Loading...
08/17/1987GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING August 17, 1987 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 17, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman, Norman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Fran Van Gelder, Commissioner David Sawyer, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney ABSENT: Pledge of Allegiance: Gerald Cole -f. — ` TRU T ES"- WORRSHOP —"-- Convened at 6:30 p.m. --------------- Mr. Bruce Ramm, Security Design, gave slide presentation and lecture to the Planning Commission on crime prevention by environmental design. WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:10 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED 7:10 P.M. Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting July 6, and July 7, 1.987 Commissioner Hargrave suggested correction on Page 8, 5th paragraph, of July 6, 1987 minutes. Change wording from "is" to "has" in sentence, ..net density is the actual density that a project is upon a completion of all dedications," was agreed upon by both Commissioner. Hargrave and Planning Director David Sawyer. MOTION Motion made by Commissioner Munson, with changes 1 PC-87-40 noted, to approve minutes of July 6th and July 7th, 1987. Seconded by Commissioner Hargrave. Motion passed, all ayes. PUBLIC HEARING 1 year extension Tentative 15050 T.J. Austyn Inc. David Sawyer, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Tentative Tract map 13050 and Specific Plan 85-10 and City Council approved those items on September 12, 1985. In accordance with the Tentative Tract Map Act, the approval of the Tentative Tract map is set to expire on September 12, 1987. Motion PC-87-41 Tentative Parcel 87-4 Blue Mtn. Mr. Sawyer stated that staff has received a request from the applicant requesting a one year extension, and presented the staff report. Commissioner Hargrave questioned if there were any additional fees on the extension, and if the project was close to completion. Planning Director stated that there were no further fees. He confirmed that the applicant has indicated they are close to preparing the final three phases for recordation, not necessarily construction. Commissioner Hargrave proposed that they grant the extension for Tentative Tract 13050, Specific Plan 85-10, until September 12, 1988. Seconded by Commissioner Van Gelder. Chairman Caouette asked for on this motion. Motion passed, all Ayes. any further discussion Chairman Caouette asked for clarification as to the applicant's request for continuance of this item. The Planning Director, David Sawyer, stated that this was an application for a three -parcel minor subdivision which coincided with the commercial C development which the Site and Architectural Review Board considered at their last meeting. The parcel is north of DeBerry and south of Commerce Way. They have requested that this item be continued until after the General Plan hearings in October, so that issue may be cleared up prior to the approval of this map. Chairman Caouette stated that the suggested subdivision, located at 21920 DeBerry, has been requested for continuance. He opened the Public Hearings for discussion. No discussion. Chairman Caouette asked for motion on continuance. Motion PC-87-42 Commissioner Van Gelder introduced motion for continuance. Seconded by Commissioner Cole. Motion carried, all Ayes. Tentative Parcel 87-5 Fox, Stephen Chairman Caouette introduced next item dealing with request for a minor subdivision of 1.1 acres into 4 individual lots, on the southeast corner of Pico Street and Blue Mountain Court. Planning Director, David Sawyer, stated this was an application by Mr. Stephen Fox and presented the staff report. Chairman Caouette opened discussion from staff. Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director for the history of the zoning on this particular parcel. Mr. Sawyer stated that it is his understanding that during the last General Plan consideration for this area, the original intent by staff was that the area be zoned as A-l. However, it was left as R-1 because there was a Tentative Map which was approved at that time for this particular lot which did divide it up into smaller lots. Since that time the map has expired and no final map was recorded. The applicant is now coming back to the city requesting another Tentative Map. Commissioner Hargrave requested that the conditions be mentioned before starting the Public Hearing. Mr. Sawyer read a memorandum presented to the Planning Commission from -the City Engineer. The conditions were mentioned per the staff report. Mr. Sawyer noted that Blue Mtn. Court is a private road and is not a dedicated public street, which the City maintains. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the new zoning requirements were in effect for this property, how many lots could be established. The Planning Director stated if it were changed to the R-1/40 zoning it would be 1 lot. If the Commission decided to zone it as an R-1/20, it is possible to have 2 lots. Chairman Caouette asked if the rest of the lots on Blue Mountain Court were 1 acre lots. Mr. Sawyer replied yes. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:20 P.M. C.G. Engineering David Baraquin 2627 S. Waterman Applicant/Stephen Fox Mr. Baraquin stated that all of the conditions have met with their approval, should this be approved. Disagreed with the finding in the proposed resolution as not being physically suitable for the development of this type. He stated that most east/west streets were developed with the same type of 7200 sq. ft. minimum lot size. He further stated that this plan is consistent with present General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. He felt that it was more of an A-1 island than a R-1 island. Chairman Caouettte asked for any comments from the public in favor of this project. Stephen Fox owner/ 382 E. Bonnie View/Rialto Mr. Fox gave history of property since his purchase in 1981. The first City Council meeting that he attended in order to get the parcel map through he was informed by the City that horses were no longer allowed to any new applicants. Thus he decided to divide to two 1/2 acre lots, estate type situation since he was not allowed to sell as horse property. 4 Met various problems with street realignment, septic systems, widening of Pico Avenue, concrete curb and gutter. Chairman Caouette asked for any further favorable statements from the public. He then asked for any unfavorable comments from the public. Dennis Kidd 22874 Pico St. G.T. Mr. Kidd stated that he was opposed to the subdivision because it was out of character with the large lots at the end of Pico Street. He felt the topography of the land would not allow 4 lots. Ted Smith 22873 Pico St. G.T. Mr. Smith mentioned that he shared the east side property line with the subject property. He was opposed to it because the surrounding area supported 1 acre lots, and putting a subdivision with that density would degrade the neighborhood. R-1 would be fine, R-2 possible, but 4 lots on that acre would not be acceptable. Mark Stein 12711 Blue Mt. Crt G.T. Mr. Stein was opposed to the project due to it being detrimental to the surrounding areas. Karen Kiever 12714 Blue Mt. Crt. G.T. Ms. Kiever stated that her main objection was that the project was not compatible with the existing housing around it. The project is too small for such numerous lots. Expressed concern over the access to the larger lots proposed by the plan. The access appears to be on Blue Mt. Court and does not appear to be wide enough to permit legally both entrance and exit. She questioned if more property was needed to provide entrance and exit along Blue Mountain Court. Joe Kicak City Engineer Mr. Kicak stated that Blue Mountain Court is a separately numbered parcel, owned by the property owners along the frontage of that particular cul- de-sac. Staff in preparing recommendation i recognized that, "...offer for dedication to this City as street width, recognized that may not be possible." That would mean that somewhere down the road, we would have to recognize if that map is approved that Mr. Fox has several alternatives: 1) Purchase the R-O-W for that parcel, 2) Recognize that is a task which is virtually impossible, 3) Leave Blue Mountain Court as a private street, 4) Open for dedication, 5 Sign agreement for future improvement of that particular street if ever public R-O-W. Mr. Kicak pointed out that without the cooperation of all the property owners, Mr. Fox does not have a legal ingress or egress without traffic problems. Karen Kiever Ms. Kiever stated again that the property owners had several problems with this project. C.J. Engineering Baraquin Mr. Baraquin stated that all of Blue Mountain Court was offered for dedication by a parcel map in 1978. He mentioned that as he understood the offers of dedication are always open. Also, he stated that the dedication has been accepted in the past. The access would not be a problem, all that the City would have to do would be to accept the standing offer for dedication that already exists and was offered by Mr. McKiever's office in 1978, parcel map 3973. Chairman Caouette questioned if the City would have to maintain Blue Mountain Court. Mr. Baraquin, C.J. Engineering, clarified that the requirements for Mr. Fox were to install all of the improvements and maintain it as a public street. General discussion continued regarding the width and dedication requirement. Chairman Caouette asked for any further comments or opposition to the project. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE CONVENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Motion PC-87-43 Commissioner Munson entered a motion, rather than denying this project, to have the applicant waive 101 j the project and see how it is handled under the upcoming revision of the General Plan. City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins, clarified that the concurrence by the applicant would be needed before the motion could be addressed. Chairman Caouette directed the question to Mr. Fox. Commissioner Munson mentioned two choices that Mr. Fox would have. Either the Planning Commission would deny the project or else they would continue it and they needed his waiver to do so. The Planning Director stated that with the possible change to the Agricultural Overlay Zone would probably be recommended also. Commissioner Van Gelder asked of the Planning Director if he anticipated a large number of property owners wanting horses in that area which would cause the Planning Commission to consider an agricultural overlay. Mr. Sawyer stated that from a visible observation it appeared to be a .logical consideration. Stephen Fox Mr. Fox wondered if possibly a revision into three lots facing Pico would not solve the problem. He would like to waive it if a revision were possible. Commissioner Cole stated that he understood the motion as being they could not act on it until they received Mr. Fox's approval on the request of continuance. Chairman Caouette stated that it should be continued until the General Plan and Zoning revision. Mr. Fox asked if it was appropriate to convey that right and appeal to the City Council. Chairman Caouette stated that whether approved or denied it was his right to take this to the City Council. City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins, concurred with same. 7 G. Mr. Fox asked if he revised the project for a 3 lot split would that be a new project. The Planning Director stated that would require a revised map to be submitted to the Planning Director, however there would be no new fees. Mr. Fox stated that he would waive the time limit requirements. City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins, stated that there should not be a discussion on a revised map but simply ask the applicant whether he waives or not. Chairman Caouette directed same question to the applicant. Mr. Fox reiterated that he would waive, Commissioner Cole seconded Commissioner Munson's motion. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her concern over the R-3 zoning moratorium and revision of the General Plan in the past, causing conflict for the applicants. Chairman Caouette and Commissioner Cole expressed appreciation for the opposition comments from the surrounding property owners. He understood their position of the potential access problem. Commissioner Cole stated also that he was sympathetic with the applicant. He has followed the laws and made application under the current rules. Commissioner Cole would be in favor of the applicant's revision. Chairman Caouette ended discussion and asked for vote. MOTION Motion carried, all AYES. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE ADJOURNED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -- FOR A 15 MINUTE BREAK CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE RECONVENED THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING-- 8:15 p.m. CUP 87-7 0 M APPLICANT/KEENEY Combined Recreational Vehicle Park and Retail Shop Facility in C- 2 zone. The Planning Director gave the background information on the CUP project with the staff report and conditions and stated that the Site and Architectural Review will be addressed on another agenda. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of July 6, 1987, page 13. He had asked the consultant/Mr. Geller as to what would be appropriate for that site. Mr. Geller stated that he could see a shopping center development in this area. He stated that he would find a RV Park intrusive. Commissioner Hargrave further questioned the Planning Director as to why he disagreed with the consultant's opinion. Mr. Sawyer felt that the overall use of this site would be more advantageous as part of a larger shopping center development. In speaking with the applicant, Mr. Sawyer stated, the reason for•this type of park is that there is at least some commercial development which is in the front portion of the lot. The rear portion which is dedicated to the RV Park would be designed in a manner that if an overall project were developed it could be replaced without substantial hardship to the owner of the property and worked into a future development. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the comments from the Department of Transportation to the City Engineer. That the easterly driveway as proposed, not be constructed in close proximity to the intersection of La Crosse and Barton Road as this would create traffic safety problems. Developers should construct driveway as close to the westerly property line utilizing emergency exit as additional driveway. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the Department of Transportation was recommending against putting that driveway which would seem to completely change the proposal as to the traffic situation. City Engineer, Joe Kicak, stated that it must be recognized that La Crosse Avenue and Barton Road and the extension of the westerly line of La Crosse E is actually within the state r-o-w. He does recognize the problems with the proximity of this driveway and potentially large turning radius of 35-50'. The problem of the driveway can be solved at the expense of the interior radius. Chairman Caouette pointed out that if their recommendations were followed it would bring increased traffic on Grand Terrace Road. We are trying to limit that by restricting that exit to emergency access only. City Engineer, Joe Kicak, referred to his comments which suggested that the developer look at the potential of coordinating with property owners the access or the exit from the park into Grand Terrace Road with respect to both traffic and the drainage problem. Some provisions would have to be made to keep drainage appropriate. Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification of item #3 of the Department of Transportation's report, "...any additional widening to achieve it should be provided on Barton Road to allow left turn into the driveway." City Engineer, Joe Kicak, stated that he understood the recommendation to mean the Department of Transportation had a concern with any traffic that was coming from the west, specifically the La r- Cadena area with one access to that point, they want a median for a turning lane in the middle of Barton Road. Commissioner Hargrave asked if Barton Road was situated where a left turn pocket could be there now. If not, what would it take. City Engineer, Joe Kicak, stated that it is not setup presently. Keeping in mind that we are requesting that Barton Road be dedicated to 50' width along the center line which places the curb at 36' plus some additional 20' total of 56' feet of paved section all in that particular roadway. He stated that there are problems with that which is the widening will occur beyond the point where the entrance by Cal Trans is recommending. Therefore it means that the widening will take place to the west of the project to provide for turning. 10 M Mr. Kicak further suggested that unless the area to the west of the proposed park is approved there is not adequate room for a left turn pocket lane. Commissioner Hargrave asked how much street width would be needed to enable a turning lane. City Engineer, Joe Kicak, stated that the minimum needed is a storage for at least one large vehicle, minimum of 50' west. At this time he visualized that most of the traffic would be coming off the freeway and making a right turn off of Barton Road without a median island. However, ultimately if there is any left turn that median would be needed. Commissioner Hargrave asked if coming off the freeway, making a right turn off of Barton, if they don't need a median there. Mr. Kicak explained that the traffic coming off the freeway has to use the northerly lane to turn. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was enough frontage coming off the freeway into the park with a 50' rig, if Cal Trans doesn't allow the first entry using the second. Mr. Kicak explained that as the proposal presently stands, no. He stated if they wished to do so, the driveway should be moved easterly to accommodate more turning radius. The westerly entry should be moved easterly if there is only one entry. Commissioner Hargrave questioned if Grand Terrace Road could accommodate the potential traffic. He further asked how much work would have to be done on Grand Terrace Road to bring it up to grade. Mr. Kicak answered no to either in volume or structural. He stated that it had been resurfaced for light loads. He stated that area of Grand Terrace Road should be designed to a traffic index of 7 and that depends on the conditions to determine what should be done. Commissioner Hargrave speculated if there is a potential for a traffic signal there because of the increased traffic. City Engineer, Joe Kicak, agreed that there would 11 W LJ be a traffic impact but could not speculate as to just what it would be. Chairman Caouette, referring back to the staff report, stated that parking spaces do not account for the 150 RV spaces and 1 for every 5 of regular parking spaces. Thus, it means that there are several RV spaces which would be lost because the parking spaces would be adjacent to the RV spaces. Mr. Sawyer clarified that the design concept was to have them clustered throughout the park. The condition of 1 parking space for every 5 RV's was after taking a look at the City of Hemet's ordinance on RV parks. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the proposal has more parking spaces than the Planning Department considers necessary at this time, based on making it a C-2 requirement. Mr. Sawyer confirmed that they would have more parking then would be necessary. However, if they were to place the 1-5 ratio in addition it would not have enough additional parking. Commissioner Hargrave asked how many more would be needed if they took the 1 for 5. Mr. Sawyer answered approximately 25-30. There are 10 more than what is required, and approximately 20 new spaces depending on how many RV spaces they would end up with after revising their plan. Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification of condition #5. Mr. Sawyer stated that the 20' wide setback with the 3' berm along Barton Road, would be in addition to any dedication that would be required for Barton Road. There is a potential that certain buildings be moved back further than where they are at now. The berming would be along the short area of La Crosse right of way and the Barton Road right of. way. The requirement for the 6' block wall would be along the perimeter of the property everywhere except where the right of way is adjacent to it. The landscaping area is a requirement that is appropriate for the commercial development. The berming will give some type of sight relief and not go over the 3' maximum for front yard site requirements. 12 3 Commissioner Van Gelder asked for clarification of conditions #7 and #14. The Planning Director stated that the open space requirement was an attempt to prevent the area from becoming a row of vehicles with both RV and automobile parking. It was felt that if cluster automobile parking was provided throughout that area it will take away some of the desire and temptations to pull a car into those spaces. Those spaces would also be required to be landscaped and paved. Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification of condition #19, television antenna. Would there be a difference between the television antenna or satellite. The Planning Director stated that for the purpose of the condition there would be no difference. The purpose of the condition is that it allows the park to provide one satellite antenna and that no other satellite dish would be allowed on the other shops or other RV permanent buildings. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was a condition on the current code on satellite dishes and their requirements. Mr. Sawyer, Planning Director, stated that there was not a specific requirement but there are height restrictions, and location restrictions. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Bob Keeney/Applicant 12139 Mt. Vernon Mr. Keeney stated that their project is a good interim use of that land since there is no additional property available. They are approaching the problem of the ingress and egress for the commercial and RV area. Agreed with Cal Trans to conduct a traffic study. There would not be a problem with drainage since the RV and Commercial areas drain towards Grand Terrace Road. Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification as to the vehicles entering on the easterly entry. The 13 RVs and vehicles sharing westerly ingress and egress. Mr. Keeney stated that the use is separated by an island. After conferring with Cal Trans, that it would be used either as an entrance only or if it were an exit it would be a right turn only. They will be hiring a Traffic Engineer to conduct a study of the area. Commissioner Hargrave asked for comments in regards to the City Engineer's suggestion that entry/exit on the west side be used towards the east to give additional turning radius. Mr. Keeney agreed with the City Engineer that there was not enough traffic in one direction to warrant that. When the property develops and there is an increase in traffic then it should be considered. Commissioner Munson asked if there would be a problem with an increase of a parking space for each 5 units. Mr. Keeney stated that it would not become a problem. The only problem they had with the conditions was limiting the entrance to one. Chairman Caouette asked for comments in support of the project. Ken McClelland 21812 Grand Terrace Rd. Mr. McClelland owns properties directly opposite the emergency exit and south of the emergency exit. He expressed favor with the project. The Conditional Use Permit met most of their concerns. The drainage problem could be handle more efficiently by not paving the emergency exit, better water absorption. He favored not utilizing the emergency exit. David Trivest 22545 Barton Rd. Mr. Trivest expressed support of the project. He stated that any ingress/egress problems could be addressed with the traffic study. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Conditional Use Issues adequately addressed the engineering 14 G-- concerns, prior to the final Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Caouette commented that there was one item in contention, the access along Barton Road and subsequent effect of use of the emergency access. In addition to requiring more parking spaces we would be looking at a redesigned project. If we were to approve this project it would be a Conditional Use Permit for a RV park. Mr. Sawyer clarified that if the Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a "RV park" that met the conditions attached it would not be as presented here but would need to be brought back and approved by the Site and Architectural Review on a site approval basis. Mr. Sawyer stated that it would be appropriate to add a condition regarding the traffic analysis and that the Site and Architectural Review not be approved until that analysis is done and can be made available to the Commission. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the City Engineer's opinion of no potential problem with drainage. Commissioner Hargrave requested clarification as to whether there was a large flooding problem. Mr. Sawyer referred to condition #41, "...existing drainage patterns shall be perpetuated in measures to mitigate drainage impact should be included in this development." Mr. Sawyer stated that when this site plan is brought back before the Site and Architectural Review Board with its revised plans, that the plans will need to meet the City Engineer's approval for handling any drainage concerns. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the Conditional Use Permit does address what type of businesses would be there in the commercial structures. Mr. Sawyer, stated that any businesses that met the criteria of the C-2 zone would be allowed. Commissioner Hargrave asked the Planning Director to check into the businesses allowed in the C-2 Zone to see if anything may present any restrictions on this project later. 15 f_ Mr. Sawyer suggested that there are some building l uses which would require a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Hargrave asked what one of those uses would be. He asked if an auto repair shop would be the same as a RV repair shop. Mr. Sawyer stated that he would consider that the same. He pointed out that the shops range in size from 900-5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Sawyer stated that the Planning Commission request the traffic analysis be submitted to the S&A review prior to that board taking any action on a revised plan. He also suggested that the Planning Commission has the option of continuing this project and asking that the revised plans be brought back for review through the Conditional Use Permit process. Chairman Caouette stressed the importance of needing the traffic study before a decision could be made. Mr. Sawyer stated that they may either go with the conditions mentioned by the Department of Transportation or the Planning Commission could study it on their own with a traffic analysis. Commissioner Hargrave stated that there was a problem with going along with the Department of �_. Transportation's suggestion, that traffic would be coming out onto Grand Terrace Road. Robert Keeney The Planning Director recommended that they not follow the Department of Transportation's suggestion and keep it limited to an emergency exit only. He indicated that the 50' wide requirement on entry from Barton Road was based on the City of Hemet's ordinance for a single entrance drive for a RV park. City Engineer, Joe Kicak, stated that a 50' paved travel way would be adequate for the RV type of vehicle. He mentioned that an outside traffic study should be considered because it does impact the immediate r-o-w adjacent to that entrance. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the traffic study should include Barton Road and Grand Terrace Road. 16 MOTION PC-87-44 Mr. Keeney mentioned that Cal Trans had already required them to do the traffic study. They plan to have the problem of r-o-w before the Site and Architectural Review. Mr. Keeney asked for approval of the project subject to solving the traffic problem prior to coming back for the Site and Architectural Review. Commissioner Hawkinson expressed his lack of support for the project. He indicated that there will be problems with traffic caused by this type of project. Any paving and diversion of drainage down Grand Terrace Road will aggravate a bad situation. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that she was against the project earlier and still had concerns. She expressed her concern with the 50' width and RV traffic pattern. She felt there was a better use for this area. Commissioner Munson expressed his support for the project. He stated that of all the projects he has seen for this location, this was the best one. Commissioner Munson made the motion to adopt CUP- 87-7 subject to the conditions stated in this report and including said resolution. This would include the traffic study. Commissioner Munson asked for clarification that all that is being considered this evening for approval is the use of a RV park. Planning Director stated that the CUP is being considered for an RV Park and Commercial Center at this site, subject to S&A review of revised plans that will meet all of the conditions mentioned this evening. Commissioner Hargrave asked if this included the traffic study. The Planning Director stated that this would include the traffic study and also mentioned that an on -site property manager should be included as a condition also. Conditions 38-41 had been taken from the Cal Trans recommendations and that all "shoulds" contained therein are to read "shall". 17 Chairman Caouette asked if the traffic study is to be included as far as the final outcome and the design of the project. The Planning Director stated that the City Engineer had implied that Cal Trans would require review of the traffic study and its recommendations and that it would be appropriate to make that a formal condition for the CUP. Also to have City Engineer review it . Chairman Caouette asked if the question of drainage had been addressed. Mr. Sawyer stated that the question of drainage had been adequately answered with the conditions in the report. Chairman Caouette directed discussion to the motion on the floor with approval of the project with listed conditions. Commissioner Hargrave seconded. Commissioner Hargrave questioned if the residents on the west side had access to the stores. He asked if perhaps Mr. Keeney should not address this design question tonight or when he comes back. Mr. Sawyer suggested that this question could be addressed at the Site and Architectural Review. Commissioner Hawkinson expressed his opposition to the project because of its various problems. Chairman Caouette indicated he did not feel the RV Park was compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial uses. Any questions of vehicle movement or circulation associated with any project should come to the Planning Commission with the project and not later. Motion denied, 4 noes, 2 ayes. Commissioners Munson and Hargrave voting aye. Commissioners Van Gelder,- Hawkinson, Cole and Chairman Caouette voting noe. CUP is denied. Chairman Caouette indicated to Mr. Keeney that it is his right to appeal before the City Council, within a ten day appeal period. 18 Applicant/ The Advocate School 11980 Mt. Vernon Avenue Mr. Sawyer presented the Staff report on the private school facility to be constructed in the R- 3 zone and recommended approval. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the Planning Director's recommendation of 90 students enrollment as being in the current development or considering the future development. Mr. Sawyer stated that the applicant had indicated the current development was designed to handle 80 students. He stated that none of the conditions mentioned earlier take in consideration those few areas on the plans that are indicated as any additional development other than what we are specifically looking at tonight and any other additions would require further review at the time that it is being proposed. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if there would be a need for future parking spaces at the time of further development. Mr. Sawyer stated that the parking would have to be looked at the time any future square footage would t be added to the buildings. Commissioner Van Gelder asked that since there were a limited amount of parking spaces now where were the additional parking spaces going to be obtained from if needed later. The Planning Director referred to the existing building being proposed and there is an outline for future building expansion area. Any area that would be expanded out here would have to incorporate enough area to provide the parking. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned the Mt. Vernon Avenue public street being used for parking or a red curb area. Mr. Sawyer questioned if she was referring to the west side of Mt. Vernon Avenue. He mentioned the on -street parking was not considered in planning this design. Mr. Sawyer did not know if the 19 engineer had taken this into consideration. All of the required parking spaces are provided on site. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for clarification if there would be on -street parking allowed as proposed. Mr. Sawyer stated to the affirmative that there would be on -street parking allowed. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for the height and quantities of berms on the Mt. Vernon side. The Planning Director stated as to the height restriction it was about 3' in the proximity of the front yard setback due to the site requirements for the driveway. The quantity would be addressed this evening. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was any proposal of the structure having a second floor with an elevator. He mentioned that if they are looking at a potential usage of this as a commercial structure there should be an elevator. David Sawyer indicated that there was an elevator. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he would need to have this addressed in more detail at some point in time. t Commissioner Hargrave expressed the importance of clear visibility into this property from Mt. Vernon Avenue to reduce any vandalism problems. The short- term parking area could be a potential problem if used by the public at night and if hidden from the street view the police would have difficulty ascertaining what is going on. Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification of the radial short term parking. He approved of the plan but wished to make sure that the ingress/egress on that area is wide enough to withstand vehicles entering and leaving at the same time. There should be a flexibility in regards to the vehicles leaving the radius so that they won't contribute to a traffic problem. Commissioner Hargrave commented on the properties abutting the project site. He stated that to the north there is vacant property zoned R-3, and to the west have vacant property which is also zoned Me R-3. Referring to the upcoming General Plan and Zoning discussions in October, he asked the Planning Director if there are any changes which might effect the zoning of those particular vacant parcels. Mr. Sawyer referred to his previous discussions with Consultant Ross Geller. He did not foresee any changes to the northern properties zoned as R-3. Mr. Sawyer referred to the next Planning Commission meeting which will review the second phase of Forest City Dillon. He anticipated that those properties will remain the same, zoned as R-3. This particular property (Advocate School) is adjacent to the AP property to the south, and would be appropriate that this could be changed to AP. Mr. Sawyer mentioned that either way a private school use would be acceptable using this permit in the R-3 zone or the AP zone. Commissioner Hargrave asked of the City Engineer/Joe Kicak if there was any part of this property encompassing any elevation on Mt. Vernon. If so, will that have to be cut down. . Mr. Kicak mentioned that the northern part of the property is probably on the upgrade and does not know of any future plans to lower Mt. Vernon, as far as the crest is concerned. No problems exist with the visibility, speed limit or sight distance for stopping on Mt. Vernon. However, Mr. Kicak cautioned that when the driveways come in on this project they would have to be studied closely due to the traffic coming over the crest from the north meeting exiting traffic from the driveways. Commissioner Hargrave asked the City Engineer what the distance was from the crest to the first driveway. Mr. Kicak answered that there would be visual sighting of the driveway from 250-300 ft., once the parcel to the north is improved. Commissioner Hargrave asked where the cutouts for the street on the east side of Mt. Vernon were located. Mr. Kicak pointed to the area under discussion, to the south of the project. 21 Commissioner Hargrave asked about making a left turn coming from the southern direction of Mt. Vernon into the school, would there be a need for a left turn lane there. Mr. Kicak agreed that there should probably be one there. He did point out that the easterly portion of Mt. Vernon does not have an adequate right-of- way for widening. If parking is restricted and a lane is placed in there, a turning lane may be possible. Commissioner Hargrave asked the City Attorney if they could legally exclude parking on the east side of Mt. Vernon. Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney, stated that they could recommend that be done by the City Council. Commissioner Hargrave clarified that the residents that abut that area would not be able to park in the street, if the City Council made that illegal parking. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her support but had concern with some of the problems in the project. She stated that she did not see any problems with the traffic exiting to the south but did see problems with traffic exiting from the driveway into the northern direction. She asked if 0 �; it were possible to have the entrance only on the north and exit only on the south drive, to alleviate some of the problem. However, anyone wanting to make a left-hand turn into the site would have the same problem with traffic travelling south. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if more property along that side of the street would be widened 11' ft. in the future. Mr. Kicak, City Engineer, mentioned that there was only one parcel that was not involved in the R-3 proposal at this time. All of that frontage with the exception of Dr. Mc Duffey's property would be improved in the near future. Commissioner Van Gelder clarified that any portion of that street could have a red curb on it and it doe not need to be the whole street or area. 22 4. Mr. Kicak, City Engineer, stated that City Council directed staff to write Dr. Mc Duffey a letter offering as consideration for dedication the insulation of the improvements in conjunction with that project. Mr. Kicak mentioned that Dr. Mc Duffey has not reached a decision so there is potential that whole area could be improved, including Dr. Mc Duffey's property; from Barton Road all the way to Grand Terrace Canal. Chairman Caouette asked what the ages of the students would be. Mr. Sawyer stated that it would be from grade school up through high school. Commissioner Hargrave asked for clarification about the fencing needed on the south portion of the project as mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Sawyer explained that the plans indicate that there is an existing fence on this perimeter along the property line. Regarding the old fence all that is remaining is the post. It is adjacent to future office development and other developments. An adequate noise and visibility barrier should be provided. Commissioner, Van Gelder asked if there were any plans for any type of fencing on the front of the property. Mr. Sawyer stated that there were not any fences indicated on the plans. Certain areas have the 6' High block wall to enclose the play areas. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her concern for security. Mr. Sawyer mentioned that there is a block wall that incorporates the play area and another area. Also, there is a rod iron fence 6' high which runs along a certain portion to secure the parking areas. Chairman Caouette opened the Public Hearings. Melford Harrison Consultant 24899 Taylor St. Loma Linda, CA. 23 �..�+ Mr. Harrison introduced the Directors of the Advocate School, Amy Harrison and Dr. Martha Petre. Also, present was the architect/Rick Avery. Mr. Harrison explained that the idea and intention of this application was to provide permanent facilities that will be more compatible with the residential areas and also the convalescent center to the south taking into consideration the landscaping and buffer area. He stated that they agreed with most of the conditions proposed the only relief they asked was relative to the fencing. They found the proposition of a 6' block wall very expensive. They request that the Planning Commission consider a condition which would allow them to have a chain link fence, full -screen landscaping, that would achieve a height of 6' in a reasonable amount of time. Mr. Harrison clarified that the ages in the school are from age 6 to age 18. Commissioner Munson agreed with the request for a chain link fence in lieu of a block wall. He praised the project and felt it would be an asset to the City. ti Chairman Caouette asked what the normal hours of operation would be. Mr. Harrison stated that the school would be operating on normal school hours. Chairman Caouette asked if most of the students were bussed. Mr. Harrison confirmed that most of the students were bussed by the van pool. Chairman Caouette asked if there would be a landscape buffer with a wall adjacent to the convalescent home.. Mr. Harrison stated that there would be a wall which would enclose the play area, immediately south of the building. Commissioner Hargrave asked if this particular facility was not designed to take only local children. 24 C), Mr. Harrison clarified that the only students that are enrolled are direct referrals from the public school district. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the owners of the project felt comfortable with enrollment of 90 students. Mr. Harrison stated that there may have been a misunderstanding when the 80 figure was given. It was intended to mean the additional students for the new facility, the expansion of the facility. He felt that he may have inadvertently misled Mr. Sawyer, when the additional square footage being proposed would accommodate up to 80 additional students. They have in the area of 40 students at this time, so that would make a total of 120 students. Mr. Harrison requested that they change the total to 120 to correct the misunderstanding. Commissioner Van Gelder mentioned that the State provides regulations on square footage required for student population. She asked if this type of school was in compliance with the State regulations. Mr. Harrison mentioned that his applicant stated that there is a capacity under State regulations for a much higher student population with this size of facility. He stated that they would support the City control of student population and before they go beyond that number they would be willing to come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Van Gelder stated that it was indicated earlier there were 40 students with 8 adults on the premises. Mr. Harrison stated that there would actually be 8 teachers plus support staff of 5. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to the palm trees on the southerly portion between this project and the convalescent hospital, if they were on the school's property. Mr. Harrison believed that they were on the convalescent center's property. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if The Advocate School was a chain. 25 (7) Mr. Harrison mentioned that there were 8 facilities. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for a percentage of students from San Bernardino County as proposed to Riverside County. Mr. Harrison stated that there was approximately 30-35%. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if they had a contract with the City of Riverside and the County of San Bernardino. Mr. Harrison stated that the contracts are through the school districts. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if this school project was incorporated and if the school owned the property. Mr. Harrison stated that yes it was incorporated and that the school was on a long term lease. He stated that the approval of the Conditional Use Permit was the last thing they go through before they close escrow and take possession of the property. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if this property was purchased from the County of Riverside. Mr. Harrison stated that it was purchased from the church. Amy Harrison Director of Advocate School Ms. Harrison stated it was difficult to estimate when the future development if any would take place. Commissioner Van Gelder asked how many administrators were on the site. Ms. Harrison answered that currently they have a Director, two Program Directors, one Curriculum Coordinator, Counselors and teachers. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there was any signs planned for the school. 26 C Mr. Harrison stated that signs would be used only for identification. Commissioner Van Gelder expressed her concern about keeping the traffic out of the parking lot when the school is not in session. Mr. Harrison suggested that it could best be handled by putting up some type of barrier when the school closes. The City Engineer, Joe Kicak, mentioned that there were two parcels owned by the church. One fronting on Mt. Vernon and the other behind. He asked if this project involved both parcels. The Commissioners indicated that it included both. Commissioner Munson asked if there was any consideration for funding of signalization on Mt. Vernon. The City Engineer, Joe Kicak, mentioned that previously City Council had not reached a definite decision on procedures in regards to traffic signals and contributions by the various developers. It had always been thought that the capital improvement fees at least at this point would be the vehicle which would help fund any street improvements which would include the traffic signal program. The City Attorney, Ivan Hopkins, referred to the Briton Project as an example. He stated that the City Council did determine that as the properties develop that the pro-rata share would be allocated to them based upon the pro-rata share of the total units and traffic. He figured that this particular project as proposed did not have a great deal of traffic and therefore the pro-rata share would be minimal as compared to others. Commissioner Cole asked if that fee was based on units or square footage of the land involved. Mr. Hopkins stated that the City Council never gave a formula just directed that it would be a consideration. He thought that would be based on the traffic generation which would be equitable at least to the apartments of two units. 27 Commissioner Munson stated that if the school should turn this project into an office building and then the traffic structure would change. Mr. Harrison mentioned that they do not have any future plans for turning the school into an office. Commissioner Munson asked if they could put a condition on the usa a and also, if the pro ect does not pass would he appplicant have to come �ack for an additional permit to turn it into a office building. Mr. Sawyer clarified that if the office use went to an AP zone they would be able to come in without a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant would have to address any building modifications and sign permits for any new type of development. Parking would have to facilitate any new project use. Mr. Sawyer mentioned that he had conferred with the City Attorney as to whether or not it would be possible to put a condition on this use. That if it is no longer used as a school facility that some type of fees could be applicable to an office type development. He also mentioned that it would be difficult to enforce. Commissioner Munson asked where the money would come from to support the traffic signals. He felt that the owner of the building should contribute their fair share. The City Attorney clarified that when the discussion arose at the City Council it was initiated by Bill Marrhan, partner of Britton. They both complained that the particular project was having to bear a heavier burden of the cost of the public improvements. The Council indicated that they wanted the other projects as they developed to share their pro—rata costs in the traffic signal as well as the other public improvements. Commissioner Munson asked if this should be addressed this evening or at a later date. Mr. Hopkins stated that it could be addressed tonight or make a general condition that it would be a contribution which would be arrived at in negotiation with the developers and brought back to the Planning Commission for approval or whatever. 28 He further mentioned that if it is not approached by the Planning Commission, then he did not know how the contribution would be made. Commissioner Munson made the motion to include a condition which would be made prior to final approvals that the developer meet with staff to arrive at a mutually acceptable improvement contribution for the improvements in the area necessitated due to the development. Chairman Caouette suggested waiting until the close of the Public Hearing and they were ready to address the project. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. David Trivest 22545 Barton Road GT. Trivest and Assoc. Mr. Trivest represented the insurance firm for the Advocate School. He stated that has never been a liability claim and is in favor of the project. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE ADJOURNED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Hargrave stated that he did not approve of the brick wall and suggested another proposal. His suggestion was a fencing that allowed more visibility into the area with alternate landscaping. Chairman Caouette asked if the applicant could work with the Planning Director for a chain link fence. Mr. Sawyer stated that was acceptable to him. His reasoning for introducing the brick wall as fencing was to reduce the noise level. He mentioned that adequate landscaping can be worked out between staff. MOTION PC-87-45 Motion made to have the fencing materials, and improvements acceptable to staff and the applicant. Chairman Caouette introduced the motion with Commission Cole seconded. Mr. Sawyer suggested a chain link fencing with section of landscaping. 29 i 4 J� Chairman Caouette suggested berms throughout. Commissioner Hargrave raised the question that the 120 students enrollment issue had not been settled. Chairman Caouette mentioned that there was still a motion on the floor. Motion carried, all AYES. Mr. Sawyer stated that there are 40 students still housed in temporary trailers. That they should be looking at 100 instead of 120, depending on the use of the existing church building. Commissioner Cole clarified that they were looking at the new facility plan tonight and asked if it was designed for 120 students. Mr. Harrison clarified that the proposed facility could house 120 students without future expansion. MOTION PC-87-46 Commissioner Fran Van Gelder moved that a cap be set on 100 students. Commissioner Munson seconded. MOTION Commissioner Hargrave asked why it should be set at 100 students. Commissioner Van Gelder explained that they need to give additional room for these children. Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that another 20 students would mean 2 more additional vans. He felt this would give the architect the space asked for with the 120 students. Mr. Trivest pointed out that the State law allows 260 students, 15 per classroom, for* this type of school. Chairman Caouette asked if there was a problem with this from Planning. Mr. Sawyer said that if the building was designed to handle 120, he did not have a problem with the 120 students. Chairman Caouette mentioned that there was still a motion on the floor of a cap of 100 students. 30 PC-87-47 Motion voted showing 3 AYES, 2 Noes but it was pointed out by the City Attorney that the required number was not present to pass the motion. Chairman Caouette asked about after hours parking and what arrangements had been done for this. MOTION PC-87-48 Commissioner Van Gelder brought up a condition to secure after hours parking. Seconded by Commissioner Cole. Motion carried, all AYES. Mr. Harrison pointed out that would not be a problem putting a set barrier for closure. City Attorney stated that they should be more concerned with preventing public use after hours. MOTION PC-87-49 Commissioner Van Gelder presented a condition on barriers to restrict public use in the parking lot when the school is not in session and during evening hours. Seconded by Chairman Caouette. Motion carried all AYES. Commissioner Van Gelder asked if the teachers stay after 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Munson moved that a pro rata share be placed on the project for future expansion. Seconded for discussion by Commissioner Hargrave. Commissioner Hargrave stated that they need more input from Joe Kicak, City Engineer. Joe Kicak stated that if they wanted a condition it could state traffic signalization with pro rata share, within block of Grand Terrace Road and Canal Avenue and Mt. Vernon at their discretion. Ivan Hopkins discussed on site landscaping improvements. Commissioner Cole proposed condition on the school not as a future professional office building. MOTION PC-87-50 Commission Munson stated that a condition is needed for today that will show any future traffic 31 expansion the pro rata should be paid by the current applicant. Ivan Hopkins clarified that for the cost figures, can only use the costs of today. Commissioner Hargrave stipulated that the owner of the property at that time should carry the pro- rata share. Motion carried, 4 AYES and 1 noe, Commissioner Hargrave voting noe. Ivan Hopkins stated that they should make the condition today for future owner of property on the pro rata share. He mentioned that there is no fair projection unless using today's cost and making conditions on offside improvements. Commissioner Hargrave questioned the Chaparral Pines and their future costs. Mr. Harrison expressed his opposition to the pro- rata fee for future expansion and traffic flow. He suggested having a CUP for school use only and if needed will get an additional CUP, if needed. Commissioner Van Gelder questioned the CUP being used for school use and with the October scheduled General Plan and Zoning changes going to AP. �- Mr. Sawyer clarified that the CUP is in a R-3, with possible zone change to AP. The CUP would not be required for an office facility in the AP zone. Ivan Hopkins stated an additional recommendation could be made to have an additional CUP later, if needed. MOTION PC-87-51 Commissioner Cole moved for an additional condition that if the school type changes, or use, that an additional CUP be required. Commissioner Fran Van Gelder seconded. Motion carried, all AYES. Commissioner Cole made a motion that CUP-87-6, be passed with conditions as written and added the pro-rata and CUP. Chairman Caouette seconded. 32 Mr. Sawyer stated the Negative Declaration needed to be added. MOTION PC-87-52 Commissioner Hargrave moved that the Negative Declaration be added also. Commissioner Munson seconded. CUP 87-7 Chairman Caouette brought up CUP-87-7. Commissioner Hargrave suggested that CUP-87-7 be deferred to the next meeting. MOTION PC-87-53 Commissioner Van Gelder moved that CUP-87-7 be brought to the next meeting. Commissioner Hargrave seconded. Motion carried, all ayes. Mr. Harrison stated that they would need more time for preparation on the conditions presented. Stated that they could return for the September 21, 1987 meeting. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED SA-87-8 Chairman Caouette brought up the SA-87-8, Advocate 0 School Project. as] I6 PC-87-54 Commissioner Cole moved that they be continued to the September 21, 1987 meeting. Commissioner Hargrave seconded. Motion carried, all AYES. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M. Respectfull submitted, ----- _ '------- Approved b David- awyer pp y Planning Director N rman Caouette, Chairman Planning Department 33