Loading...
10/20/198612-8.1065 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 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 October 20, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman T. Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice -Chairman Ray Munson, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner Daniel McHugh, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Joseph Kicak, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson I. MINUTES A. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 6, 1986. Commissioner Hargrave amended Page 7, Paragraph 7, of the minutes to read: Any member of the Public, or a member of the Planning Commission may request another Public Hearing. PCM 86-93 Motion by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote, to approve the minutes of the October 6, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting, as amended. II. CONTINUED ITEM A. Landscaping and Irrigation Plan for E-Z Serve Convenience Store located at 22087 Barton Road. Chairman Caouette asked for Staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff Report. Pointed out the landscape plan and architectural rendering, as well as the color and material board was presented by the applicant, for Planning Commission review and approval. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner McHugh asked if Staff had any problems with the location of the trees in front of the right of way along Barton Road. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that with the City's present Ordinance, that the trees could be controlled. Mr. Kicak expressed his concern with the trees being in the size planters indicated on the plans. Chairman Caouette asked if there were further questions of staff. Being none, asked if the applicant was present and would care to address the Commission. Nabih Akar, applicant, 22087 Barton Road, stated that he represented the project and hoped for Planning Commission approval of the landscaping plan and colors, so that he could start construction on the convenience store. Discussion between the Commissioners and Applicant regarding the colors indicated for the parapet on the edge of the building. It was pointed out by Chairman Caouette that the Planning Commission had expressed concern over the bright colors presented. Mr. Akar, applicant, responded that those colors were the Arco Company colors and that he could not change them. Chairman Caouette asked the applicant if he had considered an alternative, discussed at the last meeting, to take access behind the building. Mr. Akar responded that he had considered it, but felt that the existing exits were better. Felt access behind the building would cause more problems. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Further discussion took place between the Planning Commission, the Applicant and Staff, regarding the trees located in the front of the project fronting on Barton Road. Commissioner Van Gelder felt that it would be a hazard to have the trees where they were now proposed. Mr. Akar did not feel they would be a hazard. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated he was not concerned about the trees themselves; but, that he would prefer one in each box. Mr. Kicak stated he would have no problem if the Planning Commission required low shrubs or something smaller than the trees that are proposed. Commissioner Van Gelder indicated her preferance for shrubs. Chairman Caouette stated that a shrub can become bushy and if the shrubs P.C. 10-20-86 Page 2 become greater than 30" in height, could create a visibility problem. 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 proposed project. Being no one, brought the item back to the Planning Commission for discussion. PCM 86-94 Motion by Commissioner Hargrave, and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 6-0-1 vote, to have one tree, in place of the two proposed, planted in the center planter box. Commissioner Van Gelder voted against the motion. Chairman Caouette stated that some sort of alternative be considered with regard to the proposed color scheme for the parapet. Stated he felt that community values should take precedence over company colors. Commissioner Munson stated that the issue of colors might be mitigated if the building was moved into the lower left hand corner of the lot. Further discussion took place among the Commission regarding the projects proposed color scheme. Commissioner Cole concurred with the other Commissioner's evaluation of the colors. Commissioner Cole felt that for the majority of the building an alternate color, other than white, might help mitigate the impact of the stripes. Chairman Caouette suggested that before the project is to be approved or denied that the Planning Commission consider and recommend changes for items such as trees and colors. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson felt that maybe some compromise could be worked out with the Company with regard to company colors. Stated that the Planning Commission has been talking about trying to beautify Barton Road. Stated that further down Barton Road, most of the development is of a more conservative nature. Commissioner Hargrave suggested, if this is the only objection, that the Planning Commission continue this discussion to the next meeting and have Mr. Akar check with the Company and present some alternatives to the proposed colors. Chairman Caouette stated that he did not feel the colors as proposed were appropriate; but, did not feel it was his place 1 P.C. 10-20-86 Page 3 to say what they should be other than something that is complimentary to the rest of the building and surrounding development. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that each major oil company have their own logos and colors that they fly, and that the City can't force them to change that nor does the City expect them to. However, the City can get them to downplay the colors so that they blend with the Community. Stated that the Planning Commission could ask the applicant to meet with the Planning Director and find something that might be acceptable to the Commission. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson felt that the Planning Commission should determine if that was the only point objectionable. Commissioner Munson stated his concern was the to the rear of the building. Stated that it is a hidden area and that the owner does not have time to police that area. PCM 86-95 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 6-0-1 vote to direct the applicant to work with the Planning Director to present a color scheme for the parapet and building that is more harmonious and subdues than was presented. Commissioner Munson voted against the motion. PCM 86-96 Motion by Commissioner McHugh and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to continue this project to the next regularly scheduled meeting. And, that the applicant meet with the Planning Director to review other alternatives as suggested regarding colors and an architectural alternative for the rear of the property. III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Tentative Tract Map 13283/Specific Plan 86-5/Conditional Use Permit 86-8 and Site & Architectural Review 86-12 for Lawson Terrace Apartments. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 4 Chairman Caouette asked for Staff Presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, presented Staff presentation. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions of staff. Being none, asked if the applicant and/or his representative was present. Asked if there were any questions of the applicant. Gary Lawson, 18180 Devenonwood Circle, Fountain Valley, CA 92708, owner and applicant. Discussion took place between the Planning Commission, the Applicant and Staff regarding resale of the project. Commissioner Hargrave questioned the applicant's intent for this project, whether it was for investment or resale purposes upon completion of the project. The applicant, Mr. Lawson, responded that his initial plan is to keep the project. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that if Mr. Lawson sold any one of the lots or proposed anything other than what was before the Planning Commission for review, each of those lots would require a Site & Architectural review individually. Mr. Kicak further stated that upon completion or final approval of the Tract by the City Council, there is nothing that would prevent him legally from selling any of the lots. Nor, would anything prevent him from selling any individual lots and the structures on those lots. Commissioner Hargrave stated his concern for this project was five years from now, not the present. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that C.C. & R.'s would cover that. The C.C. & R.'s controlled the color and style. Also, they control additions and painting to the outside of the structure after it is completed. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the C.C. & R.'s should be provided to the Planning Commission before the project has final approval. Stated that it should be an additional condition of approval. The project should be approved subject to the submittal of C.C. & R.'s that are satisfactory to the City Attorney. Bill Addington, J.F. Davidson, 12055 Westwood Lane, Grand Terrace. The Engineer for the project. Stated that they were in agreement with the conditions that the City Engineer has prepared. Also, felt that it was reasonsable for the Planning Commission to have C.C. & R.'s that cover the project. Stated that a project that was designed, even if there was a separate sale of lot, it would be the best interest of all the owners to keep the same coordination of colors and landscaping. Stated that they will accept a condition P.G. 10-20-86 Page 5 that says that they will provide C.C. & R.'s to regulate the conformity of the project. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that whoever has control, within the C.C. & R.'s would have to assure that the project will be harmonious with the balance of the proposed development. Then, the Planning Commission would have to approve it. Those same C.C. & R.'s should provide, upon completion, that the maintenance, upkeep and the color scheme be controlled by those C. C. & R.'s. Stated that, if Mr. Lawson does not build out all of the project at this time and he decides to sell a lot, the C.C. & R.'s would protect those properties which are developed by Mr. Lawson. Those C.C. & R.'s would provide for review of the project before it is submitted for Architectural Design Review by the Planning Commission. Subsequently, those C.C. & R.'s should provide for controls within that subdivision to maintain the integrity of the architecture. Stated that as pointed out by City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins, that the C.C. & R.'s should be prior to the approval of the final map. In response to Commissioner Hargrave's question with regard to who would enforce the C.C. & R.'s if there was not a Homeowner's Association, Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that each of the property owners for each lot would have to maintain the integrity and maintenance of the entire project. And, that the C.C. & R.'s would cover that. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, pointed out that Lot 3 does not meet the minimum required for landscaping and open space by 3%. Gary Lawson, applicant, stated that they had a modification that solved that problem, as well as, the handicapped parking. A five (5) minute recess was called at 8:00 p.m., the meeting reconvened at 8:05 p.m. In response to Chairman Caouette's question regarding the changes to the plans, Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that, after a brief review, he believed the problem would work and meet the requirements and could be further reviewed at the staff level. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Discussion took place between the Commissioners, the Applicant and Staff regarding the perimeter wall. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the wall would go all the way around the project. Mr. Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the Tentative Tract Map indicated the location of the block wall and that the proposed block wall was approximately 48' from the northerly curb line. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 6 Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions. Being none, opened the public hearing for the proposed project. Asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the project. Being no one, asked if there was anyone to speak against the project. Dr. Lillian Barnes, 21946 Vivienda Avenue. Spoke against the project, due to concerns about upsetting the rural setting and the potential for increased traffic on Grand Terrace Road. Also, discussed that the zoning was not compatible with surrounding area. Ann Marie Stauble, 21945 Grand Terrace Road. Spoke against the project. Felt that the project would not be harmonious with the rural and low density setting. Felt this project would be an enormous impact to the area. Also, mentioned the increased noise factor and traffic. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, clarified for the audience that this project was not before the Planning Commission for a zone change or zoning variance. And that the project is Zoned R-3 and is medium density residential and this zone allows this type of project, subject to the public hearing and Conditional Use Permit process. Vernon Stauble, 12168 S. Mt. Vernon Avenue. Spoke against the project. Felt that the City would be changed by this type of development. Asked for consideration to preserve the area and not allow this type of development to come in and change the rural setting. Lois Pierce, 21845 Grand Terrace Road, stated that she lives in the mobile home park. Spoke against the project. Asked if any impact study was made and how it would affect the rest of the people in that area, due to the density proposed. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that an Environmental Impact Study was prepared on the density issue when it was addressed in the General Plan about 2 years ago. Lois Pierce thought that this might be an absentee landlord project. Mentioned the security problem. Stated that Grand Terrace Road is in need of repair most of the time. Questioned if this was going to be a two-story structure. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the structure has one story in the front and the second story is over the carport. Lois Pierce felt this would then cut off their view of the mountains. P.G. 10-20-86 Page 7 W. Liles, 21840 Grand Terrace Road. Spoke against the project, due to increased traffic on Grand Terrace Road. Asked which way the water would drain from this project. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, answered both questions. With regard to traffic, stated that within the General Plan Study, the Circulation Element indicated that the ultimate improvements of the roadways would provide for the traffic volumes. And, that this particular project would generate approximately 160-185 additional vehicles a day. Second, the drainage at the present time, heads south on Grand Terrace Road on the easterly side. Discussion took place between Mr. Liles, Joseph Kicak, Planning Director and the Planning Commissioners regarding the drainage. Mr. Liles expressed his concerned about the additional drainage from this project. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that a condition of approval has been made so that the necessary improvements be installed to solve the drainage problem. And, that this issue will be addressed prior to the final approval of the Tract Map. Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director, if there were reasonable alternatives for drainage on this property. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that there are; however, the drainage problems are not easy in that particular area. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else who wished to 01 speak against the project. Fred Hughes, 21830 Grand Terrace Road and 21840 Barton Road. Spoke against the project, due to the additional run-off from the project. Also, against the project due to increased traffic. Further discussion between Mr. Hughes, Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, and Commission regarding drainage. Mr. Hughes stated there would be increased water run-off from this project and the project adjacent to the railroad tracks. Mr. Kicak, Planning Director, addressed both the projects with regard to the drainage. Stated that all of the drainage that is tributary to the northerly side of Barton Road westerly of Grand Terrace Road will be picked up in a structure and taken down into a large pipe by the project that will be constructed on the northeast corner of Barton and Southern Pacific Railroad. Mr. Kicak further stated with respect to this project, there are a couple of alternatives that Mr. Lawsons' engineer will have to address for drainage. One alternative is to take it down into that large 36" pipe being constructed by the other development. Chairman Caouette asked Staff if the drainage would be taken down the street in the pipe. Mr. Kicak stated that it would depend on the capacity and how much drainage will be generated. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 8 Chairman Caouetted asked if there was anyone else who wished (VQ to speak against the project. Ken McClellan, 21882 Grand Terrace Road. Spoke against the project due to the zoning, increased traffic and potential flooding from additional water run-off. Asked if this project was going to have curb and gutter; and, if at some future date, the other property owners would have to put in curb and gutter. Glenn Roberts, 21934 Grand Terrace Road. Spoke against the project due to increased traffic. Felt that this project was not harmonious with the surrouding area because it will be a two-story structure. Also, felt that it would change the rural setting. Elsie Hobbs, 21912 Grand Terrace Road. Spoke against the project. Felt that it would lower their property value. Also, did not feel that a two-story building was harmonious in that area. Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else to speak against the project. Being no one, asked the applicant if they would like the opportunity to address some of the concerns expressed. Bill Addington stated that they are conforming to the General Plan of the City and to the Zoning of the City. Felt that the area was not rural and not agricultural. Stated under the conditions set by the City Engineer, that they have the burden of solving the problem. Gary Lawson, applicant, stated that their Hydrology Report shows 5% increase of water run-off for this project, based on a 100 year flood. Stated that they would take care of the extra drainage. Also, stated that the whole east side of Grand Terrace Road is zoned R-3. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of the applicant. Lois Pierce asked how increased need for security and maintenance of roads would be handled by the City. L.R. Sullivan 21962 Grand Terrace Road. Spoke against the project, was in agreement with the previous property owners testimony. In response to a question from the property owners in the audience regarding rental charges, Mr. Lawson stated that the rents will be between $550-625. Stated that this will not be a low income project. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 9 Chairman Caouette asked if there was anyone else to speak against the project. Being no one else, closed the public hearing and returned the item back to the Commission for discussion. Discussion took place between Commissioner Hargrave and Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, regarding installation of curb and gutter. Commissioner Hargrave asked Staff to address the curb and gutter issue, which was brought up by one of the property owners. Mr. Kicak responded that in this City, the only way the curb and gutters can be required would be by adding to an existing structure in excess of 650 sq. ft., when a building permit would be required. That's one alternative. Secondly, if there is a subdivision of a certain parcel, as a condition of the subdivision that can be required that curb and gutters are installed. Finally, there are provisions in the Streets and Highways code that when 50% or more of the block is developed to a certain standard, which has curbs and gutters, the City Council may force the balance of the property owners to complete the improvements as they exist to the minimum standards along the frontage of the other property. However, the City Council has never exercised that right. Stated that those are the only way that curb and gutter could be required from the adjacent property owners. Mr. Kicak also stated that this project is required to install curb and gutter along the frontage of the property that the applicant owns. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for an explanation of the Staff findings for the Specific Plan and Conditional Use Permit how it was determined that this project would not be detrimental to the general health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare to the persons residing or working within the neighbor- hood or within the City. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the conclusion comes from two sources. One, was the Environmental Impact Report prepared during the General Plan review. With respect to this project, individual impacts and studies, recommendations, and conditions of approval are made and must be met prior to approval of the final map. And, unless these conditions are met, the map cannot be approved. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that with respect to the comments from the audience, if the Planning Commission determines there will be some injury to any of these areas, then the Planning Commission should require some mitigation measures to eleviate that injury. Also, several speakers had talked about traffic, security and flooding, the same would apply. The Planning Commission should impose conditions that would mitigate those types of problems. Commissioner McHugh stated his concern with regard to traffic P.G. 10-20-86 Page 10 that would be coming down Grand Terrace Road. Asked Staff if the General Plan considered widening of that road and the dedication required. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that the General Plan designation for Grand Terrace Road is a standard residential street with 60' right of way and 36' curb separation, which does not exist now. Stated that the developer would be required to provide for additional dedication and install improvements only along the frontage of his property. On the Tentative Tract Map, the interior streets, Streets A and B, would be dedicated to the City standards and improved to the City Standards. Chairman Caouette asked the Commission to address the Conditions of Approval. PCM 86-97 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Commissioner McHugh and passed by a 7-0 vote, to add Condition #44, which would state: That prior to the approval of the Final Map, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C.C. & R.'s) be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. Said C.C. & R.'s shall govern property maintenance and architectural standards. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director asked that Condition #43 be modified to read that Capital Improvement Fund Fees be paid at the rate payable at the time of building Dermit. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that a law, which will be effective January 1, 1987, will change the School Impaction Fees, so that the City will no longer have the authority to levy school impaction fees. That they will be levied by the affected schools. PCM 86-98 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Cahirman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to modify Condition of Approval #43 to read: That the fees, with respect to school, park, street, storm drain and sewer, the Capital Improvement Fund Fees, be paid at building permit stage at the rate payable at that time. A motion was made by Commissioner Munson to add Condition #45 that the Developer pay a pro -rate share for costs of any traffic signal and devices due to the impact of this project. The following is discussion that took place between the P.C. 10-20-86 Page 11 Commission and Staff regarding this motion. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson agreed with Commissioner Munson there needed to be some way for the developers to participate in the signalization and help control the traffic. Because the increased traffic will potentially be a problem in the future. Felt a recommendation to the City Council for some sort of Assessment District might help mitigate this future problem. Chairman Couette concurred with the sentiment with regard to traffic impact. However, did not feel that the Planning Commission should arbitrarily levy fees starting with this project. Stated that the ultimate thing to do would be to look at the fees themselves to see if they are too low, and if there is a need for a Special Assessment District. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that all the Planning Commission could do is to recommend or make it a condition that fee be recommended to the City Council, and if adopted, that would be applied to this project. And if the City Council determines to levy that fee or adopts such fees then it would be applicable. Stated that the Planning Commission would have to impose that as a condition and allow City Staff and Planning Staff to arrive at some recommendation for what that fee would be. Commissioner Cole addressed the fees already in place and the new fee, stated that perhaps a possible rate change, rather than a separate new fee, would be appropriate. Commissioner McHugh agreed with Commissioner Munson. Felt that this proposed fee should start with this project. The second thing, the City might impose a condition to mitigate the environmental affects of any subdivision project on existing traffic conditions. Stated that if the Planning Commission finds that this project or future projects may result in an increased impact on traffic, request to the City Council to adopt a fee that they feel would be appropriate to mitigate that proportion of the impact. Did not see any need to cut into the existing fees at this time, because not every subdivision would impact in this fashion. Requested that the City Council recognize that this Commission finds an impact and ought to consider adoption of a fee, working with Staff, to determine that pro-rata share, prior to the Specific Plan being finalized. Chairman Caouette confirmed with Staff that he did not expect this project to result in any demand for traffic signal. Asked Mr. Kicak, Planning Director, regarding the need for a traffic signal at any time on Grand Terrace Road and Barton Road and/or LaCrosse and Vivienda Avnue. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 12 Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that he would not anticipate a need for traffic signal on Vivienda Avenue and Grand Terrace Road. However, he does not rule out the possibility of a potential need for a traffic signal on Barton Road and Grand Terrace Road. Also, pointed out that there are no projections, at this time, as to the need. Stated that it takes a lot of traffic generated on a single street to warrant a traffic signal. Also, stated that the Planning Commission is on the right track in stating that the City should either increase Street Improvement Fees to cover the cost of the traffic signals or consider a separate traffic signal fund. Stated his personal feeling, for the record, that the City's Capital Improvement Fund Fees, portions retained by the City, are quite low compared to other cities. PCM 86-99 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 6-0-1 vote, to add Condition #45 to read: that a Pro-Rata share would be determined, at a future date, for any future traffic signals or devices needed, due to the impact of this project or any future projects in that area. And, that this developer shall pay their pro-rata share. Chairman Caouette voted against the motion. Discussion took place among the Commissioners and Staff regarding the drainage. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, pointed out that the sheet flow into the project will be, and is, from the east. Stated that the total drainage pattern in the whole area is from the northeast to the southwest. Mr. Kicak also stated that the water flows southerly towards Barton Road, because Barton Road is higher than an area of Grand Terrace Road 100' - 150' northerly of Barton Road and there is a ponding effect. Stated that it would be difficult to change the drainage pattern for this particular project. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if this project would aggravate the problem on Grand Terrace Road. Mr. Kicak stated that one drop will aggravate it. But, that it is the question of aggravation and what is reasonable run-off and what mitigating measures should be taken. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson addressed the issue of liability of the City for any damages sustained because of this project. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that the City would not accept additional liability any more than the City already has. Stated that the City cannot change where drainage problems have existed. However, Mr. Hopkins stated that certain precautions should be made to try and alleviate those kinds of problems that exist. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 13 Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that Condition #31 of the Conditions of Approval require that appropriate and necessary measures must be taken to solve the drainage problem. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if Condition 31, the way it is worded, assures the people located in that area that the problem would not be made worse by this development of this project. Mr. Kicak, stated that would be at minimum. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any further discussion. Entertained a motion on the Conditional Use Permit. PCM 86-1 Motion by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote to approve the Conditional Use Permit 86-8, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as submitted by staff, and including conditions added by the Planning Commission. Members of the audience asked what their recourse was with regard to this project. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that one of the items brought up was zoning. If any of the citizens, neighbors or adjoining property owners wished to see that zoning changed should approach the City Council, or individual members of the City Council, who would then direct the Planning Commission to initiate the appropriate General Plan and Zoning amendments. With regard to the actions before the Planning Commission, the Conditional Use Permit, which had been approved, could be appealled within 10 days by any property owner located within 300' of this project. They must file an appeal with the City Clerk. The City Council would then hold a public hearing on that appeal of the Conditional Use Permit. The Site & Architectural review could be appealled in the same manner to the City Council. Chairman Caouette entertained a motion on the Site & Architectural Review. Commissioner Hargrave asked the applicant about the kind of material used for roofing. Paul Matheson, Architect, responded that the roofing materials would be a concrete tile. And, that the majority of the roofing would be a flat roof so that they could put the A/C units on the roof and screen them from view. In response to Commissioner Hargrave's question regarding screening, stated that the A/C units will be screened on all sides of the project. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 14 PCM 86-101 Motion by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote to approve the Site & Architectural Review 86-12 as submitted. Further discussion took place among the Planning Commission and Staff regarding Drainage. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, pointed out that there is a beginning of the solution to the problem by the development that is being constructed on the parcel adjacent to the railroad tracks. The ultimate dispo- sition of all the water will be through that system. Stated that it is not an easy solution and that they will have to work with the developers on it. Also, stated that this is why the requirements are worded loosely, to take care of the drainage problem in a reasonable manner. PCM 86-102 Motion by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Hargrave and passed by a 7-0 vote to recommend to the City Council, by Resolution, approval of Tentative Tract Map 13283 and Specific Plan 86-5. A 10 minute recess was called at 10:10 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:20 p.m. B. Tentative Tract 13364/Specific Plan 86-4/ Conditional Use Permit 86-7 and Site & Architectural Review 86-11 for Terrace Grove Apartments. Chairman Caouette asked for staff presentation. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that before going into the Staff report, that he wanted to make two modifications. The first, on Page 2, where it says that the proposed density, in the last line of that paragraph, the number dwelling units, the net acre could not be computed. The word "Not" should be inserted. Second, on Page 4, of the Conditions of Approval, with respect to fees, the same condition should apply as on the previous project. Specifically, that the fees would be payable at the rate when building permits are requested. Mr. Kicak went on to present the staff report and staff concerns for this project. Mr. Kicak reviewed some of the concerns of staff. Stated that Lots 3, 9 and 20 do not meet the minimum widths as specified in Section 7.050. Britton Way is a private street, part of an existing lot, within an existing Tract 10586. It has been developed to a 30' curb to curb, with portions of the roadway existing the property which the project proponent does not own. The easements that exist are easements to that present owner/project proponent would not be transfer to the City. General Plan Circulation Element requires that any roadway, P.C. 10-20-86 Page 15 which is to be accepted for public streets, should be 60' in width, with a minimum of 36' curb separation. On the proposed Street A, which would come through the existing A-P development, proposes to connect Barton Road with the proposed development as a public street. On each side of that existing roadway, there is a parking lot that is being used for the benefit of the existing A-P development. The access across Gage Canal, as well as, the development of the crossing would have to be completed prior to the approval of the subject tract; and crossings fully developed, prior to occupancy of the units. The existing easement on the subject property for the benefit of the property directly to the north, shall be maintained and the access provisions shall be approved by a written release from the property owner, benefitting from said easement. Portions of Lot 20, which is the southwest corner, is now being used a parking lot for the benefit of the A-P Zone users. A letter was enclosed in the packet regarding the existing zoning from the City Attorney. There are provisions for common driveways between two lots generally on the lot line between the two parcels that would be utilized as ingress and egress by the two parcels. Discussion took place between Commissioner McHugh and Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, regarding the conditions of approval which stated that the developer shall have fee ownership of all property within the tract boundary. Commissioner McHugh asked if the applicant does not have fee ownership to all of the property within the tract, would the applicant be in compliance if Britton Way was constructed as a private roadway at the time of final approval of the Tract Map, because there is still an easement over a portion of Britton Way. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, responded that Britton Way as it is now constructed, if it was to remain a private street even though there are easements for sewer, water and storm drain, the City would have no problem with those easements being maintained. With respect to the strip south of the boundary, where the existing Britton Way is now constructed, Staff would have to review the applicant's easement rights to make sure that those easement rights would be maintained for the future and that there are no problems with them. Chairman Caouette asked Staff to elaborate on the suggestion that Canal Street along the boundaries of the property to Barton Road be improvement as a result of increased traffic. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated a fairly large volume of traffic is anticipated all along Canal Street. Therefore, staff has required that that portion along the frontage of the Professional Center on Canal Street, which is now the City of Riverside right of way, be improved all the way down to Barton Road. Mr. Kicak stated that this would be from the south- westerly boundary of the tract from the westerly extension of P.G. 10-20-86 Page 16 the southerly line of Lot 20. The additional improvements required are the improvements from the westerly extension of the northerly line of Lot 1 across the Canal Street all the way down to Barton Road, on the easterly side of Canal Street. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any other questions of Staff. Discussion took place between the Planning Commission and Staff regarding the Gage Canal access. In response to Commissioner Munson's question regarding the status of Gage Canal, Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responded that the acquisition of the crossings was scheduled to go into escrow on the 24th of October, assuming that the City Council approved it on the 23rd of October. If the City Council does not approve it, then it goes into eminent domain proceedings. Chairman Caouette asked Staff how long the process would take. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that the City would have possession within 30 days. Stated that Gage Canal required that the City acquire the right of way to Canal Street. And that the Ctiy give certain assurances as to drainage, utilities, limits of crossings and so forth, these all went in one package. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, added that the additional right of way onto the existing 50' City of Riverside right of way to provide for the widening of Canal Street is part of the package. Commissioner Munson asked if landscaping was included. Ivan Hopkins stated that it was included, provided that the City and/or developers adhere to their standards. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked if there was a possibility of paving and widening Canal Street across the Canal itself. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, responsed that under the present management of the Gage Canal Company and the City of Riverside the City would have to go to court in eminent domain and acquire the rights to the entire canal by force. Also, stated that they will not allow anybody on the Canal property where the canal is located. The City is required to fence off the crossings so that nobody can have access to the canal from those crossings. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, in response to Commissioner Munsons' question regarding the width of that property, stated that the City is obtaining additional right of way, so that they can build a 44' curb to curb separation, which would meet the current Circulation Element of 44' width. Pointed out that there is one parcel on the southwest corner of McClarren and the Canal street, that has an existing residence and the City does not have that right of way. Discussion took place between Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and } P.C. 10-20-86 Page 17 Joseph Kicak, regarding substandard lot size. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that after scaling the plan, there are three (3) parcels that appeared not to meet the minimum lot width, which is 60' at the setback line. But, the setback lines are not shown. Stated that it may meet the requirements. Mr. Kicak felt that all of the lots could be designed to meet the requirements of the Code. And, that if it does not meet the requirements, it would have to go through a Public Hearing process before the Planning Commission and then to the City Council with the Planning Commission's findings and recommendations. If, and when, the final map is computed, the map should indicate dimensions that meet the minimum standards, which is 60' width at the building setback line. Discussion between the Commission and Staff regarding the proposed Street A through the Town and Country Center. Chairman Caouette asked if there might be problems both within the center itself and the traffic which moves into and off of Barton Road. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that his concern would be for the traffic within the Town and Country center itself. Stated that the conflicts between the traffic coming into the development and going out of the development with the traffic that is there in the parking lot is a potential problem. The second, was the turning movements onto Barton Road coming out of the development and making a left turn onto Barton Road, with high speed traffic going east, could be a potential problem. Did not feel that Street A coming out to Barton Road through that development, through the A-P zone and parking lot, was a real solution to the problem. Commissioner Hargarve asked if Staff had any alternative solutions. Mr. Kicak stated that he would not have a problem if Britton Way, as it is now developed and assuming there would be no parking in that area, that that be the major public access from Mt. Vernon. The second access being McClarren Street across the Canal. That would require, if the City maintains Britton Way as it is now developed, that Mr. Britton, the applicant, obtain some kind of Grant Deed from the property owners to the south. This Grant Deed would grant him easement that he could convey title to the City for that portion which is improved, plus sufficient for the size required. Mr. Kicak further stated that easterly of the tract boundary, as Britton Way comes toward Mt. Vernon Avenue, that would be zoned for no parking and, if and when, it was warranted that that portion of the street be widened, then the City would require the developer of the parcel to the north, to widen that particular portion of Britton Way. That would be one of the solutions, giving two points of access to the project. Then, Street A as it comes into the A-P development would probably be a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Hargrave stated and Ivan Hopkins confirmed that C.C. & R.'s would have to put in as a provision for this project. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 18 Commissioner Van Gelder stated her concern with regard to the common driveway. Confirmed with Staff that this meant that it is a driveway of one width and two parties using it. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, confirmed this. Stated that his concern was not the width. But, the fact that the two parties across property lines utilizing the same driveways and the responsibility for maintenance. As pointed out, the C.C. & R.'s could cover that portion. Chairman Caouetted asked if there were any further questions of Staff. Being none, asked if the applicant and/or his represen- tative wished to address the Commission. Bob Bryde, Bryde Mossman Architects, 326 N. Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA. Presented the history of the project. Stated that the project includes an enclosed two -car garage attached to each unit. Each garage will have automatic garage door openers. Stated that this would help mitigate a small security issue. Stated that the garages would be screened from the public roadway throughout the site. Addressed some of the circulation issues. Stated that they felt it was possible to mitigate any of the traffic concerns, as far as, circulation pattern that exists within the Town & Country Professional center. Stated that there is a direct conflict across the drive. The other concerns were the Canal Crossings. Stated that the project, architecturally, would be a very pleasing environment. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson stated that the access to Barton Road, may be required as a condition of approval, to be made a cul-de-sac and have access onto Canal Street. Restated his concern over traffic on Barton Road. Bob Bryde restated that his comment was addressing cul-de- saccing their project from the Town & Country Professional Center. Pointed out the advantage of Street A and Street B to get to Canal Street and eventually to the signals to make a left turn onto Barton Road. Stated that as Mr. Kicak pointed out, traffic will become heavier and making a left turn out of the Town and Country Center will become quite a bit worse in the future. Mr. Bryde felt that this potentially mitigated a future long term problem that may exist out of that center. Stated that his point was directed to the users of that Town & Country Center for access to Canal Stret where they could make a left turn onto Barton Road. Vice -Chairman Hawkinson asked the applicant if negotiating a turn onto Barton Road out of the Town & Country Center would it cause a problem for the site if they came around and back down Canal Street. P.C. 10-20-86 Page 19 Bob Bryde stated that it would generate more traffic. Stated that that use would not be one that would percipitate a great deal of traffic. Pointed out that this type of use gets it's arrival traffic at work hours, traffic leaving for lunch and rearriving, and then leaving again at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Munson asked the applicant if they foresaw any problem bringing Canal Street up to the width that the Planning Commission would require. Bill Mauerhan, applicant, responded to Commissioner Munson's question. Stated that putting the burden of providing the ultimate width of Canal Street on this project would be unjust. Stated that there are high-tension power lines that are in there and that would mean that those would have to be moved back to the proper distance. Stated the improvements along Canal Street, along with moving the power poles and possible signals, could exceed $250,000. Mr. Mauerhan did not think that this project could stand the cost of those improvements. Asked if the Gage Canal, with it's improvements, the power pole relocation, drainage, along with traffic signal, could be handled under an assessment district and have all of the properties share equally in the costs. Commissioner Hargrave asked City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins, to speak to the issue of an assessment district. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that an assessment district for the entire area had been investigated. But, it was loaded down with so many costs that it was no longer a marketable bond. Stated that he, and did not think Mr. Kicak, the City Council or the Planning Commission, would have any problem of pursuing an assessment district for those costs, so long as it does not get overloaded. The assessment district could include public improvements and not private development. Stated that making the improvements on Canal Street and the signals would be allowable project items for an assessment district. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, stated that they were still open to an assessment district. Pointed out that it would take a majority of the property owners, by petition, to initiate those things. Bill Mauerhan stated that they did not have a problem main- taining the engineering requirements that both the Gage Canal Company and the City wants along the Canal crossing. They did not have a problem as far as building the crossing. However, doing the work all the way down, was a major problem. He did not want to be burdened with something that has been there a long time. Mr. Mauerhan felt that it would be unjust and 01 extremely expensive and could kill the project. P.G. 10-20-86 Page 20 -` Chairman Caouette stated that they are suggesting that the applicant do their fair share along the frontage and then requesting some along the Town & Country Center. Asked the applicant if they were willing to develop an assessment district. Bill Mauerhan stated that they are all for it and would be willing to sign a petition. Felt it was the only way all the work was going to get done. Unless, the fees that are paid to the City, for street improvement fees, could be utilized. Chairman Caouette answered that those fees do not provide for that type of development. Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney, suggested that the Planning Commission continue this meeting, in order that some these questions might be answered. Chairman Caouette concurred with the City Attorney. Stated that the Planning Commission has some significant concerns for the project. Mr. Britton, owner and applicant, confirmed that the Planning Commission is asking for them to take out all the power poles necessary and move them back an put in a signal light at Barton Road. Joseph Kicak, Planning Director, pointed out that that was not in the report. But, with respect to the widening of Canal Street, from Barton Road southerly, that is something that they would be requested to do. PCM 86-103 Motion by Commissioner Hargrave and seconded by Vice -Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to continue this item to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission Meeting to be first item on the agenda. Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission Meeting at 11:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved By: Clm/RMAN, Planning Commission Page 21