Loading...
09/08/1987GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION_ MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING 9EP EMER-8, 19$7 - - 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 September 8, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Norman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Fran Van Gelder, Vice -Chairwoman Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner Gerald Cole, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner David Sawyer, Planning Director Joe Kicak, City Engineer ABSENT: -.Ray Munson, Commissioner Pledge of Allegiance: Jerry Hawkinson 1. MINUTES WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Information/Comments from Staff Information/Comments from Commissioners WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Applicant/Forrest City Dillon CUP/SP-87-1 Chairman Caouette stated that the applicant, CUP/SP-87-1 Forrest City Dillon, had asked for a continuance. It will subsequently be heard on September 21, 1987. MOTION PC-55 Commissioner Hargrave moved that CUP/SP-87-1 be continued to September 21, 1987. Seconded by Commissioner Hawkinson. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 5-0-0 1 GP-87-3 Z-87-3 Chairman Caouette stated that items #2 and #3 (after item changes that had been agreed upon in the workshop) were related to an item that would be discussed with the Site and Architectural Board and would like to continue those items. Chairman Caouette moved onto item #4, Interim Ordinance. The Planning Director gave the conditions of GP-87- 2 and Z-87-2, west of Interstate 215. He presented the staff recommendations for the Interim Ordinance. Commissioner Hargrave asked what the overall objective was in adopting the Interim Ordinance. The Planning Director stated that it was to provide clarity to prevent confusion on which density and zoning regulations will be in effect for the westside and the remainder of the City until the General Plan is completed. Commissioner Hargrave asked which zoning codes the public would follow if the upcoming revisions lasted 6 months. The Planning Director stated that currently the two ordinances that they are speaking about are not effective yet. Due to the second reading requirement which is scheduled for Thursday and the 30 day minimum requirement. So until then they are dealing with the ordinances they have had in the past. He mentioned that technically without these ordinances they would be working with those changes that they put into effect for the westside. In essence, we would have two zoning ordinances one for the eastside and the westside. Commissioner Hargrave was opposed to the Interim Ordinance because of the resulting two sets of rules. Chairman Caouette asked if this was not a clean up measure with development moratorium. The Planning Director stated that this is the City Attorney's suggestion for clarification proposed. Commissioners Hargrave and Hawkinson expressed concern with the time lapse between the current codes and final approval of upcoming changes. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. 2 Chairman Caouette opened the Public Hearing for opposition or those in favor of the item. No discussion. Chairman Caouette brought the item back for discussion by the Planning Commission. MOTION PC-87-56 Commissioner Van Gelder moved that the proposed Interim Ordinance be approved. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. MOTION CARRIED, 4-1. COMMISSIONER HARGRAVE VOTED NOR. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED 7:30 P.M. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED 7:30 P.M. The Advocate School Mt. Vernon Avenue Private School Facility Chairman Caouette opened with item #5, SA-87-7, proposed private school facility. The Planning Director presented the proposed conditions and staff recommendation. Chairman Caouette asked for any questions from staff. The Planning Director stated that the applicant had not shown up for this evening's meeting. Chairman Caouette was hoping to ask the applicant how the existing buildings would be brought up to standards. Vice -Chairman Van Gelder asked if a condition could not be stipulated to have the grounds maintained according to standards. The Planning Director stated they could approach that issue on a conditional use permit. Commissioner Hargrave asked where the block wall and landscaping would be located. The Planning Director stated that it was agreed upon at the last Planning Commission that the wall would be intermittent, approximately 6 ft. in height, along the south property line. C3 Chairman Caouette opened the Public Hearing for discussion from the public. No responses. Chairman Caouette opened the discussion from the Planning Commission. He asked the Planning Director to clarify a condition for upgrading the building standards. MOTION PC-57 The Planning Director stated that the condition could be that the existing buildings match those for the main proposed structure that are approved by the Site and Architectural Review Board. Chairman Caouette so moved said condition. Vice - Chairwoman Van Gelder seconded. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if this would include windows. The Planning Director stated that they would look at the pproject and make any changes that would be needed to bring them into similarity with the proposed buildings as much as possible. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 5-0-0. Chairman Caouette asked if they wanted to wait for the applicant before they went on with the Site and Architectural Review. The Planning Director stated they could move onto another item. There appeared to be no further need for discussion from the Planning Commissioners. MOTION PC-58 Commissioner Hargrave moved that they approve SA- 87-7. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 5-0-0. MOTION PC-59 SA-87-9 Chairman Caouette brought up item #6, SA-87-9 related to earlier discussed CUP, apartment complex on Mt. Vernon Avenue. He moved that this be continued on 9/21/87. Commissioner Hargrave seconded. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 5-0-0. 01 4 CDS Engineering SA-87-8 Barton Road Chairman Caouette opened the Site and Architectural Review on SA-87-8. Planning Director presented the combined staff report for the site and architectural review item, as well as the zoning and general plan change. Chairman Caouette asked for questions for staff. Discussion was brought up on the parking requirements and clarification of the parking shortage. Planning Director stated that the hotel project itself has a requirement of 88 units; 1 unit per each of the 88 units for parking spaces and 1 per employee. That would bring the total up to 100 parking spaces required for the hotel, plus a need for 4 loading spaces which are not identified. There are presently 84 spaces, which is a shortage of 20 parking spaces. Chairman Caouette opened the discussion for comments from the applicant. Michael Palmer CDS Engineering 15002 Skypark Circle Irvine, CA. Mr. Palmer referred to the original staff report which had approved 88 parking spaces on the original project. He referred to a letter submitted by the developer, Tsang, that they felt due to the lack of vehicle usage by senior citizens the 88 parking spaces would be sufficient. He mentioned that they would be prepared to eliminate a sidewalk to the front that would give them the 24' setback for turnaround in the parking, which would allow 10 additional parking spaces. Commissioner Van Gelder referred to condition #12 stating the usage of an elevator. She asked for clarification of the project as a convalescent hospital or a senior citizens hotel. Mr. Palmer stated that it was a senior citizens hotel. Commissioner Hargrave asked what would be substituted instead of a sidewalk. Mr. Palmer stated that pedestrians would probably walk down the easterly part of the project. Commissioner Hargrave asked the Planning Director for clarification of the conditions and the original 88 parking spaces in the original project. The Planning Directory stated that when this project came before the Planning Commission one of the conditions of the CUP was that there be, one per each employee, and one per each unit. There is flexibility in the code but was not used. Chairman Caouette recalled the original project. The two problems they had with the parking on the project at that time were the required amount of spaces and the location of the parking lot originally. Commissioner Hargrave asked of Mr. Palmer if there was any way to make parking available to the north of the retirement home. Mr. Palmer stated that those spaces were set aside for the commercial center. He mentioned that was the original design for the property and came up with a better plan putting them to the south of the property. Commissioner Hargrave stated that unless they can find specific documentation on the variance for property requirements then he did not see any reason to exempt the applicant from parking requirements for the retirement hotel. Commissioner Van Gelder asked the Planning Director to research this issue for the Planning Commission. The Planning Director stated that they could research this but in preparation for the meeting he did not find any exemptions and the CUP requirements are still in effect. In order to have that eliminated there would have to be a re— hearing of the CUP to remove any condition pending approval by the Planning Commission. The Planning Director presented the staff report dated August 5, 1985, which contained the conditions for the CUP and it was the conditions that were made a part of the motion and passed and not the text of the staff report which was referred to by the applicant. C. 6 Chairman Caouette clarified that there was no condition stating it had to have 88, and the requirements of the code would stand. The Planning Director answered that there was a condition stating they had to have 88 plus 1 for each employee. Chairman Caouette mentioned that he remembered discussion on the possibility to actually extend the parking lot without putting another structure on the property. That was a possibility and taking out the apartments to the rear and using that area for necessary parking. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the CUP-85-9, condition #7, ..."provide one parking space for each living unit, plus one for each employee." Chairman Caouette asked about the proposed commercial facility with 5 units 1,000 sq. feet. He mentioned that they seemed limited and asked what plans they had for that area. Mr. Palmer was unable to answer the question. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE OPENED THE DISCUSSION TO THE PUBLIC. Mary Lou Williams 22227 Barton Road G.T. Kenge Ling CDS Engineering 15002 Skypark Irvine, CA. c Expressed opposition to the commercial development in this area. Mr. Ling, developer, referred to the earlier approval of the parking conditions of 88 spaces. He stated that the 12 employees they have, are part time so they would not need the full time parking spaces. He referred to the site plan that showed 50' space in the front, enough for 3-4 loading spaces. In reference to the commercial plaza, it could be 5/1,000 sq. ft. or 5,000 sq. ft. or further breakdown whatever the tenant wants, not restricted to 1,000 sq. ft. He referred to the problem of the neighbors to the westside of the property, they do have access. He requested approval of the site plan by the Commission. Commissioner Van Gelder asked for clarification if the front 4 loading spaces are loading/unloading for supplies or people. Mr. Ling clarified that they have supplies delivered on the service area on the southside of the building. The front 4 loading spaces are for people. Helen Stringfield 22273 Barton Road G.T. Expressed opposition to the restaurant at that location due to insufficient land space and parking area. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE CONVENED PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION. Commissioner Van Gelder suggested that she would rather see a landscaped area, walkways, park benches in front of the retirement hotel. Commissioner Hargrave stated that the dinner house was not part of the original proposal. He stated that the applicant approved the project before without the dinner house. He recommended that SA- 87-8 should not be approved. Chairman Caouette referred to a copy of the 1985 original conditions which reconfirmed problems at that time on parking, ingress -egress sites. The original conditions call for improvement to the access to the project immediately behind the site. MOTION PC-60 Commissioner Van Gelder asked of Chairman Caouette if he recalled what use the developer had for this area in front on the 1st Site and Architectural Review. Chairman Caouette stated that it was originally planned for parking. Commissioner Hawkinson made a motion that the project be denied and resubmitted with a revised plan. Chairman Caouette seconded. Chairman Caouette asked for clarification if that resubmittal would be for landscaping and parking only. Commissioner Hawkinson answered yes. C8 The Planning Director mentioned that the item could be continued and the applicant be asked to bring back revised plans. The other alternative would be to have a resubmittal if the project is denied. Commissioner Hawkinson stated for clarification purposes that it be a resubmittal in regards to landscaping and parking only not including the commercial plaza project. The Planning Director stated that they are hearing Site and Architectural Review for the project with the Commercial structure. They have to come back with the landscaping parking detail as the project stands already. If we take out the current commercial structure then we are eliminating the actual need for the current Site and Architectural Review. Commissioner Cole asked if under the original agreement, if the parking and landscaping were for staff approval. The Planning Director stated that it was for staff approval and referred to condition #7, 1985, and pointed out that nothing requested them to come back for Site and Architectural approval. �} Commissioner Cole stated that he understood it to mean that if it was staff approval, then the course of action this evening would be to reconfirm or deny. Chairman Caouette asked if it would be approved or denied by Planning Director or Planning Commission. The Planning Director stated that it would be a staff item. This motion was withdrawn and resubmitted. MOTION PC-61 Commissioner Hawkinson moved that this project be denied as submitted, SA-87-8. Chairman Caouette requested that it be brought back as a cursory review and seconded the motion. Planning Director stated that it could be reviewed during the workshop. MOTION CARRIED ALL AYES. 5-0-0 Chairman Caouette suggested that the General Plan 9 and Zoning revisions on this project be handled at a later date. The Planning Director stated that the applicant could appeal the Site and Architectural decision but may wish to have the General Plan and Zoning applications continued thus leaving open the opportunity to move the parking without the commercial structure. Chairman Caouette stated that the General Plan and Zoning denial would follow since the Site and Architecture was denied. They could appeal that also. The Planning Director stated that when the apartment complex to the rear is redone, changing this area from residential to commercial redevelopment this time may cause a problem later if the hotel's parking is not moved. He mentioned that continuing would keep the item open. PUBLIC HEARING Kenge Ling Mr. Ling agreed to a continuance of two weeks. 10i7611-ro PC-62 Commissioner Hawkinson moved that GP-87-3 and Z-87- 3 be continued to September 21, 1987, with conditions of landscaping and parking. Commissioner Cole seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES. 5-0-0 Break RECONVENE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Chairman Caouette brought up discussion on the Advocate School, even though the applicant had not shown up. Discussion by the Planning Commissioners on different suggestions for fencing and landscaping. Suggestions of rod iron with intermittent landscaping, brick wall or chain link fencing. The high cost of block wall was brought up and loss of visibility with this type of wall. The concensus was not to have a solid block wall. The Planning Director stated that the Chapparal Pines Retirement Home was considered in staff's 10 recommendation of a block wall, to lessen the noise level. However, staff would be willing to work with the developer on landscaping and fencing. Commissioner Hargrave asked about any zoning change for the future. The Planning Director stated that the zone change was a possibility due to their bank's request. It is sort of a compromise because they are willing to go forward under R-3 zoning and later revise the zone to AP. MOTION PC-63 Commissioner Hawkinson moved to approve SA-87-7. Chairman Caouette seconded. MOTION PASSES, ALL AYES. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Approved by, awyer NVm ori�C`ao~u�'e�te ; to- Z`fiairman- Planning Direc r Planning Commission 11.