximately 10 40' trucks a day and will operate with three employees. Their hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Chairman Hargrave asked when the noise ordinance went into effect in the morning. The Community Development Director stated it starts at 7:00 a.m. in the morning. Mr. Ziegler stated they can adjust their hours to start at 7 : 00 a.m. in accordance with the ordinance. Discussion on the lease for access across the railroad easement. Mr. Ziegler was informed that the City Attorney requested a legal document. The Community Development Director suggested modifying the condition to state that the City 20 Attorney is satisfied with the legality of the railroad easement access. This would not answer the problem however for the Central City Recycling Center. Mr. Ziegler referred to a letter on file giving the Central City Recycling access off their lease. The Community Development Director stated that would be submitted to the City Attorney and if it meets his approval then the CDD would be satisfied. Discussion on the traffic circulation and customer traffic. The customer traffic would be corporate. Since this is a distribution site this will not generate sales tax. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M. Commissioner Buchanan mentioned that the is supportive of a condition requiring the 6' block wall. In regards to the condition requiring the striping and resurfacing he would be inclined to modify that condition #9, that it be surfaced and striped in accordance with approved parking locations and access ways to satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director mentioned that they would have to go back to the Environmental Health Services in regards to the slag issue. Therefore he suggested a revision of condition #9. Discussion on the resurfacing and quality of the existing and proposed materials to be used. Chairman Hargrave made the suggestion that they add the wording in condition #9 that the striping and surfacing be maintained. The Community Development Director explained that condition #4 already referred to landscaping and improvements being maintained. Commissioner Buchanan asked about amending condition #11 to establish legal access of the railroad property. The Community Development Director suggested that a condition #11 could be added to read..."the documents providing evidence of legal access across 21 MOTION PCM-88-94 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-94 the railroad property shall be approved by the City Attorney." Commissioner Sims made the motion to approve SA-88- 15, including conditions as revised. Condition #9 changed to read that the surface material at the site shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Services Department for comments and the entire site shall be surfaced and striped in accordance with the approved parking locations, fireways and accessways deemed necessary by the Planning Department. A condition #11 shall be added to read, "...the documents providing evidence of legal access across the railroad property shall be submitted to approved by the City Attorney". Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Chairman Hargrave asked Mr. Wessels if he had any questions regarding the Site and Architectural Review. Mr. Wessels asked for clarification of condition #6. The Community Development Director explained that the applicant would have the same comments regarding the engineer's requirement of dedication of 44' half street and installation of standard sidewalks and ornamental street lights are all tied together with the wall improvement. He stated that the Planning Commission could make a motion that would allow staff to take those items to Council in an deferral agreement. Discussion on the feasibility of the Planning Commission wanting to defer those items. The Community Development Director mentioned that if the deferral is not taken to the City Council then the applicant can appeal within a ten day period. 22 Chairman Hargrave informed the applicant of the appealing process. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 11:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 11:10 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-95 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-95 MOTION PCM-88-96 AMEND MOTION PCM-88-96 Chairman Hargrave made the motion, CUP-88-13, to modify condition #4 to change the activity within the facility from 10:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve CUP-88-13 based on the findings and conditions as set forth in the planning department's report and modified. The Community Development Director suggested adding two conditions. Condition #5 to read the storage of paper products shall be within the warehouse structure and condition #6 that all parking shall be restricted on site. Commissioner Buchanan amended his motion to adopt two additional conditions. Condition #5 to read the storage of paper products shall be within the warehouse structure or in a fully closed container and condition #6 that all parking shall be restricted on site. Commissioner Sims second. Discussion on the enforcement of employee and public 23 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-96 MOTION PCM-88-97 MOTION PCM-88-97 VOTE MOTION PCM-88-98 MOTION PCM-88-98 VOTE parking on site. Commissioner Buchanan suggested that condition #5 should also be amended to read "or a fully closed container". The second concurrred. Refer to motion. Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Discussion on the business hours of operation. The Planning Commission concurrred that defined hours of operation needed to be amended. Commissioner Sims made the motion to amend the condition that the hours of business operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson made to the motion to accept CUP-88-14 subject to the inclusion of the recommendations by the Planning Department. Also that the hours of business operation from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Chairman Hargrave second. 24 MOTION PCM-88-99 MOTION PCM-88-99 VOTE Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that they adopt the findings of the planning staff with respect to CUP-88-17 and approve CUP-88-17 with conditions of approval as set forth by the staff and additional 4th condition of the business hours of operation Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Motion carried. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hilkey absent. Discussion on the Special Workshop dealing with the Hillside Overlay Zone tentative scheduled for December 12, 1988 at 6:00 p.m. The Planning Commissioners requested backup material prior to the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:28 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, _T� David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director P.C. MTG. 12/5/88 25 Approved by, V&1'� 4.v4z,4'1� St n ey Harg ave, Chairman Planning Co ission