Loading...
04/17/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17, 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 April 17, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Stanley Hargrave. PRESENT: Stanley Hargrave, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Dan Buchanan, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Stanley Hargrave PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information/Staff presented to Commissioners. Information/Commissioners to Staff PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Public Participation - No comments. ITEM #1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/21/89 AND 3/6/89 Discussion on voting approval or concensus for approving Planning Commission Minutes. The Community Development Director clarified that the City Attorney pointed out that the minutes did not have to be voted on for them to be official minutes. The official bodies check the minutes for any corrections or any changes needed. 1 MOTION PCM-89-43 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-43 MOTION PCM-89-44 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-44 Vice -Chairman Hawkinson made the motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 21, 1989. Chairman Hargrave second. Motion carried. Commissioner Sims abstained. 6-0-0-1. Commissioner Van Gelder made the motion to approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 6, 1989. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson second. Motion carried. Chairman Hargrave abstained. 6-0-0-1. Chairman Hargrave continued with the next item. The Community Development Director pointed out that the scheduled public hearing for the Advocate School has been continued per the request of the applicant. ITEM #2 CHARLES HARTZELL DEMOLITION/BONDING REQUIREMENT NUISANCE ABATEMENT 22558 CARDINAL AVENUE GRAND TERRACE, CA. The Community Development Director/David Sawyer and the Code Enforcement Officer/Assistant City Manager Randall Anstine presented the followup report, per the request of the Planning Commission, which consisted of a status report, schedule and K bonding requirements of the abatement of violations at 22558 Cardinal Avenue. At the meeting of April 3, 1989 the Planning Commission denied the applicant's appeal and established conditions for the abatement. Mr. Hartzell stated that he attempted to make contact with the Assistant City Manager on April 4, 1989 per the instructions received from the Planning Commission. The Assistant City Manager and Mr. Hartzell later met and discussed the abatement process and storage of debris. He later met with the Assistant City Manager on April 14, 1989 to discuss the removal of the tom down materials. The Assistant City Manager clarified that he did indicate to Mr. Hartzell that he would check with the Planning Department and the City Engineer on where he intended on storing the torn down materials. The recommendation of where he was to store it was in no way to delay compliance with the conditions outlined by the Planning Commission. Discussion on bond amount for removal of all violation structures or those remaining prior to the 45 day period deadline. Mr. Hartzell stated that all of the illegal structures will be dismanteled and removed 30 days from today. He requested a variance for the carport. Discussion on variance application only for a carport at 22568 Cardinal. Refer to file 12-8.3151 dated March 4, 1986. Chairman Hargrave clarified that the issue of his neighbor's carport was not being addressed this evening. The issue being addressed this evening dealt with abatement only at 22558 Cardinal, Mr. Charles Hartzell. The Community Development Director clarified that Mr. Hartzell was asked at previous meetings if he wished to apply for permits and he declined. If the Planning Commission would like to allow the applicant to apply for the permits now at this point of the abatement process the Community Development Director would like to caution the applicant that there are certain state mandated findings that have to be made in order to grant a variance and he has not seen those on this particular property. Discussion on whether to resend the abatement process by K MOTION PCM-89-45 allowing a variance or continuing with the conditions of scheduling abatement. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. Hartzell if he would have a problem removing all of the illegal structures on the front and rear yards within 30 days. Mr. Hartzell stated that he would not have any problem. Discussion on the current code stating carports not allowed in the front yard setbacks. Discussion on variance procedures. Discussion on the 45 day deadline abatement date, May 18, 1989. Discussion on the issue of the applicant earlier declining the opportunity to file for a variance on the carport and the nuisance abatement process already in motion. The Community Development Director explained that the application deadline for the May 15, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting would be April 24, 1989. The Community Development Director referred to 12-8.3151, the variance application for a carport at 22568 Cardinal. He stated that project had been pulled from the agenda and was never heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hartzell explained that his neighbor's carport (12-8.3151 22568 Cardinal) was been torn down earlier and a new existing carport was in its place. The present carport was built without permits. Discussion on the perameters of the bonding for storage and removal of debris. Chairman Hargrave made the motion to uphold the Planning Commission decision of the April 17, 1989 Meeting regarding the abatement (dismantelling and removal of materials) of the property at 22558 Cardinal Street, according to the schedule set to date prior to the City abatement date of May 18, 1989. Commissioner Hawkinson second. 2 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-45 Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. The Community Development Director clarified to the applicant that he has 30 days to dismantel the violations and remove the materials. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 7:35 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AT 7:35 P.M. ITEM #3 SA-89-4 RUBEN LUNA MANUFACTURED BLDGS. 21801 BARTON ROAD G.T. The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the conditions and recommendations from the reviewing agencies, the City Engineer and planning staff. He presented the Negative Declaration also. Staff recommended denial of this project. Discussion by the Planning Commission that earlier the Planning staff had urged the applicant to seek an alternative type of building construction. Chairman Hargrave pointed out that there are existing metal buildings already on the site. Commissioner Van Gelder asked the Community Development Director how this property fits into the proposed Barton Road Specific Plan. The Community Development Director explained that this piece of property was not within the study area at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:45 P.M. k JERRY PERKINS LORD CONSTRUCTORS 1340 W. 9TH STREET UPLAND, CA. Mr. Perkins referred to the staff report. He stated that they have determined that metal buildings are less costly. The proposed buildings would be approximately 600 feet from the street. Masonry buildings would take up more space and that would raise the cost of the project. He presented to the Planning Commission color samples of their proposed metal buildings. He stated that a six foot block wall would be very costly due to the large perimeter. RUBEN LUNA 21801 BARTON ROAD GRAND TERRACE, CA. Mr. Luna is the owner of the property. He stated that he is trying to build a project that would be an asset to the community. He stated that he discussed with the neighbor about the block wall and it was also fine with him not to erect a wall. The property to the west is railroad and Mr. Luna owns the property. His future plans for the front and that piece of property are to erect tilt up buildings. Discussion by the Planning Commission and the applicant on what is intended to be developed in the future on the site. Such as a 40,000 square foot tiltup building against the railroad track and demolishing the old structures in the front. Then to replace those with an office building, once this initial project is completed. The Community Development Director clarified that it seems the Planning Commission is requesting a site plan for the overall development. The site plan and site and architectural approval is valid for one year. It could be processed in a phased plan which could allow for another year extension for the life of the overall site development. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if that time line was already in place. The Community Development Director explained that it already exists in the Code for the Site and Architectural Review Board but it could be conditioned for extension on the overall site plan as each phase is developed. 0 Mr. Luna stated that he hoped to lease the structures out for income. Discussion on the zones that surround this site. Discussion of the Barton Road Specific Plan and its commercial intent. The Community Development Director explained that the proposed metal buildings are state of the art but the question is whether the City wants further metal construction in that area. Commissioner Sims expressed the reluctance of the Planning Commission based on what will happen with the property as a whole. Discussion on prospective tenants for the facility; such as carpet layers or retailers in need of storage area. Discussion on quantity of trucks used by the facility. There are presently ten (10) trucks that use the facility during the day but only an average of three (3) park overnight. Clarification of the site location as it abuts the railroad on the west. Discussion on the lack of a block wall shown on the site plan. The Community Development Director explained that a block wall is required unless waived by the Planning Commission for a Site and Architectural Review. Discussion of the entrance paving of either slag or asphalt indicated on two different plans. Mr. Perkins referred to the landscape plan which showed asphalt paving. The Community Development Director stated that staff would recommend that it be improved with more than slag. Chairman Hargrave asked the applicant and contractor if they have reviewed the recommendations and conditions of the staff report. The City Engineer requirements are standard per Code. 7 Mr. Perkins stated that he understood the requirements of the City Engineer. Discussion on the possibility of the building features changing to suit the needs of future tenants. BARBARA PFENNIGHAUSEN 22111 LADERA STREET GRAND TERRACE, CA. Mrs. Pfennighausen expressed concern with the uses planned for the building. She would like to know the specific location of the buildings in relation to the Girl Scout outdoor facilities. The Girl Scout facilities are to the south. The Community Development Director explained that the adjacent Girl Scout facilities include a green belt area, parking area, storage area for camping equipment. Mrs. Pfennighausen stated that the facility located behind the two main buildings of San Gorgonio Girl Scout Council and bordering this development is used to give a short term camping experience to the girls. It is also used as a training facility. The close proximity to the proposed development is of great concern. She inquired if the San Gorgonio Council was specifically notified of this potential development. The Community Development Director explained that a Site and Architectural Review does not require a 300 foot radius Public Hearing. However, any specific uses that would go into this building would have to meet restricted manufacturing zoning requirements. At this time Council has indicated in this area that a portion of the uses can be done on an administrative Conditional Use Permit and the remainder of them require a formal Conditional Use Permit. Those that are done administratively can be appealed and then require a public hearing. Mrs. Pfennighausen stated that she had no objections to the proposed metal buildings. They would seem more attractive than the tilt up concrete buildings. Mr. Perkins explained that the block wall that was raised was not the wall that abutts the property, that wall is further north. The line that would be between the Girl Scouts and the buildings is the south wall. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:00 P.M. Discussion on the Fire Warden's Office requirement of a fire hydrant. The applicant stated they understood and would comply with the on site fire hydrant requirement. MOTION PCM-89-46 Commissioner Sims clarified that the plans show a landscaping buffer along the south property line. Therefore, the wall concept would not be a problem. Mr. Perkins stated that the wall on the west side would not be necessary. Chairman Hargrave proposed that a meeting should be set up between any interested Planning Commissioners, the Planning Department staff and the applicant to go over a revised Specific Plan. Include the Girl Scouts if the properties abutt on the south side. Chairman Hargrave made a motion that this item be continued. Commissioner Hilkey second. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson suggested that one main item that should be discussed with the applicant is the overall development which seems to be a major issue. The Community Development Director suggested more than just a continuance of the item. Issues that need to be addressed are an overall site development plan, overall parking, access areas of existing buildings, aesthetic improvements to existing buildings, and location of the wall. Discussion by the Commissioners on the specific issues that need to be addressed in an overall site plan. The Community Development Director suggested that the applicant should be directed to return to the Planning Commission with an overall site plan. This plan should address existing building improvements or replacements, the proposed buildings, building materials and location, any future buildings that are not being E MOTION VOTE PCM-89-46 presented at this time, how they all interrelate on the site, combination of this site with the adjacent site for extra area within the project, treatment of the walls within the perimeter of the property, parking and interior circulation plan for the entire project once it is completed, coordination of all building materials present and in the future, building quality and existing wood structures and their replacement or removal, phased project and point where La Crosse meets the Girl Scout property. He pointed out that the recommendations for denial were based on a piece meal project. Chairman Hargrave clarified that his point of a continuanance was to provide an opportunity to improve the site plan. Discussion by the Community Development Director of a metal building project in comparison to the Jim Goode's project across the street. Mr. Luna stated that he has a problem with paying for a high quality project. He agrees with an overall site plan. Discussion on the purpose and intent of a site plan. Motion carried, all ayes. 7-0-0-0. Discussion on which date to continue this project. Discussion on specific direction to staff as to what should be included in overall revision. Chairman Hargrave suggested following the direction earlier stated by the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director suggested continuance for an indefinite period of time until the applicant is ready. General concensus of approval by the Planning Commission that the applicant can return when ready but not before three weeks. Commissioner Buchanan stated that he would like to see an architectural relief or style along the roofline of the metal buildings. 10 Commissioner Munson invited the applicant to attend the Special Joint Workshop between the City Council, Chamber of Commerce, Planning Department, City Personnel, and interested parties on April 22, 1989 to promote future quality development. The Community Development Director suggested that the May 1, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting should be cancelled due to lack of agenda items. Chairman Hargrave stated that the next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting will be May 15, 1989. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director P.C. Meeting 5/15/89 Approved by, Stanley Har ave, Ch ' an Planning Co 'ssio 11