09/08/1986H
12-8.1062
GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1986
The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called
to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand
Terrace, CA 92324 on September 8, 1986 at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Caouette.
PRESENT: Norman T. Caouette, Chairman
Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman
Gerald Cole, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner
Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner
Daniel McHugh, Commissioner
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Fran Van Gelder
I. MINUTES
A. Minutes of September 8, 1986, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
PCM 86-82 Motion by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and
seconded by Commissioner Hargrave and
passed by a 6-1-0 vote, to approve the
minutes as submitted.
Chairman Caouette abstained from the vote.
II. Consideration for Time Extension and reconsideration of
Conditional Use Permit 84-8, for E-Z Serve convenience store
located at 22087 Barton Road.
Chairman Caouette asked for staff presentation:
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that it was not a matter
of request for consideration of time extension. That when the
staff report was prepared the staff felt it might be something
that the Planning Commission could consider. However, the City
Attorney advised staff that this Conditional Use Permit has
expired and therefore has to go through the process again. Staff
has scheduled a public hearing for this matter for the Planning
Commission Meeting of September 15, 1986. Mr. Kicak also stated
that he had included for the Planning Commission's information,
the staff report and the minutes of the September, 1984 Planning
Commission meeting.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Hargrave asked staff if the 88' right-of-way
easement required, had been settled.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that that will be
one of the Conditions of Approval. Stated that the applicant,
Mr. Nabih Akar, had been in touch with E-Z Serve, the owner,
and they advised staff that they will obtain the necessary
right-of-way and provide the City with the additional 11 ft.
on the west side of Michigan that provided for installation
of improvements.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions or comments.
Asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Mr. Nabih Akar, 22087 Barton Road, Grand Terrace. Stated that
they would like to put in a convenience store. However, the
City had asked for dedication. Stated that he did not own
the land and that the owner does not want to dedicate. So,
he bought the number of feet from the owner to dedicate to the
City. Also, Mr. Akar stated that he is going to share in the
expenses, for widening Michigan Street at the corner, with the
City.
Chairman Caouette thanked the applicant. Clarified with Staff
that there was no further action needed at this time. Joseph
Kicak, Planning Director, agreed and stated that this was
information only and for the Planning Commission to review the
history in the form of the minutes and staff report provided.
Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked what the nature of the off -site
improvements that were proposed.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that the off -site
improvements involved the dedication. It requires widening
of the roadway from the present curb location to line up with
the curb, which is just to the south along the frontage of
the current skating rink on Michigan Stret on the west side.
Also, it requires the relocation of the traffic signal and
it's controller. At the time this item came before the City
Council, they, the City Council, felt that the City and the
applicant should both share the costs of these improvements.
The formula has been established for that sharing of the costs.
Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked Staff if an additional right turn
lane was being considered on that corner.
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 2
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded there will be
widening, it will provide for a turning movement in the center
lane.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Determination of Use for a proposed ITT Technical Trade School,
located at 22080 Commerce Way.
Chairman Caouette asked for Staff Report.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. He
pointed out the enclosed brochure, as provided by Victor
Construction, for a proposal to take the existing skating rink
located on the northwest corner of Michigan and Commerce Way
and convert it into an ITT Technical Trade School. Stated
that the staff has reviewed the Zoning Code, specifically, the
C-2 CPD section. Stated that there is nothing in that Code that
would either allow or prohibit this specific use. Therefore,
there are two items for the Planning Commission to consider.
One, is to consider the Determination of Use for this project
at the location as shown. Second, if the Planning Commission
determines that use is allowable within C-2 CPD Zone, to
conduct a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit
f for this project.
Chairman Caouette reminded the Commission that they were only
dealing with determination of that type of use within a C-2
CPD Zone.
Discussion took place between Commissioner Hargrave and Joseph
Kicak, Planning Director, regarding Title 18 review of the C-2
CPD Zone and their recommendations. Mr. Kicak stated that
they did not specifically address this type of use.
Commissioner Hargrave asked Staff if they approve the use
in C-2 CPD Zone, do they try and get a coordination of
building standards and specifications for that particular
area.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, pointed out that there
has been a proposal presented, in conjunction with this
proposal, to convert the skating rink into a school,
which proposes a commercial development along the frontage
of Commerce Way. But, that there was no formal submittal
of it. Stated that the only thing that the Planning Commission
is requested to do, at this time, is to determine if it is a
practicle use. Mr. Kicak stated the applicant was in the
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 3
audience and might give the Planning Commission a better idea
of timing for the balance of the development.
Further discussion took place between Commissioner Hargrave
and Joseph Kicak, regarding the C-2 CPD area. Commissioner
Hargrave felt that they should have some idea of how the
rest of the development is going to flow within the whole
area, to keep in mind continuity of the CPD for the area,
with respect to this key property. Mr. Kicak responded
that the only thing they have is the proposal by the applicant
and it has not yet been considered. The potential commercial
development that may be proposed by the Applicant was not
formally submitted with exception of this plan.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if, because of some action that the
Planning Commission takes or does not take on this specific
parcel, and then later because of CPD requirements, it would cause
the applicant hardships in their future development. Joseph Kicak,
Planning Director, stated that as far as Staff is concerned, the
only thing that they could recommend to the Planning Commission is
what is required by the Code. It would be the responsibility of
the Staff to present the proposal and up to the Planning
Commission to consider; and if the applicant felt Planning
Commission determination wasn't proper, then appeal process
to the City Council.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of
staff.
Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the Commission or City had
any condition of a time line when the rest of the properties
would be completely developed.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that he did not
think that the Planning Commission or City had any control
over it, because there has been no submittal of anything other
than the ITT Technical School with the adjacent parcel to be
used as a parking lot.
Chairman Caouette pointed out to the Commission that the only
thing they should be considering is the development application
itself and consider it's own merit. Asked if there were
any other questions of Staff. Being none, asked if the
applicant was present and would care to address the Commission.
Dennis Cordoza, Victor Construction, pointed out that they own
and control the 9 acres in that area as shown in the brochure.
The reason they want ITT here was because they need a draw to
get the rest of the property they own developed. They convinced
ITT to go into the skate rink, with heavy landscaping and a good
interior design and a new entry to the center and closing off the
existing corner of the building. Stated that the skating rink
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9- 8- 86
Page 4
parking lot is in need of asphalt repair. The landscaping is
at present very minimal. The exterior is still in good condition,
but the entry that they need for the school is not close to
the standards required by ITT. He pointed out that they have
built buildings for ITT before. They are a tenant in Buena Park.
Their intent is to put ITT in there and use them as a draw for
other facilites to develop the rest of the property. Stated
that as far as time schedule, October 1, 1986, is when they would
like to start the tenant improvements. They will improve 2/3 of
the interior with 10,000 square feet for future expansion. They
proposed to have that completed and open by January 1, 1987,
if they get approval. He responded to Commissioner Hargrave's
comment on what would happen to the rest of the property. Stated
that they do have a tremendous financial interest in all of the
property and that they have other tenants interested, which
include a pizza restaurant and a furniture store. Stated that
the restaurant would love to be by the school, and with him they
could generate more clients to fill the rest of the center.
Commissioner Munson asked the applicant with regard to the
ITT School located in Buena Park, what type of location they
were located in and have other businesses moved there because
of that school.
Dennis Cordoza responded that, yes, they have. The school is
located by the 91 Freeway, in Buena Park, off of Knott Avenue.
Adjacent to it, is McDonalds. The school supports a lot of the
t fast foods there. Pointed out that ITT has a lot of experience
- in exactly the parking requirements they need, the number of
students that they generate and how many teachers and admini-
strative staff that is required. They believe this school will
be equal to the Buena Park for student enrollment because of
the draw from the San Bernardino/Riverside areas.
C
Commissioner Munson asked the applicant if they are going to
tear down the chainlink fencing, are they going to replace
it with something else to prevent accidents.
Dennis Cordoza responded that yes, they were going to put in
a protective railing that would go along there and look
generally more decorative than just chainlink fence. Stated
that they have no intention of having a fence along Commerce
Way, but to have it heavily landscaped. Stated that one of
the Planning Department's comments was that they should have
a 15' setback for landscaping. But, because of the existing
building they can't physically do the 15' landscaping buffer,
but propose to take out the concrete walk, around the
building, and replace it with heavy landscaping along the
building.
Discussion took place between the applicant and Commissioner
Munson regarding the sidewalk on Michigan that borders the
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8- 86
Page 5
fence. The applicant, Dennis Cordoza, stated that they
want the same landscaping along Michigan, if possible, the
same all the way down Commerce Way. Commissioner Munson
stated his preference to have landscaping or a green area
with trees between the fence and the sidewalk, instead of
all the concrete.
Chairman Caouette reminded the Commissioners that they were
considering the Determination of Use only.
Dennis Cordoza summarized that it is critical the use be
allowed, because the school is critical to their center.
Stated that without the school, they would have a tough
time drawing in clients.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of
the applicant.
Discussion took place between Commissioner Van Gelder and the
applicant, Vic Peloquin, regarding the total number of schools
and if each were a separate entity. The applicant responded
that each ITT school is owned by the ITT Parent Company. They
are not a franchise, and that if one does bad, doesn't mean
that it would not be kept. Commissioner Van Gelder asked
out of the 26 technical schools, how many were subsidized by
some level of government. The applicant stated it was his guess
that about 75% of the students have some form of financial
arrangement by government grants or loans.
Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if, goal to open by
January 1, 1987, it would allow them sufficient time to
do the inside, as well as outside work.
Vic Peloquin, applicant, responded that since there will be no
structural changes on the inside of the building, felt that
with Building Department approval, it can be done relatively
quick. There will be partition walls inside. The A/C unit
is existing and only needs reducting and a new t-bar ceiling.
The exterior can be done within the 2 month period of time.
If they get their approval from the Building Department by
October 1, 1986, they felt they could have the school
completed by January.
Discussion took place between Chairman Caouette and the
applicant regarding the conceptual site plan, specifically,
the labeling of a sportsclub.' The applicant stated that
they had designed the brochure for the Sportsclub, a sports
equipment outlet, but were a few days late attracting
them to the site. The applicant added that they did have
a furniture store that is interested in a 30,000+ sq. ft.
store, also a hardware store and pizza place.
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 6
C1,
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions
of the applicant. Being none, asked if there was anyone
in the audience who wished to address the Commission regarding
this item to please step forward and identify themselves.
Christie Reed opposed the ITT Building in lieu of the skating
rink. Stated that the skating rink is the only recreational
facility in Grand Terrace for kids. Felt it was important
to have a recreational facility within the City.
Dave Terbest, President of the Grand Terrace Chamber of Commerce,
was representing the Chamber of Commerce and the Economic
Development Committee, stated that the two organizations
strongly support this project. He stated that they had met
with the applicant and reviewed the plans that were before
the Commission tonight. They felt that this development
would improve the architecture of the entrance into the City,
along with improving the appearance of that specific
location. Mr. Terbest, in response to Ms. Reed's statements,
agreed that it was important to have a recreational facility,
but because of the past burglarizing of the businesses in the
area, felt that the skating rink has had an adverse, as well
as, positive affect.
Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to
address the Commission. Being no one, brought back for further
discussion among the Commissioners.
In response to Commissioner Munson's question regarding fees the
school would have to pay the City, City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins
stated that there are nominal fees which are imposed simply to
pay the costs was all the City could impose pursuant to
Constitutional Article 136. Stated that this facility would not
generate sales tax.
Chairman Caouette asked if there was any other questions with
respect to the request for the proposed use within the C-2 CPD
Zone.
PCM 86-83 Motion by Commissioner Hargrave and
seconded by Commissioner McHugh and
passed by a 7-0 vote to approve this
use within a C-2 CPD Zone and to consider
the Conditional Use Permit for ITT
Technical Trade school.
B. Specific Plan 86-2/Conditional Use Permit 86-4 and Site &
Architectural Review 86-7 for Grand Terrace West.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that this item had been
scheduled for a public hearing, and was being continued at
the request of the applicant.
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 7
Discussion between audience, City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins, and
Q Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, regarding public notice
�] process. It was agreed that a new public hearing notice would
be mailed to those properties within a 300 square foot radius
when this project is to be considered.
C. Conditional Use Permit 86-6 and Site & Architectural Review
86-10 for ITT Technical Trade School.
Chairman Caouette asked for Staff presentation.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented staff report. Stated
that in reviewing the application, staff found that the applicant
is proposing 210 parking spaces consisting of 167 ea. 9' x 19',
21 ea. 7 1/2' x 16', which are compact car spaces, which are not
addressed in the City's Code. They are also proposing two (2)
handicapped parking spaces, which in accordance with State
requirements, are inadequate; this can be covered during the
review process prior to issuance of building permit.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Asked the Planning Director if there was some mention of the
interior landscaping being below minimum requirements.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the landscaping
as it is proposed right now does not meet the requirements of
�f the Zoning Code.
Chairman Caouette stated that his understanding in reviewing
this project that if the 41 compact spaces are used, there
would still be adequate parking meeting the requirements of
the Ordinance 100. Mr. Kicak concurred with this statement.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of
Staff. Asked if the applicant or their representatives would
care to address the Commission.
Dennis Cordoza, applicant, addressed several items. Stated
that even without the compact car spacing, they more than
adequately met the City's parking requirements, as well as
ITT's parking requirements. Addressing the landscaping
problem, stated that because of the physical design of the
existing site, there is not much they can do other than
heavily landscape the areas and cut out areas in the
sidewalk, which they plan to do. However, they can't
get the 15' landscaping requirement. Stated that in order
to compensate for this, will cut out as much as they can
away from the building to buffer the building with landscaping.
Lighting was also brought out in the staff report, he stated
that the final lighting will be decorative type of lighting,
not only for the skating rink but all the way down Commerce
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9- 8- 86
Page 8
Way the nine (9) acres to DeBerry. He also addressed the sales
tax. Stated that they do not generate sales tax from the
school, but their presence will generate the ability to
draw tenants that will draw sales tax.
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, indicated that in the comments for
the Planning Commission determination, within the staff report,
for compact spaces whether they may be applied or whether
Ordinance No. 100 should apply, stated that the Planning
Commission cannot approve the compact parking. And, if the
applicant desires, they can request a variance from Ordinance
100. Ordinance 100 does not allow compact parking spaces
within the City.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were other questions of the
applicant. Being none, opened the public hearing on this
item. Asked if there was anyone who wished to address the
Commission.
James Coffin, CY Development, stated that he was supportive
of this project. Stated that they are the owners of the
property to the west of the property, which is in Escrow with
Victor Construction. They are also the owners of the parcel
on the southeast corner of Commerce Way and Michigan Street,
which Victor Construction has obtained an option interest.
Stated that the students would certainly patronize the
facilities here in town, which would then generate sales tax.
cli Dave Terbest, 22545 Barton Road, Chamber of Commerce President,
reiterated the fact that the Chamber's Economic Development
Committee had met and reviewed the overall impact of the area
to the City. Stated that there will be significant income
indirectly through sales tax, fuel tax and revenues that will
come to the City. Stated again, that the Economic Development
Committee is recommending to this body and will do so to other
bodies of the City, that they support this project. He
personally felt that it is a positive project and that the
Chamber is recommending approval.
Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to
address the Commission. Being no one, closed the public
hearing and returned the item back to the Commission for
discussion.
Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if there is a proposal
for automotive repair instruction facilities.
Vic Peloquin, applicant, stated that the school's primary
technical training is computer training, electronics training
and secretarial. Stated that several ITT Schools have this
component. Stated that there would be no outside instruction
for automotive repair, all of it would be done internally.
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 9
It would be a classroom atmosphere, more or less like an
auto shop in a high school. This is not set in concrete,
but that is what the extra square footage is left for, if
they choose to do that.
Commissioner Hargrave asked what the approximate hours
would be for the school.
Vic Peloquin, applicant, responded that the school will
run from 8:00 a.m. until 9:30 p.m. They run 4 hour sessions
each, starting at 8:00 a.m. til 12:00 p.m., from 12:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. until later in the evening. The
training goes for 2 years, 5 days a week with a one week
break per year.
Commissioner Hargrave asked the applicant what was the
minimum time that ITT would be leasing the structure from
Victor Construction.
Vic Peloquin responded that they are leasing the structure
in Buena Park for 5 years with a 5 year option. They have
asked, for this project, for a 10 year lease, but this has
not been solidified. But, a minimum of 5 years will be their
requirement with options beyond that.
Vic Peloquin went on to address the landscaping. Stated that
they have an existing building that they will try to
spruce up and landscape heavily. But, they do have some
j constraints that the building does not allow that 15' buffer.
Stated that they would adhere to those specifications on
future developments. But, on this particualr facility they
don't have that lattitude.
In response to Commissioner Hargrave's question regarding
sign permit, Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that
the sign permit would be reviewed as a separate item and will
be subject to staff level approval.
The applicant stated for the record that they were aware of
the C-2 CPD requirements for that area.
Chairman Caouette asked the applicant what the difference
was between their landscape plan and the Zoning code
requirements.
Vic Peloquin responded that if he understood from the staff
report, that an area of the building should have a 15'
landscape buffer. But, that the constraints of this
building, plus their walkway and the back up distance that
needs to be there, they can't get 15'.
Dennis Cordoza, applicant, indicated that the property line
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 10
is next to the fence where it drops down 4', it was
suggested that they cut out the concrete along the fence
line and put in landscaping. This would be something they
could do.
Vic Peloquin, applicant, stated that they would have to
determine, from staff, what the staff would allow as far as
streets and sidewalk width. They would be willing to
relocate the trees and/or plant new trees and make the
sidewalk along the curb edge.
Chairman Caouette questioned the applicant about the
adequate space between the parking spaces along by
Michigan Street and the internal parking, asked if
there was, in fact, not enough space to move.
Vic Peloquin responded that that is the minimum requirements
that the code allows right now. The 19' of each of these
stalls with a 25' back-up turn radius and 19' in there; so,
that gives them a constraint as well.
Commissioner Munson asked the applicant if they provide for
15' of landscaping westerly of second entrance.
Vic Peloquin responded that they might lose a few parking
spaces; however, since they have more than adequate parking,
this would be done.
r Commissioner Cole asked the applicant if they could
possibly sacrifice some parking stalls and put in a planted
area 10' x 20' in the area in front of the building along
Commerce Way, to break up the line of parking and to give
a feeling of more landscaping.
Vic Peloquin indicated that that was a good suggestion,
they would replace some parking stalls and provide
finger -like areas for landscaping.
Commissioner Cole asked Staff as long as they meet the
parking criteria with conventional stalls, would the compact
stalls be acceptable. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director,
indicated that he would have no problem with that.
Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that the Planning
Commission has to require that they meet the requirements
and anything above that can be any size parking stalls they
desire.
Chairman Caouette asked Staff if a suggestion mentioned
previously regarding a sidewalk on Michigan Street is
possible from the Building Department standpoint.
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9- 8- 86
Page 11
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, clarified that Chairman
Caouette meant the landscaping on Michigan. Stated' that
he had no problem with that suggestion. Felt that the
important thing to keep in mind was if they are going to
landscaping adjacent to the property line, then the sidewalk
concrete width should be a minimum 6'. If they are going to
construct the sidewalk adjacent to the property line, then
the City's current standard specifications would require
5' sidewalk. The total width of that parkway is 12' from
the curb face to the property line.
Chairman Caouette asked if the landscaping were toward the
street, would it become a maintenance problem for the City.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that it would
still be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain.
Chairman Caouette stated that there was also discussion of
a meandering sidewalk which would require significant
reconstruction. Asked Staff what the Building Department
would require for the permit process.
Joseph Kicak responded that if the Planning Commission
approved the landscaping plan as it was presented with all
of the variations, the Building Department would review it
based on that approval. The additional lighting is a
suggested condition of approval. Prior to issuance of
the building permit, the Building Dept. would review
a more detailed lighting, irrigation and landscaping plan.
Chairman Caouette asked if the City had a current standard
for meandering sidewalks.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that the City does
not have a standard for meandering sidewalks. Stated that
the City does have 2 areas where meandering sidewalks have
been constructed, specifically, on Barton Road in the area just
east of Vivienda, as well as, northside east of Mt. Vernon
and southside east of Preston.
In response to Commissioner Hargrave's question regarding the
trash enclosure, Joseph Kicak stated that there was not one
shown on the plans, and is one of requirements listed in the
Conditions of Approval. This trash enclosure must meet the
requirements of the City's Ordinance.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of
Staff.
Commissioner Munson questioned if it would be a consideration
to put a start and stop light of some sort at the intersection
of Michigan and Commerce Way, due to the additional traffic
1 P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 12
coming into the ITT school and the school kids walking on
Michigan.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, recognized the volume of
pedestrian traffic in that area and the volume of traffic
that will be generated by the school, but that he would not
recommend that, as a result of this single individual
facility, that the traffic signal be constructed at that
location. Stated that if Commissioner Munson was talking
in terms of a push button type, where the children have the
right to some kind of traffic control device, was not sure
if that would be any more beneficial than a stop sign.
Commissioner Munson restated that his concern was for the kids
using a cross walk on the way to school walking north on
Michigan and the cars were going south and making a righthand
turn onto Commerce Way.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that he would oppose
any proposal to put a stop sign at the northwest corner of
Commerce Way to stop the traffic trying to make a right turn
movement onto Commerce Way off of Michigan.
Commissioner Hargrave pointed out, with Mr. Kicak concurring,
that the street is wide enough there so that a car can yield
the right-of-way to a pedestrian without impeding traffic
going in a southerly direction. Commissioner Hargrave went
on to state that if any type of mechanism is put on that
# northwest corner, it will jam up the light on Barton Road.
He pointed out that the street should be wide enough so that
cars can move over to the right coming south to turn onto
this facility without much problem. Joseph Kicak, Planning
Director, also concurred with this statement.
Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, went on to point out that
the roadway on the westerly side of Michigan between Barton
Road and Commerce Way will be 32' wide, and that would
provide for 2 lanes of traffic.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any comments from the
audience.
Barbara Pfennighausen, 22491 DeBerry Street, stated that due
to the fact that most of the children walk down the easterly
side of Michigan Street, because it is where the crossing
guard is located. Pointed out that few children use the
westerly side of Michigan, they take the easterly approach
and cross at DeBerry. Felt that should not be a problem
at that one intersection.
Christie Reed, stated that since there is no stop or yield
sign when getting off the freeway at Barton Road coming from
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 13
Riverside, the City is going to have a lot of traffic backed
up there. Suggested a stop sign or stoplight should be put
in there. Stated that if the school is at that location
that is going to generate a lot of traffic and congestion
at the time most people are going and coming from work.
Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further comments.
Motion was made by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice —
Chairman Hawkinson to add Condition #10 that landscaping
on Michigan be put between the curb and the wall with a 6'
sidewalk along the curb. To have the landscaping on
Commerce Way from the second entrance onto the property
going from a narrow width up to maximum width of 15', on
the westerly side. And, up to 3 or 4 finger type
landscaped areas in place of parking to break up that
area. The following is discussion that took place amongst
the Planning Commission regarding this condition.
Commissioner McHugh questioned with regard to the gradual
15' length, if it might be more practicle, from a parking
standpoint, if that was just a full width from beginning
of the entrance on that westerly portion.
Commissioner Munson stated that from an aesthetic point, he
would like to see the western point be at a maximum of 15'
regardless of how they get that width.
.� Commissioner Fran Van Gelder objected to the tapering of that
particular parcel from narrow to the 15'. She wanted to see
it continue as it is indicated with the same amount of space,
and then on the next parcel do what is appropriate.
Chairman Caouette stated that the Planning Commission might
encourage the landscaping feature that was for the entry way.
Commissioner Cole thought that particular item should be up to
the developer, because he will have to provide the required
parking stalls, and if he can do that and leave room for
entry maybe that would be something they could do.
Chairman Caouette asked the motion maker and seconder if they
had any objection to the applicant addressing this item. There
was no objection made.
Vic Peloquin, applicant, addressed all 3 items in the motion.
Felt that the 6' landscape buffer along Michigan would be
beneficial to that area. Stated his concern with removing
the chainlink fence in that area, due to the 4' drop. Stated
that if they were to do something to remove it, they might
put wrought iron to meet the code. Or, they might lower the
chainlink and put something like green mesh on the chainlink
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9-8-86
Page 14
to secure it. Stated that they didn't like the aesthetics of
the chainlink, but they didn't want to cause anybody any injury
by them being able to pass through there. Having the land-
scaping up against there and keeping the sidewalk on Michigan
adjacent to curb will help that. Stated that he liked the
suggestion of 3 or so finger type projections of landscaping
across the property. Suggested 2 in front of the administra-
tion building and one in the parking lot adjacent to that.
Could not tell what the impact of tapering from the second
driveway to 15' would be.
Commissioner Hargrave after hearing the discussion, stated that
he was in agreement with Commissioner Van Gelder, in keeping
the continuity of that second driveway to the west. Felt that
it might give enough lineage down Commerce Way so it will not
look out of balance when the next parcel is ready to develop.
Commission Munson called for the question.
PCM 86-84 Motion by Commissioner Munson and
seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and
passed by a 4-3 vote, to add Condition
#10 to the Conditions of Approval that:
1) Landscaping on Michigan be
between the curb and the wall with a
6' sidewalk along the curb. 2) To
have the landscaping on Commerce Way,
from the second driveway of the
+ property, go from a narrow width up to
a maximum of 15'. 3) Have 3 or 4
finger -type landscaped areas in
lieu of parking.
Vice -Chairman Hawkinson, Commissioner
Van Gelder and Commissioner Hargrave
voted against the motion.
In response to Commissioner McHugh's question regarding
inadequate handicapped parking, Joseph Kicak, Planning Director,
stated that the State law preempts any action by the Planning
Commission.
Chairman Caouette, with no further discussion or questions,
entertained a motion for the project.
PCM 86-85 Motion by Commissioner Hargrave and
seconded by Commissioner Cole and
passed by a 7-0 vote to approve
Conditional Use Permit 86-6 and Site
& Architectural Review 86-10, subject
to the Conditions of Approval as
specified by staff, and as amended
P.C. Meeting Minutes
9- 8- 86
Page 15
by the Planning Commission.
Q Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting 9:00 p.m.,
�J to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting.
Respectully Submitted by:
Q)�A'
JO TH RIM, Planning Director
Approved by:
CH RMAN, Planning Commission
P.C. Meeting Minutes
01 9-8-86
Page 16