Loading...
01/16/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 1989 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 January 16, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, 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: Jerry Hawkinson, Vice Chairman PLEDGE: Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information presented to the Commissioners relating to the Housing Element Update. Discussion by Commissioner Munson and the Community Development Director on the definition of "granny flat" per State Code and City Municipal Code in relation to project CUP-88-15 (Douglas). PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Public Participation - Mr. Barney Karger asked about the advertisement process for announcing the Public Hearings of the Planning Commission Meetings. The Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission Meetings and Public Hearings are advertised in the legal section of the Sun and the Foothill Journal. Also, staff will attempt to have same 1 published in the Chamber of Commerce Newsletter. Item #1 Planning Commission Minutes September 19, 1988 MOTION PCM-89-1 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-1 MOTION PCM-89-2 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-2 Commissioner Munson made the motion to approve September 19, 1988 minutes. Commissioner Van Gelder second. Motion carried, all ayes. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. Commissioners Buchanan, Hilkey and Sims abstain. 3-0-1- 3. Commissioner Buchanan referred to page #2 of the December 5, 1988 minutes. He asked that staff make the correction of "rental space" in condition #3 to "second family unit". Commissioner Sims corrected page 8, the motion vote, he voted nay. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve the December 5, 1988 minutes, as amended. Commissioner Sims second. Motion carried. Commissioner Hilkey abstained and Commissioner Hawkinson absent. 5-0-1-1. ITEM #2 CONTINUATION CUP-88-15 GRANNY FLAT FERNANDA DOUGLAS 11821 KINGSTON AVENUE GRAND TERRACE E Commissioner Munson was excused from this item. The Community Development Director presented the staff report stating that this item was continued from the December 5, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. An issue came up regarding the lot depths which are required in the second family unit portion of the Municipal Code. The Community Development Director stated that the City Attorney indicated the lot depth requirement was a requirement which is for the creation of lots or the lot splitting of lots. If the lot was going to be split then the second family units requirement would come into effect for the lot which had the second family unit on it. It does not come into effect if it is an existing legal lot of record. Staff made these recommendations for this staff report and still agrees with those and the City Attorney states that the lot depth, and minimum lot size requirements are not grounds to deny the second family unit. Commissioner Sims referred to the December 5, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting and the additional three conditions on this project. One of the conditions dealt with an agreement indicating that the second family unit would be for family members. The Community Development Director explained that the condition would be that an agreement would be signed by the applicant stating that the second family unit would not be used as a rental unit. He clarified that legally the agreement could not be so restrictive as for blood relative only. However he received direction from the City Attorney that the agreement could state that it not be a rental unit. Commissioner Sims asked how this could be enforced. The Community Development Director explained the normal code enforcement process in the City. The reason for any investigation would be if the violation was a detriment to the City. The other way of enforcement would be to hold a revokation hearing for the Conditional Use Permit. Discussion of the State Law regarding second family units. Discussion on the uses allowed by a Conditional Use Permit. The Community Development Director explained that the state law is in favor of the applicant wanting to put that type of use on his or her property. In order for the Planning Commission to deny that they have to put the findings in the negative that are required. It has to be established that this particular use is a detriment to the public health and safety of that neighborhood. The Community Development Director explained that the minimum criteria, per state code, for this single family unit had been met. The only exception was the minor deviation which was granted for the side yard setback and that was granted on a safety issue for the occupants and it could be built without the variance, it would be a little less safe for the applicants. PIIBLIC COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 7:23 P.M. PIIBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:23 P.M. Ray Munson 11809 Kingston Avenue Grand Terrace, CA. Mr. Munson stated that this city was formed because the residents wanted to govern themselves. In order to accomplish this various governing bodies were formed. At that time, the City did not want to encourage Granny Units so they placed strict regulations. He differed with the Community Development Director on the interpretation of the City Code. He read the Municipal Code Section 18.54, single family units in an R-1 Zone. He stated that there was nothing in this section that had to do with lot splits. He referred to the approval criteria 18.54(a), "...the second family unit will not be detrimental to the general health, safety, morals or general welfare of the persons residing within the neighborhood of the proposed use". He referred to the petition, with 15 signatures, that had been presented at the December 5, 1988 Planning Commission against this project. Mr. Munson referred to the Loma Linda City Governing Policy; if there is any question regarding any variance then the law as stated would govern. He questioned the parking variance and felt the Grand Terrace Law as printed should govern. He stated that the surrounding neighbors felt this second family unit would not be used as a granny unit, but felt it was intended to be used as additional income. 4 Discussion on the General Plan Title 18. Commissioner Sims asked Mr. Munson for his interpretation of detrimental effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Munson explained that there has been one prior addition to this house. He stated that if this project is allowed then his view out the kitchen window will be solid wall all the way down the property line. His second concern was the possibility of this second unit being used as rental property. His third concern was that he felt this project would prohibit fire department access. His fourth concern would be the lack of visibility caused by the extension of a fence down their property line. Paul Douglas/John Douglas Attorney At Law 400 S. Hope Street Los Angeles, CA. Paul and John Douglas were speaking in behalf of Mrs. Douglas, their mother. Paul Douglas responded to Mr. Munson's concern regarding the extension of a property fence through permitting process. Mr. Douglas responded to the second concern regarding fire truck access. He stated that the plans have been approved by the Planning Department and the Fire Warden's Office. In response to the third concern, the parking of vehicles, he indicated that being a granny unit it would not be rented out to numerous people the unit is for one individual. The fourth concern that of this unit being rented out for income was ludicrous. This unit is being buit for their 93 year old grandmother. He did not feel Mr. Munson had addressed the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood. Mr. Douglas summarized that his mother's project has met the legal and moral requirements. Presentation of five (5) letters from neighbors in favor of the project and one (1) requesting their name removed from the opposition petition which was presented at the December 5th, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. Discussion by Paul and John Douglas of the State Code, statutes Section 1981, C.87887, "The Legislature finds and declares that; steps must be taken to encourage the creation of more residential units for those persons over the age of 60... ". 5 Nancy Lynn 11798 Kingston Street Grand Terrace, CA. Mrs. Lynn clarified the process taken in obtaining and submitting the petition to the December 5, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. She went to every home between Arliss and Kingston Streets; there are 17 homes. She indicated that of those 11 were polled (the others were away), 2 are rentals. Commissioner Sims asked what she felt was detrimental to the neighborhood by addition of the granny flat. Mrs. Lynn mentioned that she has lived in the area for 22 years. There presently are rentals in their neighborhood and numerous vehicles are on the properties. There have been problems from previous renters. They bought in an R-1 Zoned area and wish it would be maintained as a permanent family atmosphere. Discussion of parking problems evolved from rental properties. Mrs. Lynn mentioned this can be a detriment to the neighborhood. Steve Kiacz 11809 Holly Avenue G.T. Mr. Kiacz supported Mr. Munson's opposition to the project. He expressed concern that this would set a precedence in the neighborhood. He wished to maintain a high quality of life in Grand Terrace. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AT 7:50 P.M. Discussion of the Title 18, Grand Terrace Zoning Code of the Municipal Code. It is based on the State Planning Law. Commissioner Hilkey asked why the lot dimensions were different than the normal lot sizes. The Community Development Director explained that probably when the ordinance was adopted Council wanted to make provisions for the additional unit being on there so they increased the requirements. Council at that time also increased the requirement for the lot coverage. That is the basis why staff has recommended that this 6 project go forward. The increase of lot size requirement thus increased the depth requirements and then increased the lot coverage to 70% from 60% for a normal lot. The lot coverage with this application with the granny unit was only 41% and falls well within the lot coverage requirements. Discussion on the previous building permits for the earlier room addition. PUBLIC HEARING RECONVENED AT 7:53 P.M. Chairman Hargrave asked Paul Douglas what information he could provide to the Planning Commission about the previous room addition. Mr. Douglas responded that the addition was built in 1969 or 1970 under a building permit. Commissioner Hilkey clarified that this earlier project was actually a 325 sq. ft. kitchen/restroom added to a room. The Community Development Director clarified that the existing room was being combined with the proposed granny flat. Commissioner Hilkey then stated that the size of the existing room was 14x13. Mr. Douglas stated that was correct and they are adding the kitchen and bathroom unit to that and enlarging it slightly. Then that will make up the entire granny flat. Discussion of the square footage of the entire new residence being created which would be 534 sq. ft. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:55 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION AT 7:55 P.M. Commissioner Hilkey explained that this is a difficult project to make a decision. No one intends to deny the use for the grandmother. He stated that two points need to be addressed: the poor view from Mr. Munson's lot and address the concern of the future use. Commissioner Buchanan expressed two points; the City cannot prevent rental use in residential areas and there has not been enough substantiated to prove that the 7 MOTION PCM-89-3 granny unit would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. Discussion on the possibility of a recorded agreement between the City and the applicant. Commissioner Buchanan encouraged the opponents of this project to pursue the decision by the City Attorney if they feel it has been misinterpreted. The Community Development Director explained that part of the interpretation is a matter of consistency. Discussion on legal lot of record and setback requirements under the Municipal Code in R-1, R-2 and R- 3. Discussion of condition #3, "second family unit shall not be used for rental property at anytime in the future." Commissioner Buchanan asked for strict revision of this condition. The Community Development Director suggested that the condition read, "the applicant shall sign an agreement to be recorded at the County Recorder's Office which states that said second family unit can only be occupied in accordance with Sections 65852.1 and 2 of the California State Planning Law. Any violation of this agreement shall result in the revokation of the Conditional Use Permit per local municipal code requirements." Commissioner Buchanan asked if that meant that there was no family relationship required. The Community Development Director read the California State Planning Law Sections 65852.1 and 2. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion that a condition #3 be added to the recommended conditions requiring a recorded agreement between the applicant and the City of Grand Terrace requiring compliance with the code sections as specified, that the applicant shall sign an agreement to be recorded at the County Recorder's Office which states that said second family unit can only be occupied in accordance with Sections 65852.1 and 2 of the California State Planning Law. Any violation of this agreement shall result in the revokation of the 8 AMEND MOTION PCM-89-3 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-3 MOTION PCM-89-4 Conditional Use Permit per local municipal code requirements. Chairman Hargrave second. Chairman Hargrave asked the Community Development Director if this condition would follow the new owner if the residence is sold or would the CUP expire at the sale of the residence. Discussion of the normal Conditional Use Permit processing which requires a renewal when a new use in the area is involved. However, this project would be different since the use would not change. Referral to the State Planning Law dealing with the 7 statutes of the law dealing with the granny flats. Section 65852.1 (Government Code) was adopted; historical note, "...the legislature finds and declares that steps must taken to encourage the creation of more residential units for persons over the age of 60.points listed regarding granny flats." Commissioner Buchanan approved Chairman Hargrave's additional provision in condition #3 that the agreement only be applicable to the current owner and does not transfer with the property, (Conditional Use Review required for the new use) with the proviso that the City Attorney approve this condition. Motion carries, all ayes. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. Commissioner Munson abstain. 5-0-1-1. Discussion of the requirement of 25% of the local code and the state code requirement of 15% of the main residence to be used for the second family unit. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve CUP-88-15 with the additional approved conditions. Commissioner E MOTION VOTE PCM-89-4 Buchanan second. Discussion regarding the legal possibility of the applicant, in later years, moving into the second family unit and renting out the main home. Commissioner Hilkey referred to the three revised conditions. He asked if the City Attorney did not approve the previous condition regarding the agreement then would that mean the elimination of the condition. Commissioner Buchanan explained that the additional provision regarding the addition of condition #3, meant that the third condition would be amended by the City Attorney deleting the sentences that constitute the restriction on transfer. Motion carries. Commissioner Hawkinson absent and Commissioner Munson abstain. 5-0-1-1. The Community Development Director explained the ten day appeal process on the decision which the applicant or anyone concerned may appeal to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:15 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 8:15 P.M. Item #3 SA-88-17 California Spirits Inc. (Haden Architects) APN #277-121-50) MOTION PCM-89-5 MOTION VOTE Chairman Hargrave made the motion to continue SA-88-17, California Spirits Inc., for 45 days per staff's recommendation. Commissioner Hilkey second. 10 PCM-89-5 Motion carries. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. 6-0-1- 0. Item #4 SA-88-21 Larry Neese 22864 Arliss Drive Single Family House The Associate Planner, Jeri Ram, presented the staff report with the recommendations and conditions of approval from staff, the Reviewing Agencies and the City Engineer. Discussion on any requirements, if any, that plans must be prepared by licensed architect. Commissioner Sims questioned the symmetry of the front elevation. He questioned the proposed garage structures proposed and offset ridgeline for the roof as indicated in the plans. Discussion on Design Review development g p guidelines for the Site and Architectural Review Board. Discussion of the fence requirement for single family residences per Municipal Code. Discussion of legal power, if any, of the City Council to waive the fencing requirement for this project if grounds are established. The Community Development Director suggested that this project can be conditioned to read, " the fencing requirement of the perimeter of the property maybe waived either by variance or by revision of the code if completed prior to certificate of occupancy for structure." Discussion of the fire hydrant requirements by the Fire Warden's Office, referred to in their December 7th, 1988 memo. Discussion of street tree requirements for public streets and if applicable for private streets as well. Discussion of the physical location of the home and other 11 surrounding properties. Commissioner Buchanan stated that a site plan was not submitted on the project showing the project location with respect to neighboring streets. Discussion of the surrounding properties to the project. The rear of the home would be looking out over the ravine, towards Barton Road, and that portion of the road would be the only area of concern regarding appearance. Discussion of multiple garages for single family dwellings. The Planning Associate mentioned that there were no restrictions in the City. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there was adequate access to this project and if it had been approved by the Fire Warden's Office. The Community Development Director stated yes it had been approved. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:40 P.M. Brian Damares 3768 Ramona Street Riverside, CA. Representative for Larry Neese Mr. Damares stated that this is an owner occupied property. The reason for the split garage was that the pad itself was 10,000 square feet and the home was 3100 square feet. The design and the intent was to have an interior court yard since there was not much of a front yard. Discussion on the Planning Commission's preference not to see fencing on this project, however, this body cannot waive that part of the code. The applicant was notified of the alternatives being variance or contact to City Council in regards to changes of the fencing code. Mr. Damares explained that the offset ridges on the roof were set that way to save on construction costs and enhance the aesthetic appearance. Discussion by the Planning Commission on the pros and cons of this architecture and design elements of this proj ect . 12 MOTION PCM-89-6 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-6 Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-88- 21 subject to the conditions set forth by the Planning Department's recommendations with the exception of condition #2 which should be reworded, a fencing plan should be submitted to the Planning Department for approval, however, this condition shall be deleted if the applicant approves a variance from the fencing required by the Municipal Code or the Municipal Code is altered and proper approval is obtained under the revised Municipal Code for no fencing. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries, all ayes. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. 6-0-1-0. BREAK ADJOURNED AT 8:50 TO 9:00 P.M. RECONVENED AT 9:05 P.M. Item #4 SA-89-01 Richard Hieb 11645 Grand Terrace Court G.T. (Moved up from item #6) The Planning Associate, Jeri Ram, presented the staff report with the conditions and recommendations of approval from staff, Reviewing Agencies and the City Engineer. Discussion on the conditions presented by staff. Specifically, street and curb improvements. Commissioner Buchanan asked if street and curb improvements were code requirements or could be handled on a Planning Commission level. Reference to the Fire Warden's requirement of a fire hydrant, F10. Chairman Hargrave questioned this as there exists one directly across the street from the lot. 13 Discussion of the sidewalk condition, if required by Municipal Code. Also, discussion regarding any powers the Planning Commission may have in removing this condition. Chairman Hargrave referred to the berm located on the southern section of Grand Terrace Road which elevates the pad approximately 3 feet. He suggested putting fencing at the higher level instead of placing a fence at the ground level since no one would be able to see it. Discussion on the lack of visibility of the home due to the proposed lower ground fencing and the berm. Discussion of other alternative types of trim to enhance or accent the windows of the house. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED Richard Hieb 2084 Alessandro Road Banning Mr. Hieb referred to the conditions presented by staff and stated that they agreed with same. He stated that he believed the Fire Warden's Office had made a mistake in regards to the fire hydrant. He will check with their office for verification of existing hydrants. In regards to the recommendation for the brick, they would prefer not to do it. He submitted an alternative view of the fencing. Discussion by the applicant and the Planning Commission regarding alternatives to the fencing; intense landscaping. Mr. Hieb stated that the side of the home, the gable side, could be enhanced with shutters. Discussion on the brick facing of the front of the house, either side of the garage doors. Mr. Hieb clarified that the facing begins from the ground and goes to the top of the garage door. Discussion of the types of street trees that the applicant intends to use. Mr. Hieb stated that they were surprised that a sidewalk was required for their project. However, they would be in support of signing an agreement with the City. 14 MOTION PCM-89-7 MOTION AMENDED PCM-89-7 Commissioner Van Gelder asked if landscaping as suggested by the applicant would be sufficient to replace the intent of the fencing. The Community Development Director stated it would help but the treatment is still warranted. However, it is a minor issue. Discussion of the condition for brick trim under the windows. Commissioner Buchanan suggested alternative window treatments as shutters or painted decorative wood trim. Commissioner Sims agreed with the Community Development Director's reasons for placing the accent. Landscaping would not be fully developed for years and the housing would still be visible. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-89- 1 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Department with the deletion of the brick accent condition and modification of condition #2, that the north elevation be revised to incorporate window trim and similar treatment of the gable area as approved by the Planning Director. Chairma Hargrave second. Discussion of the sidewalk requirements and the applicant having to go to the City Council for an improvement agreement. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-89- 1 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Department with deletion of the brick accent condition and modification of condition #2, that the north elevation be revised to incorporate window trim and similar treatment of the gable area as approved by the Planning Director. Commissioner Buchanan added a modification of condition #3, with compliance to the City Engineer's memo, that the installation of the sidewalk along the frontage of Grand 15 MOTION WITHDRAWAL PCM-89-7 MOTION PCM-89-8 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-8 MOTION PCM-89-9 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-9 Terrace Court but with the recommendation that the applicant consider an improvement agreement. Chairman Hargrave second. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned the incorporation of the voting for the condition into the overall voting for the project. Commissioner Buchanan withdrew the motion. Chairman Hargrave second. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to delete the brick accent and modify condition #2, that the north elevation be revised to incorporate window trim and similar treatment and venting of the gable area as approved by the Planning Director. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries. Commissioners Van Gelder and Sims voting noe. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. 4-2-1-0. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to amend condition #3, regarding the installation of the sidewalk, with the recommendation that the applicant contact the City Council for an improvement agreement. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries, all ayes. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. 16 MOTION PCM-89-10 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-10 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve SA-89- 1 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Department and as amended by the previous two motions. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carries, all ayes. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. 6-0-1-0. Item #5 Coffin/CY Development SA-88-2 Office and Commercial Center comprising 24,000 sq. ft. on a 1.68 acre lot Location of the proposed project is in the C-2 and CPD Zone and bissected by two public easements. North of Commerce Way East of Michigan APN# 277-451-17 Community Development Director presented the staff report with the conditions and recommendations from staff, City Engineer and reviewing agencies. The project has an Initial Study and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. This project was originally submitted in 1988 and was caught in a delay because of the General Plan Adoption and the proposed width of Commerce Way. That issue has been clarified and settled in order to match the needs of these developments with the width requirements of Commerce Way. The Community Development Director explained that one of the other problems was the property owned by Cal Trans which provides a drainage facility from the freeway right of way across this property. That was included originally in part of the Site Plan for parking and Cal 17 Trans indicated that would not be allowed. The revision now shows that property is not being used for any parking or improvement. The Community Development Director indicated Cal Trans has concerns regarding the placement of buildings in the setback required from their right of way and their property line. It appears that there should not be any problem with that setback and that they are not going into that property but without that record of survey being done, Cal Trans is not willing to make a formal response to that at this time. They have indicated that they would be willing to do that in the future before building permits are issued. Discussion on the Site and Architectural Board's responsibility regarding the Negative Declaration process. The Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission is not considering this project. The Site and Architectural Board is seeing the Negative Declaration for review. The actual body that will be approving it will be the City Council. Commissioner Buchanan agreed with the Colton Unified School District's concerns expressed in their February 16, 1989 letter. They felt certain issues should be addressed as part of the Initial Environmental Study. Specifically, regarding items #13, #14, #17, that are marked no and should be yes. Item #13, dealing with Transportation/Circulation section D "...Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods," should be reflected as a yes due to its highly intensive use being proposed and that there may be considerable alteration of circulation. Item #13, section F, "Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians," the answer maybe no but the comments from Colton Unified School District reflected that there are going to be hazards especially to their constituents. Item #14, dealing with Public Services - "Will the proposal have substantial effect upon ... Section C/Schools?". Item #17, dealing with Human Health - "Will the proposal result in ... section A/Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? and Section B/Exposure of people to potential hazards?". The Community Development Director explained his reasons for a No on Item #14, section C/Public Services. He interpreted that as a question which was asking if the schools would be impacted and if that would cause a change in the number of schools or alter the school 18 operation at this time. He did not feel this would have an effect on that. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he interpreted it as whether or not the project has a substantial effect on protection services or will it result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of those areas. It may be that it doesn't given the distance from the school unless you look at the traffic flow. Discussion on the General Plan and the traffic circulation element in that area. The Community Development distance negates the landuse real issue is traffic and issues of concern expressed Director stated that the school conflict and that the that relates to the other by Commissioner Buchanan. He further explained that the reason he answered No to Item #13, Section D, "Transportation/Circulation - Will the proposal result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?", was that it was dealt with in the General Plan. The streets have been widenened and the increase that would be produced from this project is within the levels that are anticipated and planned for in the General Plan. Those changes have been made in the circulation element to accomodate that. He did not feel they would be a negative impact because of the mitigation measure which are already in place for the City to handle that improvement. Commissioner Buchanan stated that the issues of density and intensity were not addressed in the staff report. He asked if this particular zone had any restriction or criteria on the square footage. The Community Development Director explained that there was not any criteria that specified square footage of use on square footage of property. It works out as a working ratio, once the height limits and parking requirements are placed. Discussion on the specification for percentage of allowable lot coverage space in a C-2 Zone, unless superceded by a CPD Zone. Discussion on the business license procedures for tenants in this commercial project, to be approved by the Planning Director. If a tenant is a restaurant with liquor on the premises then that would require a Conditional Use Permit, which would be the same for the 19 overlay zone. Commissioner Buchanan stressed that was one of the concerns of the Colton Unified School District as well as the sale of liquor on the side. Discussion on the requirements of Conditional Use Permits in a C-2 Zone as it currently stands in the General Plan. Discussion on possible wall treatments for the project. The Community Development Director explained that the plans do not show a wall on the adjacent property for Orco Tool nor do they show a wall for the freeway at this time. There should be a wall requirement for the side of the freeway. The wall requirement for Orco Tool would not be a necessity. The Community Development Director explained that attention needs to be given on how the CPD Overlay affects the Site and Architectural Review for the wall requirement. Discussion on the 5' offsets from the property lines and how they will effect the location of the building and parking. Commissioner Sims asked if this project would return to the Planning Commission. The Community Development Director explained that this would be the Commission's final review. Due to it not being a large enough project for Site Plan, it is being handled by the Site and Architectural Review Board. The Planning Commission expressed their concern with the submittal of a conceptual plan for the landscaping and the need for additional detailed plans. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the Cal Trans letter regarding traffic and drainage. She questioned whether or not the Planning Commission could adequately mitigate the drainage and traffic problem with the information presented this evening. The Community Development Director stated that is being addressed through the development of the General Plan Circulation Element and the requirements that have been placed in that for the widening and development of the streets. Discussion on the provision in the General Plan to continue Commerce Way to Main Street. There is not a set 20 time schedule for the City to accomplish this. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that there is a faint chance that might help mitigate some of the traffic, but if it will take several years it would not help anything. Discussion on the probability of imposing traffic fees on developers and its impact. The Community Development Director stated that there have been no discussions regarding any special fees, other than the present improvement fees, being placed on properties in this area. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the Initial Environmental Study's Discussion, 6.a. She asked what the noise levels are as referred to in the General Plan. The Community Development Director explained that the General Plan indicates concensus rings that show different decible levels from the freeway and the acceptable level of noise. He stated staff could provide more information on the subject. The Community Development Director stated that particular study deals with two situations. Once people are located are they going to be subjected to any noise which is above the acceptable level? He interpreted this as a negative and so reflected it with a "no" response. Or are the people already there being subjected to a higher level of noise because of the use that is being put in there? He explained that this is a commercial area. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her disagreement with the study reflecting a negative that the additional traffic would not cause a difference. The Community Development Director clarified that it would not be a substantial difference, based on the fact that it is recognized that there is an increase in traffic. Therefore, requirements have been made and have been included in the General Plan for the widening of the street and the street improvements to mitigate that problem. Due to those mitigation measures which are incorporated in the General Plan for any development along Barton Road and the development of traffic handling capability that the traffic being generated because of this use by the school is not substantial. The Community Development Director explained that the mitigation measures are reflected in the General Plan for the widening of Barton Road, construction of curbs and 21 sidewalks for improved safety, and the widening of Michigan Street until it comes to Commerce Way, for the development of Commerce Way and the continuation of Commerce Way until the rest of it develops. Discussion on the individual vs. cumulative effects of the project. Discussion on the provisions for traffic in this area from this development. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if any consideration was given regarding traffic going south on Michigan instead of Barton Road, using Commerce Way. The Community Development Director responded that was taken into consideration by the Traffic Engineers when they analyzed the possible alternatives that the Council considered for the Circulation Element. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if it would be fair to say that there would not be a traffic problem when all of these things are completed, when it is not certain when that will be. The Community Development Director responded that if the entire system is not in place then the entire solution is not in place either. Chairman Hargrave stated that he disagreed with the NO on item #13 F. He asked what the procedure would be to decide on agreement or disagreement. The Community Development Director explained that a motion indicating that the Planning Commission suggest to the City Council that they consider changing certain items to yes or no, would be appropriate. Discussion on the meaning of a Negative Declaration and mitigation measures. MOTION PCM-89-11 Chairman Hargrave made the motion that item #13F of the Negative Declaration be changed from NO to YES. Commissioner Buchanan second. MOTION VOTE PCM-89-11 Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. 22 Commissioner Buchanan asked if there was anything the Planning Commission could do to allow a project to go forward to mitigate the traffic concerns near the school without relying on the development of Barton Road? The Community Development Director responded that Barton Road is being widened now. Discussion on whether the improvements at the intersection of Barton Road and Michigan Street enhance pedestrian safety measures. Discussion on the changes of NO to YES and its effect on the review of the Negative Declaration, last page "III. Discussion Of The Environmental Evaluation". If a Negative Declaration was not appropriate then a Mitigated Declaration would be the alternative. The Community Development Director explained that it seemed the Planning Commission was heading in the direction of a Mitigated Declaration and if that was the case then he suggested that the Site and Architectural Review be continued until the Negative Declaration has sufficient mitigation measures that the Commission would be willing to recommend to the City Council along with the changed recommendation for the Initial Study. Chairman Hargrave suggested continuing this item and coming back with additional traffic information, mitigation or non -mitigation. Commissioner Buchanan asked for input from the School District Representative, Kent Van Gelder. Discussion on the sign code requirements. Commissioner Hilkey asked about the drainage easement that goes through the property and its location. The Community Development Director explained that it went through the upper corner of the property. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 10:20 A.M. Michael Ascencio Agent James Coffin C-Y Development Co. 222 E. Olive Avenue Suite 5 23 Redlands, CA. 92373 Mr. Ascencio explained that he met with Cal Trans on December 27th and 28th, 1988, to discuss the issues on the right of way line. He stated that their plans are for the recorded parcel map and it identifies Cal Trans property location and met with their satisfaction. He explained that they agreed that before they go in and get a permit they will go back in and get an extensive engineering study. Discussed the parking issue. He stated that if they are required to install a solid wall then the landscaping that they propose between the back of the building and the property line would be lost. He suggested that if they put in a wall they would rather see a decorative wall with columns and rod iron to allow visibility. He explained that there are already mitigation measures within the system. The way to avoid impact to pedestrians and motor vehicles would be by sidewalks for separation and widen the road wide enough to accomodate bicycle lanes. The mitigation control measures already in the system are reduction of traffic speed, installation of stop signs and traffic lights. In regards to the school issue, he explained that the school, by location, is already in a high noise level area. If the noise level becomes unbearable for the school then the only mitigation measure available is to require a fee by assessment of all the properties that use that arterial, to pay into the system that would allow the school to soundproof walls of their buildings. He explained that it was not fair to ask his applicant to accept the full burden since the system and all of the development there contributes to that particular problem of the school. They would be glad to submit the detailed landscaping plans. He expressed concern with condition #8, "...project is to comply with all the revised requirements of the Fire Warden's Office". He contacted the Fire Warden's Office to question the conditions. The staff informed him that it did not sound as if the conditions were applicable to his project. Mr. Ascensio requested expeditious proceedings since they submitted back in February 1988 for site approval and run the risk of losing their map extension. He stressed that they are seeking site approval to decide whether or not they have a project. They will come back with any other detailed plans or mitigating measures as requested. Commissioner Buchanan referred to condition #4, comply with the Fire Department's recommendations. He asked the applicant if he was stating that some of those are applicable and others are not stated. Mr. Ascencio stated that the conditions of the Fire 24 Warden's Office would not benefit them if applied. Discussion on the conditions of approval from reviewing agencies. If substantial revisions are needed then staff would bring that back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Ascencio clarified that if the site plan is approved, then they would come back and meet all of the conditions or requirements. He only asked for approval of the site plan first. Chairman Hargrave asked if the lender would go forward with their loan based on site and architectural approval. He asked about the proposal of the multi -panel smoked glass and if he was planning to go ahead with it. Mr. Ascencio responded to the affirmative on both questions. Chairman Hargrave asked if the colored renderings shown this evening was what the applicant was willing to go ahead with. Mr. Coffin clarified that they were all the same colored renderings. They were just different views of different sides of all the buildings. Kent Van Gelder Coordinator/School Facilities Colton Unified School District Mr. Van Gelder referred to a two page letter from the Colton Unified School District, dated December 13, 1988. He suggested that if the project is approved this evening that the Negative Declaration, item #14C, be changed to a YES also so that they can work with the City on Mitigation Measures. One of their main concerns was the sales of liquor in the vicinity of the school. He asked if any sale of alcoholic beverages in this project would require a Conditional Use Permit. The Community Development Director responded to the affirmative. Discussion on who would monitor the Conditional Use Permit conditions. Mr. Van Gelder asked if the school district received copies of Conditional Use Permits. The Community Development Director responded that the 25 MOTION PCM-89-12 MOTION VOTE Colton School District is on the normal Reviewing Agency Mailing List. They are notified that there will be public hearings. Discussion on the distance of this project from the school. Discussion on the development code and any jurisdiction the City may have in relation to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Van Gelder suggested that the City take the appropriate measures to insure that projects not be allowed within x number of feet from schools. He felt that this should be a local issue rather than an ABC issue. He understands that it is difficult at times to know who the tenants will be in particular projects. Discussion of the ABC regulation of 600 ft. (restaurants serving alcoholic beverages), and 200 ft. (off -site). Discussion on present businesses across the street and up the street from the school that have liquor licenses or are applying for one. Discussion on the widening of Barton Road and its effect on the school property. The Community Development Director explained that it ended up with 100 ft. right of way, which the School District indicated would not bother them. Mr. Van Gelder differed but referred to a letter on file that clarified their reaction to this issue. Discussion on the property acquired by the City to adequately widen the street for 100 feet. Mr. Van Gelder pointed out that the staff professionally judges the Negative Declaration as well as his own interpretation of it. They may not always agree but they do handle it on a professional basis and are a well - trained staff. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion, with respect to the Initial Study, that item #14C should be changed from a NO to a YES. Commissioner Munson second. 26 PCM-89-12 MOTION PCM-89-13 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-13 MOTION PCM-89-14 Motion carried. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Hargrave voting noe and Commissioner Hawkinson being absent. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion, with respect to the Initial Environmental Study as amended to the City Council, to propose that the Planning Commission's recommendation be that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be prepared if sufficient mitigation measures are added to the project. The applicant work with staff in arriving at recommended mitigation measures, specific consideration given to the school district's concerns, prior to the consideration of this item before the City. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carried, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to approve SA-88-2 with the amended conditions and recommendations. (Addition to condition #1, that staff approve the walls when submitted with the landscaping plans). Commissioner Van Gelder second. Commissioner Sims asked when the issue of the walls would be approved. The Community Development Director stated as the motion reads for recommendation of approval by staff he will address that for the landscaping. MOTION VOTE PCM-89-14 Motion carries, all ayes. 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Hawkinson absent. 27 Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer Community Devel ment Director PC Meeting 1/16/89 28 Approved by Stanley H rgrave, Chairman Community Development Director