Loading...
08/21/1989GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 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 August 21, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Chairman Dan Buchanan, Vice -Chairman Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Herman Hilkey, Commissioner Jim Sims, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner ABSENT: Ray Munson, Commissioner PLEDGE: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information from staff to the Planning Commissioners. Information from the Planning Commissioners to staff. Announcement of staff revision\reassignment of Maria Muett to replace Karen Stevenson as Assistant Planner. Announcement of procedures for Chairman and Vice - Chairman election. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. CHAIRMAN HARGRAVE OPENED THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Public Participation - Barbara Pfennighausen 22111 Ladera Street G.T. Mrs. Pfennighausen asked the Community Development Director for the names of the individuals who be on the Barton Road Specific Plan Committee. 1 Dennis Evans 22064 De Berry G.T. The Community Development Director stated that it will consist of Commissioner Hargrave, Mayor Byron Matteson, City Manager Tom Schwab, President of the Chamber of Commerce Jack Ingalls and himself. Mrs. Pfennighausen expressed her concern that the committee consisted of males only. She suggested that the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, Sandy Windbigler, be a part of the Committed. Mr. Evans asked when the Barton Road Specific Plan Committee was formed. The Community Development Director explained that the Committee had been formed for one month. He described the selection process. Staff received direction from the City Manager to form the Committee as it has been formed. Discussion relating to Mr. Evans concern that direction was not given by the City Council. The study area and its perimeters were discussed. Mr. Evans suggested that Chairman Hargrave asked the City Attorney for guidance in relation to Mayor Matteson's participation on the Committee, since it impacts an area where he directly lives. Public Participation adjourned. ITEM #1 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN NOMINATION OF CHAIRMAN The Community Development Director opened the floor for nominations of Chairman and Vice -Chairman. Commissioner Van Gelder nominated Commissioner Jerry Hawkinson as Chairman. The Community Development Director closed the nominations. 2 VOTE FOR CHAIRMAN Chairman Hawkinson was elected Chairman of the Planning Commission. 4-0-1-2. Commissioners Buchanan, Hilkey, Van Gelder, Sims voted aye. Commissioners Hargrave and Hawkinson abstained. Commissioner Munson absent. NOMINATION FOR VICE-CHAIRMAN Chairman Hawkinson opened the floor for nominations of Vice -Chairman. NOMINATION Chairman Hawkinson nominated Commissioner Dan Buchanan as Vice -Chairman. VOTE VICE-CHAIRMAN No further nominations, the Community Development Director closed the floor for nominations. Commissioner Buchanan was elected as Vice -Chairman of the Planning Commission. 5-0-1-1. Commissioner Hargrave abstained and Commissioner Munson absent. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ITEM #2 CUP-89-4 General Assembly Room TERBEST & ASSOCIATES 21900 BARTON ROAD G.T. The Community Development Director presented the staff report with the conditions of denial from the Planning Department and recommendations from the City Engineer, Reviewing Agencies and the Planning Department. 3 Chairman Hawkinson requested the applicant present his project to the Planning Commission. David Terbest 785 Via Sierra Nevada Riverside, CA. Mr. Terbest stated that he occupies two businesses in the Terrace Village Plaza; an insurance company and a photography shop. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the City Planning process for this project. He stated that this plaza is the ideal location for a project of this type. It will be an asset to this community. Due to the large number of 7th Day Adventist weddings he is requesting that they be allowed to operate on Sundays. He stated that they intend to have this facility properly controlled and not allow any misconduct. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED Bob Keeney Developer of Terrace Village Plaza 12139 Mt. Vernon G.T. Mr. Keeney explained that they received no opposition to this project from their tenants. The only concern expressed by any of the tenants dealt with the parking. They calculated that during Demetriis peak hours there would only be 40 vehicles and there is ample room to accomodate many more. The facility can hold between 110 and 120 parking spaces. There are 77 parking spaces adjacent to the proposed general assembly room. Lois Pierce 21845 Grand Terrace Road G.T. Mrs. Pierce expressed her dissatisfaction with not being advised about this project earlier. She visually inspected the building. She was reassured that all of the consumption of alcohol would be within the building. She did not feel that the noise element would be a 4 disturbance to the mobile home park. She stated that the tenants of the mobile home park are very satisfied with the Terrace Village Plaza. If the building is controlled by security guards there would not be any objections from the mobile home park. Jack Ingalls 12455 Willet G.T. Tenant of Terrace Village Plaza Mr. Ingalls agrees with the Community Development Director on the parking count. He is not concerned with the parking problems because of the hours of operation intended for the general assembly room. He feels that with some restrictions in regards to the type of parties that would be held, number of guests, and proper security this would be a great asset to the City. Chairman Hawkinson opened up the public hearing for anyone to speak in opposition to the project. No further comments. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED. Commissioner Hargrave asked the Community Development Director to review the traffic count. He also asked Mr. Jack Ingalls, President of the Chamber of Commerce, for his recommendation of restrictions on this project. The Community Development Director explained that the Center is as proposed with the second phase of the RV portion coming in. The Center will have 117 parking spaces and the restaurant itself is required to have 37 parking spaces, the E-Z Mart retail center is required to,have 11 parking spaces. These parking spaces will be required and used during any peak period that the restaurant will have or during the hours of operation in the assembly room. There are 16 parking spaces which are required for the additional retail space in building A. Those parking spaces could be shared on the assumption that the assembly room will be operating at a time that those businesses will not be opened. Staff felt that it would be unappropriate to dictate those type of hours for those uses, particularly this early in the life of the Center. For that reason staff 5 recommended that those 16 spaces be reserved also and not be used for shared parking. Mr. Terbest's office uses approximately 12 parking spaces which is not in the assembly room area. These are parking spaces that are required for that amount of office space. This comes to a total of 76 spaces. There are 117 spaces and that leaves a surplus of 41 spaces. Those 41 spaces can be used in a variety of ways. If the assembly room area was to be built out as office or retail area thus generating need for 10 spaces, that would bring the count to 86. In essence there are 31 extra parking spaces in that center. According to the code, the assembly room requirement is one parking space for every 25' where chairs can be placed. The layout which has been provided to staff by the applicant that includes all of the area, except for the bathroom facilities. That totals up to 1,986 square feet. Dividing that out there is a need for 79 parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that they do wish to use the patio area for overflow spillage for smoking purposes as a secondary use. If that is included in the ratio there is the need for 129 parking spaces. Without the patio the parking comes up 38 parking spaces short of what is out there and what would physically be available. With the patio area it would be 88 parking spaces short. Considering that the patio would not be used as a primary area, you could cut that in half, however that would still be anywhere from 50-60 parking spaces short. In considering the primary use, staff looked at the 64 spaces which would be available for shared areas. Staff would be necessary for the parties' security personnel, catering personnel, and DJ personnel. Planning Staff considered that 10% of the parking spaces that would be available for shared use for the assembly room should be reserved for personnel working at that activity; that meant 6 spaces. Staff came up with 58 spaces which would be -available for people who would be attending an activity. Staff looked at a couple of different percentages; 60% of that would be 35 parking spaces (at least 60% would have more than one person in a vehicle), 40% would come on their own and that would create a need for 23 people. Then a need for approximately 93 or close to 100 people would be attending the event and staff feels that the parking would be satisfactory for them without being a burden on the adjacent or existing parking for the other uses in activity at that time. The Planning Staff felt that the proposed parking is short, 38 spaces at the very 6 best which is 25% of the need that would be required. Basically what is being asked for is a use which would create a shortage of the parking and staff feels that is not appropriate. Chairman Hawkinson asked Mr. Ingalls, President of the Chamber of Commerce, to return to the podium. MR. JACK INGALLS Mr. Ingalls stated that at the present time during lunch time, his own customers could not park in front of his shop. He assumed that the main areas of concern dealt with hours of operation. He stated that the evening traffic was not near the noon traffic congestion as far as the restaurant was concerned. The people that would be attending the assembly activities would not park in front of the plaza and walk. They would drive to the back and park nearest the assembly room. He did not feel the parking was the main issue but felt restrictions should be placed on the hours of operation and adequate security. He suggested hours of operation for Saturday (6:00 p.m. on) and late Sunday afternoon hours without causing any type of parking problem. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed concern with the future growth of the City and impact on the parking availability in the plaza. Vice -Chairman Buchanan referred to Mr. Terbest's earlier comments that this project should be appropriately conditioned. He asked Mr. Terbest what those conditions might be. Mr. Terbest Mr. Terbest stated that he studied this plaza and Edwards Mansion as a comparison. He would not like to see any restriction that would prevent a civic organization from using the facility during the week night. He also realizes that Demetriis may increase their dinner business. Maximum seating at Demetriis generates only 38 cars. Some conditions that would be agreeable would be that no function during the weekdays unless specifically for civic organizations before the hours of 4:00 p.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m. During the weekends they would like the facility to be used until 10:00 p.m. except on St. Patrick's Day, 4th of July and New Year's Eve. Those are reasonable holidays that people might celebrate longer. It is not their intention 7 to have more than 125 people at one activity. All food and alcohol consumption would be handled by a licensed caterer only. Any organization that would book between the hours of 6 and 10 p.m. would have to provide professional security patrol. Management will always be on the site. Those are the conditions which they felt would be appropriate. He described the facility use during the week and location of ingress and egress points. Commissioner Hawkinson stated that it was certainly generous on staff's part in the setup of the conditions. He asked what would happen if there is a violation of the Conditional Use Permit. He appreciated the comments from Mrs. Pierce, tenant of the mobile home park, but was rather disappointed not to see a larger turnout. Mr. Terbest responded that it was due to the lateness of public hearing notification. The Community Development Director explained that the notification requirements for every property owner within 300 foot radius for the notice to be posted at the post office, library and the lobby of City Hall. That covers the notification procedures as required by law. However, staff also runs the notice of public hearing in the newpaper, The Sun. The noticing procedure for the 300 foot property owner went to an out of town property owner and not to any of the residents of the mobile home park. Therefore, staff went beyond the normal procedures to hand deliver notices to the mobile home residents. Granted it was late but staff went beyond the normal procedures required. Commissioner Hargrave asked the applicant what type of procedures would be reasonable if problems start existing and the City needs to police this Conditional Use Permit and to protect the potential capital invested in this project. He also expressed concern with what would happen if the remaining portion of the development, RV Park, does not get developed. Mr. Keeney stated that the capital improvements being put into this facility are standard. In response to the management question he would personally handle that issue if need be. If problems exist between the other tenants and the general assembly room use, he would certainly take some type of action and the City hopefully would back him up. Most of the tenants are very excited about the extra traffic during the non -peak times. s Chairman Hawkinson pointed out that since the R.V. Project has now been revised and has a different use then what was originally intended for then the parking requirement has been changed. Discussion on the available parking spaces and alternative plans. One being the movement of the R.V. Park or reduction of same by a few feet. Such as movement of the swimming pool to allow for more parking spaces closer to the proposed facility. Mr. Keeney stated that neither alternative would be feasible. Discussion on the original R.V. Park site plan versus the new revised site plan. Discussion on the chain link fence marks the delineation between the RV Park and office area. Discussion on the issue if the parking would or would not be sufficient if the facility were to be used for office space or general assembly room. Reference to use during peak hours of operation. Commissioner Buchanan expressed concern with client training sessions being held in the general assembly room. He does not deny that this is a good use for the City but questions the location. He requested guidance from the Community Development Director in addressing some of his concerns. Discussion on the collateral aspects of this use. Mr. Terbest stated the other uses feasible in this facility; photo studio use, weekday seminars, and other occasional uses. Mr. Keeney stated that he would not have a problem with restricting those uses to fewer people, such as 50 people for a training session or 30 people for a breakfast meeting. He suggested having the Conditional Use Permit valid for one year. Discussion on the food preparation in the facility. The applicant will hire a catering service for all activities. Discussion on the two main issues discussed this evening, noise and parking. Commissioner Hilkey asked for guidance from the Community Development Director. 9 MOTION PCM-89-88 The Community Development Director explained that staff from the beginning had agreed it was a wonderful concept. Staff has had concerns and when analyzed it was felt that the site was not applicable for that use. The Planning Commission could address the flexibility in the Parking Ordinance or allow the applicant to apply for a variance. The Planning Commission could make their determination now. Mr. Terbest (being absent when Mr. Keeney suggested the Conditional Use Permit be valid for one year) agreed to the one year CUP since the lease would run that length in time. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to another project that was allowed a variance and the present congested condition due to lack of parking spaces. Chairman Hawkinson opened for a motion. Commissioner Hargrave suggested that each condition be discussed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hargrave made the motion that condition A be that the CUP be for one year and a minimum review within a one year time period. Chairman Hawkinson second for discussion. Chairman Hawkinson referred to condition #4 which indicated that several conditions were necessary for the purposes of the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. The Community Development Director referred to the conditions needed. Not to confuse anything it is still staff's recommendation for denial however, if the Planning Commission feels that they would like to approve the project staff recommends the following conditions: Condition #1 The maximum capacity of the General Assembly Room shall be 110 persons including employees, security and serving staff. Condition #2 All activities associated with the General Assembly Room shall be contained within suite #120. No related activities shall be conducted in any outdoor area. 10 Condition #3 During all activities where there is more than 35 persons in attendance and or alcoholic beverages are served a uniformed security officer shall be present during the duration of the activity. An additional uniformed officer is required for a total of two officers if there are 75 or more persons attending that activity. Condition #4 All wedding activities, any activity where alcoholic beverages are served, any activity where music either live or recorded is provided and or any activity where more than 35 persons in attendance shall be limited to Saturday afternoons and Saturday evenings. Special Holiday activities may be approved by the Planning Director upon prior request. Condition #5 No activity shall extend beyond 10:00 p.'m. Condition #6 All persons or groups who use the facility shall be given a copy of these conditions and a copy of the Grand Terrace Noise Ordinance and shall sign an affidavit acknowledging the receipt and compliance of same. The Community Development Director explained if the Planning Commission would like to add the condition suggested by Commissioner Hargrave, staff would go along with that. Commissioner Hargrave asked if a one year term for the CUP would be appropriate because the terms of the CUP make it subject to change based upon a rehearing for cause. The Community Development Director explained that it is difficult to bring a CUP back before the Planning Commission. By placing a term period on the CUP that would bring it before the Planning Commission automatically. He cautioned that they can fall through the cracks. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the CUP does not come before the Planning Commission at the one year review time does that mean it automatically expires. The Community Development Director explained that would 11 MOTION VOTE PCM-89-88 depend on how it would be written. Chairman Hawkinson stated that it seems if the CUP has a one year term period placed on it then it would be encumbent upon the applicant to come in before the expiration to renew it. Motion carries. 5-1-1-0. Commissioner Sims voting noe and Commissioner Munson absent. Chairman Hawkinson asked the applicant to respond to the conditions. Mr. Terbest He agreed with the one year term on the CUP but requested no further fees. Regarding condition #1 they felt that 125 limitation would be more acceptable. Condition #4, they felt that they need the availability of the room Friday through Saturday night and felt reasonable hours of 3 p.m. on. In regards to having to seek approval from the Community Development Director/Planning Director for additional use time would not be acceptable to them. They would like to use the facility on holidays. They are agreeable with the remaining conditions. Chairman Hawkinson opened discussion regarding the conditions: Condition #1 Concensus by the Planning Commission that 125 would be acceptable. Commissioner Buchanan wanted to go on the record that the parking is the issue in setting the original limit at 110. Condition #2 Concensus by the Planning Commission that all activities associated with the General Assembly Room shall be contained within the facility and no related activity shall be conducted in any outdoor area. The Community Development Director indicated that the intent of this 12 condition was to prevent noise overflow. Condition #3 During all activities where is more than 35 persons in attendance and/or alcoholic beverages are served, a uniformed security officer shall be present for the duration of the activity. An additional uniformed security officer is required for a total of two officers if there are 75 or more persons attending an activity. Concensus reached by the Planning Commission. Condition #4 Condition reworded to read: All wedding reception activities, any activity where alcoholic beverages are served, any activity where music (live or recorded) is provided, and/or any activity with more than 35 persons in attendance shall be limited to the following hours of operation: Fridays 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturdays 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sundays 12:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Concensus agreed upon by the Planning Commission. Addition of Condition #5 No activities shall extend beyond 10:00 p.m. Concensus agreed upon by the Planning Commission. Condition #6 All persons and/or groups who use this facility shall be given a copy of these conditions and a copy of the Grand Terrace Noise Ordinance and shall sign an affidavit acknowledging the receipt and compliance of same. Concensus agreed upon by the Planning Commission. Condition #7 Special holiday activities and hours may be approved by the Planning Director upon prior written request. Concensus agreed upon by the Planning Commission. Condition #8 This conditional use permit is good for a period of one 13 MOTION PCM-89-89 MOTION PCM-89-89 VOTE MOTION PCM-89-90 MOTION PCM-89-90 VOTE year from the date of approval. It will expire on August 22, 1990. It may be extended by the Planning Commission upon written application by the applicant prior to its expiration. Discussion on the code enforcement of the conditions. Chairman Hawkinson made the motion that condition #1 be modified to read 125 persons, condition #2 remain as recommended by staff, condition #3 remain.as recommended by staff, condition #4 be modified to the times indicated and the delineation of the holiday activities be a subsequent condition that reads special activities and time may be approved by the Planning Director upon written request, condition #5 remain as recommended, condition #6 remain as recommended, incorporate condition of the deadline of a one year Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Buchanan second. Discussion on condition #6 and the criteria for approval. Discussion on the Terrace Village Plaza and the upcoming R.V. Park. Motion carries, 6-0-1-0. Commissioner Munson absent. Commissioner Buchanan made the motion to approve CUP-89- 4 based on the findings and conditions set forth in the supplemental proposed resolution provided by staff as conditioned. Chairman Hawkinson second. 14 Motion carries. 4-2-1-0. Commissioners Sims and Van Gelder voting noe. Commissioner Munson absent. The Community Development Director pointed out to the applicant that there is a ten day appeal process. The decision is not final until the ten day appeal period has passed. Discussion by the Planning Commission that this project deals with planning issues and not political issues. Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission regarding additional traffic, parking, noise etc. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED. Respectfully Submitted, David R. Sawyer, Community Development Director is Approved by, Planning Commission