12/07/1987GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MIINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 7, 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 December 7, 1987 at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman
Fran Van Gelder, Vice -Chairwoman
Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner
Gerald Cole, Commissioner
Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner
Ray Munson, Commissioner
Jim Sims, Commissioner
David R. Sawyer, Planning Director
ABSENT: Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Jim Sims
MINUTES
WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M.
WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M.
Item #1
Minutes of
July 20, 1987
Chairman Caouette brought up the July 20, 1987 minutes.
MOTION
PCM-87-80
Commissioner Munson made a motion to approve the July
20, 1987 minutes. Commissioner Cole seconded.
Chairman Caouette stated for the record that there were
additional corrections that were recommended by the
Commission at the last meeting which should be a part
1
Ee
Wii
Item #2
TPM-87-6
SA-87-12
CUP-87-13
City of
Riverside
of the record.
Motion carried. 4-0-3-0.
The Planning Director gave the staff report with
conditions as submitted in the resolution including
roadway and grading recommendations. He recommended
approval to the City Council as conditioned in the Site
and Architectural Review, the Tentative Parcel Map and
the Conditional Use Permit.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Caouette opened the public hearing.
Dick Ardrey
City of Riverside
Water Department
0 Mr. Ardrey stated that this project was necessary for
the City of Riverside, Water Department, in order to
enable them to have additional water available to the
residents this summer. He mentioned that the City of
Riverside will not own the 11' in front of the original
parcel. They are willing to dedicate the area in front
of the two parcels they will be creating by this parcel
map but not the original one. He mentioned that they
had filed an emminent domain action on this particular
acquisition so the owner would not able to dedicate at
this time. He mentioned that he thought the Fire
Warden's Office, as far as condition #2, had resended
this condition on the paved road. He mentioned that
there wasn't really a need for the paved access between
the well sites due to few vehicles using it.
Chairman Caouette referred to items #1 and #2 that Mr.
Ardrey had mentioned.
The Planning Director stated that it would be
acceptable to move condition #1 to the lower portion of
the resolution which stated at the time the balance of
the map was developed that it be done at that time. As
far as condition #2, this was a requirement by the City
2
C
Engineer and would like to stick with it.
Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Ardrey if the Fire
Department had resended the condition and did he have a
letter confirming this.
Ed Kostel
City of Riverside
Mr. Kostel stated that he had a preliminary plan signed
by Karl Schneider approved by the San Bernardino County
Fire Warden's Office. It specified that it had been
approved subject to:
1. Fire hydrants being installed and made serviceable
prior to and during construction,
2. Fire extinguishers installed prior to occupancy.
3. Field inspections and/or tests.
4. County Ordinances.
5. Provisions of State laws, rules and regulations.
Per his phone conversation with Karl Schneider as far
as the access road was concerned there was no
requirement for same. Mr. Kostel stated that the City
of Riverside would be adding a 12' access road with a
slag base on it.
Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director if the
condition had come from the City Engineer's office.
The Planning Director stated that was correct. He
mentioned that one of the City Engineer's concerns was
the fire access also dust control for trucks that would
be driving out there.
Mr. Kostel stated that they would be adding a gate per
request from the City Engineer's Office, with keys for
the Cities of Riverside and Grand Terrace and the City
Engineer. He mentioned that the pavement ends prior to
actually coming together within the right of way. He
specified the roadway would not be opened for public
traffic.
The Planning Director stated he was not aware of any
agreement between the City Engineer and the applicant.
If they had come to an agreement that was fine.
3
Mr. Kostel stated that the plans would be approved by
the City Engineer prior to the City proceeding. He
mentioned that they had already given them a
preliminary plan and the City Engineer stated that he
would prefer having a gate at that location.
Commissioner Munson asked the applicant if he would
consider a condition stating that if there was dust
caused by their project would they be willing to come
in and do as the City Engineer had requested.
Mr. Kostel stated if there was a problem with dust he
did not consider it a problem to do that if needed. He
mentioned that as far as putting in a roadway right
now there is a proposed storm drain but was unaware as
to when they planned to put it in. They do have plans
from Joe Kicak and they did show a proposed roadway
which required considerable grading through the right
of way areas. As they specified at a later date the
City will add on the applicant's fair share of curb,
gutter and paving.
The Planning Director explained that it was not a full
improved street, it was only 24' of paving.
Commissioner Sims asked if there was existing right-of-
way there now.
The Planning Director answered that there was right-of-
way there now.
Commissioner Cole asked if there could be a potential
problem with the gateway at the end of the lot. He
asked if there had been a conversation between the City
Attorney and the Planning Director.
The Planning Director stated that he had not discussed
that with the City Attorney. He mentioned that there
have been numerous meetings with the City of Riverside
and the topic had come up at one point but he did not
recall it being agreed upon. However, if they talked
with Joe and reached an agreement that was fine but
whether or not they have the right to approve such a
gateway without it first going through the City
Attorney or the Council is another question. He
mentioned that the City Attorney was scheduled to be at
the meeting this evening and they could refer to this
at that time.
Chairman Caouette stated that if the Planning
Commission was going to do anything with that
particular condition then maybe some language should be
4
added at the end, something like alternative
improvements as approved by the City Engineer and
Planning Director.
The Planning Director stated that would be acceptable.
Mr. Kostel stated that they do have reflectors at the
end of the unpaved road, so it is closed off to traffic
now. The road would be for access by operations
personnel as well as the property owner and the City of
Grand Terrace.
Chairman Caouette referred to one of the conditions
that deferred certain improvements until the balance of
the property developed. One of the concerns he had was
that once the project was approved, with the well
constructed, the City really has no vested interest in
providing landscaping or curb and gutter or any other
improvements.
Mr. Ardrey stated that they have written a letter to
the Planning Director and it had been signed by the
Public Utilities Director and it committed the City of
Riverside to put those requirements in at that time,
whenever the adjacent property was developed or the
City decided to put the street through. He stated that
they will at that time pay their proportionate share to
put in the street improvements in and landscape the
well sites.
Chairman Caouette asked if the letter was constructed
so that it was at the discretion of Grand Terrace or
the City of Riverside.
Mr. Ardrey explained that it was the City of Grand
Terrace.
Commissioner Sims stated that it had been indicated
that there would be some kind of access roadway down to
their site. He mentioned that it was going to be some
type of slag base, with public right-of-way within the
City of Grand Terrace. He asked about any maintainance
or repair that may occur until the road gets improved
and the city puts in the street or pavement, was that
mentioned in the letter.
Mr. Kostel stated that it could be added so that the
City could be responsible.
Commissioner Sims stated that he did not think the City
should be burdened because it looked like there was a
wash or drainage course out there.
R
c
Mr. Kostel stated that the City of Riverside would
provide whatever requirements to assure that they will
maintain just as they do with any other well sites. It
would be beneficial to both the City and to themselves
to maintain the access road. He mentioned that the
only reason they are asking for the delay because it
would not be appropriate at this time without the whole
street being developed.
Commissioner Sims asked if the existing sewer was a
city sewer going through the City of Grand Terrace.
Mr. Kostel stated that it was and it went on down to
the end.
Commissioner Sims asked that if the street was blocked
off does the City still have the access.
Mr. Kostel stated that the City of Grand Terrace would
have keys to the lot.
Commissioner Sims asked if this was done anywhere else
in the City.
The Planning Director stated that he did not believe
this was done anywhere else in the City.
Mr. Ardrey explained that there was an area for the
flood control district which ran parallel to the
freeway but he was unsure if the City had keys to that
or not. He mentioned that there were several other
locks and the City of Riverside does provide keys.
Whether or not the City of Grand Terrace requires this
would have to be seen later when it is reviewed by the
Engineering Department.
Commissioner Sims asked if the 42" inch water line that
was shown in the parcel was that for the City of
Riverside.
Mr. Ardrey explained that was for the City of Riverside
because they have the 42" line and a gage line, a 60"
line, farther up on Van Buren.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked how far the well would
be from the freeway.
Mr. Kostel mentioned that the farthest well would
probably be within a few 100 feet and the other well
would be only 900 feet further beyond that.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked what the depth of the
wells would be.
Mr. Kostel explained that it would depend on what they
actually see when they drill the pilot holes but it was
anticipated that they should be both 500' feet deep.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if the wells were
going to be cased and how far down.
Mr. Kostel explained that they would have steel casings
and would have a sanitary seal on them with a minimum
distance of 100' feet down and they would lay steel
casings down to approximately 250' feet and an
additional 250' of screen. As he mentioned before it
was dependent upon what comes through when the pilot
wells are drilled.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if the water would
empty into the Gage Canal.
Mr. Kostel explained that they would have a line so
they could dispose of it into the Gage Canal line or
into their 42" line. Primarily at this point in time
they were planning on delivering it into their Gage
line.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder stated that in some cases
the equipment for these wells are encased in a vault
underground. She asked the applicant if they had
considered that for this property.
Mr. Kostel stated that they had considered some other
locations when they were closer to the well site as far
as sound problems were considered. As far as access to
those sites and flooding, they have had considerable
problems in the past with having them encased inside a
vault.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked what the problems had
been with that.
Mr. Kostel stated that the problems were primarily with
flooding. He mentioned that there was also another
problem as far as the Health Department requirement of
minimum distance of clearance on the top of the casing
beyond high water level.
Chairman Caouette referred to the letter dated November
12, 1987, from the Public Utilities Director, City of
Riverside. It referenced construction of curb and
gutter and sidewalk but it did not refer to the
i1
0
landscaping. He asked the Planning Director if he felt
the conditions as stated would adequately cover
landscaping.
The Planning Director stated that he believed they
would, particularly if the applicant is willing to
agree to that on the record.
Chairman Caouette mentioned to the applicant that the
letter did not refer to landscaping as part of their
development. He stated that it was conditioned but the
Planning Commission would like to hear from the City of
Riverside on the record that they would be willing to
do that.
Mr. Kostel mentioned that he found no problem with
that. The only problem was that there had been no
development in that area to this date but it would be
better along with the curb and gutter and the paving
that they add on the landscaping later at that time.
Chairman Caouette asked for any further discussion in
favor or against the project.
PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M.
Commissioner Hawkinson referred to earlier discussion
about changing the alignment of Commerce Way. He asked
if the second well or the one that was further away
from the freeway would affect in any way, shape, or
form where the street would be going through, from
DeBerry on through.
The Planning Director mentioned that if Commerce Way
was brought down in a straight path from the terminus
of where the commercial project was proposed it would
be right in that area. Whether or not we would need to
realign it somewhat or not he did not know, keep in
mind also that this issue was being considered by the
General Plan Consultant. He stated that staff had just
recently received the preliminary draft from the
consultant.
Commissioner Hawkinson mentioned that it seemed the
street was in the generally vicinity.
The Planning Director stated that he recalled that the
consultant was considering not taking the street all
the way through there but he had not looked at the
proposal yet.
Commissioner Hargrave asked if that meant that a
0
c
e
MOTION
PCM-87-81
C
decision should be put off until the Planning
Commission knows for sure where the consultant advises
the location of Commerce Way.
The Planning Director stated that they could take a
look at what the preliminary proposal is but remember
it is still on a staff level and can be changed.
Commissioner Hargrave said that they should assume for
the moment that the well site is directly in the path
of the road. He asked hypothetically what the next
course would be for the City of Riverside.
The Planning Director stated that they could ask them
to move it over because he could not foresee the road
being moved for their well. He suggested that they may
ask them if there were any physical problems with the
well site, certain amount of feet, other than that they
had started their emminent domain proceedings in order
to obtain title.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that at this time it
seemed they should be fair to both parties; the City
of Grand Terrace and the City of Riverside. Is the
road or isn't the road probably going to be there. If
the road is then talk to the City of Riverside and see
what their feelings would be, if the road isn't going
to be there then there will not be a problem. We could
be putting the City of Riverside at a precarious
position along with ourselves.
Chairman Caouette made a motion to move condition #1
associated with the parcel map to the deferred area, to
relagate condition #1 to the position of 7D under
conditions of approval. Commissioner Hawkinson
seconded.
Commissioner Sims asked if they were talking about the
entire frontage along parcels #1 and #2 but also
parcel #3, referring to the original parcel.
Chairman Caouette explained that when the rest of the
property develops and they need to dedicate 11 feet
along the frontage of parcels #1 and #2 that should be
included.
Commissioner Sims stated it really should make some
reference to parcels #1 and #2, the property they own.
They can make those promises on property they own but
E
MOTION
PCM-81
REVISED
MOTION
PCM-87-82
c
they can't make those promises on what they don't own.
We cannot issue a condition on somebody else's property
unless they are represented.
Chairman Caouette revised the motion to read dedicate
11 feet along parcels #1 and #2 to provide for 44 ft.
1/2 street. Commissioner Hawkinson seconded.
MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES.
Chairman Caouette made a motion on condition #2
suggesting that at the end they add a comma and add,
..or alternative improvements as approved by the City
Engineer or the Planning Director. Vice -Chairwoman Van
Gelder seconded.
Commissioner Sims referred to the letter from the City
of Riverside that there be some provision added to that
letter for maintenance of whatever for the kind of
roadway they put down through there so that the City of
Riverside would be responsible for repairing it or
taking care of it. It would not be the City of Grand
Terrace's problem. He mentioned that the road would be
specifically for those sites and should be mentioned in
the letter.
The Planning Director explained that it would not be a
problem and actually what was being requested was a
maintenance clause.
Commissioner Sims stated that his experience with this
type of project and various roadways, they need some
assurance that the roads will be maintained.
The Planning Director mentioned that if there was a
provision named later that would allow a gate to be
placed on there then it would be certain that the City
of Riverside would be the primary user of that road
and should maintain the road. He mentioned that a
clause should be put in that it would be to the
maintenance satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Chairman Caouette asked if that should be part of the
condition or as approved by City Engineer and Planning
Director would take care of that.
10
a
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder pointed out that approval
only would not take care of maintenance.
The Planning Director mentioned that perhaps if they
changed the condition's wording to say, ...construct
and maintain 24' feet.
MOTION
PCM-87-82
REVISED Chairman Caouette revised earlier motion to include the
words construct and maintain 24' feet in that proposed
condition of approval. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder
concurred.
MOTION CARRIED, ALL AYES.
Commissioner Hawkinson mentioned that his concern was
regarding a roadway in that area and the effect on
development in that area.
The Planning Director mentioned that the preliminary
proposal in the General Plan Revision was for Commerce
Way to continue down at least to that point and would
effect parcel #1's well site. It has been proposed at
approximately an 88' right-of-way which would then go
into the actual well structure all the way along that
property line. We could align that road so it does not
go down the center but in doing so we would be
impacting the property owner to the east of that.
Chairman Caouette stated that if they had gone through
an imminent domain process would it really make much
difference.
The Planning Director stated that they are obtaining
the property and we are now approving their rights to
use it. It becomes a legal question as to whether or
not we can actually stop them from doing that on the
property they have declared public use and public
benefit for which is required in the eminent domain
proceedings. It would be a good question for Ivan who
unfortunately is not here. I think we can approve this
and deal with the street alignment at another time. We
certainly won't fit into the City of Riverside's plans
if we put this off until after the General Plan is
dealt with and that is really the only other
alternative I can think of at the moment.
Chairman Caouette mentioned that we could wait until we
11
c
9
get our answer on the legal question.
The Planning Director stated that the Commission may
wish to defer this further action until later in the
meeting. The City Attorney did indicate that he would
be here tonight.
Chairman Caouette stated that he would recommend that
they do that. He suggested that they take up the next
item on the agenda.
Mr. Kostel asked for clarification if the Commission
would have an opinion tonight on whether or not there
was something to do with site #1. He explained that
they have already been working towards arranging for
drilling and they really need to know if there was
going to be a lengthy delay.
Chairman Caouette clarified that at this point the only
delay they were looking at was until the Commission
finishes with the next item and with luck the City
Attorney would be here to give a little guidance.
PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 7:45 P.M.
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD CONVENED AT 7:45 P.M.
SA-87-11
M.S. Partnership
BSK Engineering
Commercial Development
The Planning Director presented the staff report with
recommendations and conditions from reviewing agencies
and the City Engineer.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to the completed
traffic control study. She asked if the anticipated
traffic increase from this project and the apartment
project to the west were considered in this study.
The Planning Director stated that the Engineering
Department reviewed the report and he did not know to
what extent the number of trips had been included from
those apartment projects. He stated that they should
not condition this project based on trips from another
project.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if the study included
what was already existing in regards to traffic
12
G
problems.
The Planning Director stated that this was a new
commercial structure and it will create x amount of
traffic trips. He mentioned that they need to ask if
those traffic trips are going to kick what was there
now over a threshold and thus create a problem.
Therefore they would look at the existing trips through
that area and then come up with a total after the new
proposed trips had been added to that.
Commissioner Hargrave referred to page two, paragraph
6, of the staff report. He asked what the problems
were before staff reviewed the project and once the
project was reviewed what changes were made to concur
that the project did not have a traffic problem based
on revisions that staff suggested accordingly.
The Planning Director stated that one of the concerns
was how the entrance and exit onto Mt. Vernon Avenue
would affect the intersection as far as queing and the
distance to that intersection. That was reviewed by CG
Engineering and Kicak and Associates and they felt that
the distance was adequate for the trips and for the
capacity of that intersection. There was concern from
the planning point of view whether or not one entrance
would be sufficient and whether or not staff wanted to
prevent any other access onto the property to the
south. The original proposal was that there would be
thru traffic at this point of access.
He further mentioned that the original plan called for
a driveway that would come down and exit onto Barton
Road. The City Engineer's Office took a look at that
and reviewed the study that was done and as a result,
staff had the applicant move some parking spaces into
that area, and would require wheel stops to block that
access.
The Planning Director stated that the other issue was
whether or not this particular use would create more
traffic than what the new intersection would be able to
handle and the City Engineer's Office felt that the
improvement plans for this intersection would be able
to handle the newly generated traffic from this site.
Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that according to the
site plan there was one driveway with ingress/egress
out of the same driveway.
The Planning Director stated that was correct.
13
C
9
Commissioner Hargrave asked what study CG Engineering
was using to base their traffic count on. He asked if
they were using the old study from 1983 or are they
using current studies based on trip meters. If so, are
the trip meters set for certain streets in the city or
was the study based on all circulation patterns in that
area.
The Planning Director stated that CG Engineering was
the firm that had prepared the earlier traffic study
for that triangular area and they were using that as a
base.
Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that they could have
used the old studies which had been dealing with the
old traffic patterns.
The Planning Director stated that for the base they did
use the old traffic study. They, however, did take a
look at the impact from this particular structure and
used current standards.
Commissioner Cole referred to condition #11, about the
vehicular access between parcels. He asked if that was
put in with the future building in mind so there can be
access through there. He asked if that was the idea so
the Commission could grant the applicant permission at
that time, only in the event that the second building
was put in.
The Planning Director explained that was only in the
event that the second building would come through and
that entire corner would be replannned and resubmitted.
Staff would not want to approve it if that liquor store
was staying. We feel that was not a situation we would
want to approve now or in the future.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed her concern that
the applicant should be aware that if the Commission
did certain things on this project that it will reflect
on another project. For example, the placement of the
building if the Commission approved it would have an
effect on any future plans.
The Planning Director stated that it definitely would.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to the 26' between
the west side of the building and the property line.
She asked how much of that space could be utilized as
part of the building and the applicant still have the
required amount of landscaping.
14
C
F
The Planning Director explained that all of the
property that is directly west of the building was not
included in the landscaping figure. That figure
represents that which is within the parking area. The
applicant could wipe out all of that landscaped area
and still meet the parking landscaping requirement.
The building that they are wanting to do later will
eliminate much of those larger landscaped areas. When
they come back to do that they would have to provide
more landscaping in another portion which would be the
property to the south to balance that out.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder stated that it would become
one development instead of two.
The Planning Director stated that was correct. He
explained that as the applicant pointed out they would
be coming back in with a resubmittal not only for this
site but the combined sites, because the building they
want to bring in later would cross the property lines.
One of our conditions would be the elimination of that
line and a one lot subdivision be completed. He
explained, that way the lots could be combined and
staff could look at the entire project as one project.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed her concern with
the 26'of space. She felt that it was wasted space and
could attract problems in the area of vandalism. Vice -
Chairwoman Van Gelder suggested transferring the 26' to
the front of the building or transferring the 26' into
the building itself. She suggested taking the space in
the project and converting it into two stores, three
stores out of the area would be too small.
The Planning Director stated that when square footage
is added onto a building staff needs to look at the
parking. He mentioned that they are one space over
what was required so that would give them 200-250 sq.
ft. of building space they could add on and still meet
the parking requirement. He mentioned that the type of
tenants that would probably go into a small type of
environment such as this creates a situation where
parking is always critical. He suggested that the best
thing would probably be to move over and let them pick
up some space in the building and move the landscaping
from the west side to the east side.
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if there was less than
1000 sq. ft. in each section.
The Planning Director stated that it would be less
depending how the applicant divided it up.
15
C
Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder referred to a previous
project which had less than 1000 sq. feet and the
Planning Commission's agreement that this was too
small.
Chairman Caouette suggested that one solution was to
take the 26' and move it over to the Mt. Vernon side
and move the building back. The other suggestion was
the possibility of landscaping the lot on the south
property line. He asked the Planning Director for
comments on the feasibility of accomplishing either one
of those.
The Planning Director mentioned that movement of the
landscaping over to the Mt. Vernon side and that it
would be a plus for the project. He stated that the
landscaping in the corner would be dead space and would
not benefit anyone. He said that if it were moved it
would be a plus for the project from an overall design
view. He stated that putting a landscaping portion on
the south property line where the access issue was of
concern would prevent anyone from going over those
wheel stops to get to Barton Road. If it is necessary
in the future as the conditions are worded he could
require it at the time it was needed. He mentioned
that he would be concerned with how such a landscaped
area would effect the required parking dimensions.
Commissioner Sims stated that it had been mentioned
that there were problems with leasing of the liquor
store property. He asked if there was any time line
the applicant would be talking about as to when they
were thinking about putting in another structure in
this area.
The Planning Director explained that he had indications
that the lease with the liquor store was one of the
problems.
Commissioner Hargrave referred to Zone C-2 and asked
what things could not be put into this structure as far
as tenants.
The Planning Director stated that the commercial C-2
Zone is the retail zone. They are looking for retail
shops, walkin and driveup facilities. The code is
broken into two different sections. One allows uses to
come in without a use permit and the other, uses which
would require a conditional use permit. We don't have
a section of the code which just lists a prohibitive
use for a particular zone so your answer would be
16
C
9
anything other than retail stores, personal services,
appliance stores, bakeries, banks, barber shops,
department stores, beauty shops, hardware stores,
mortuaries, offices, bookstores, nurseries,
restaurants, shoe repair shops. Those types of uses
can go in just by coming in and meeting the parking
requirements. Conditional Use Permits would be needed
for auto repair shops, clothes cleaning establishments,
second hand sales, pet shops, hotels and new or used
car lots, public service stations, public garages, and
restaurants which include consumption of liquor.
Anything that is not listed in that would be a use that
would not be permitted, such as an industrial type use,
cabinet shop, and any of the Conditional Use Permit
uses which the Commission would then deny.
Additionally, it would be a difficulty coming into this
particular site with a restaurant because of the
additional parking that would be required for a
restaurant type use.
Commissioner Sims asked if that would apply even if the
restaurant were a non -liquor establishment.
The Planning Director stated that it would. He
mentioned that now our code for restaurants is
..."Restaurants, nightclubs, and other similar places
requires one parking place for each three seats and for
every 50 sq. ft. of floor area where seats may be
placed and a minimum of ten parking spaces provided. "
He further mentioned that the applicant had a total of
18 parking spaces. A 1,000 sq. ft. sandwich shop
restaurant would require ten (10) of those spaces. If
the whole area was used for a restaurant the Commission
would be looking at floor space, seating area, etc. It
would be very difficult to squeeze in parking for that
under the current code. When the code is revised after
the General Plan is completed it would have to meet any
changes and would be looking more at a use type
structure for the code which may increase restaurant
requirements. Whether liquor is served or not, right
now makes no difference.
Chairman Caouette asked the applicant or representative
to address the Commission.
Mr. Bhal Kavthekar
BSK Engineering Associates
14730 Beach Blvd.
#207
17
La Mirada, CA. 90638
Mr. Kavthekar introduced Mr. Jerry Dowd of M.S.
Partnership and stated they would be glad to answer any
questions from the Planning Commission. He stated that
they agreed with all of the recommendations in the
staff report.
Chairman Caouette asked if he would comment on the
Commission's discussion on taking the landscape area
and moving it onto the Mt. Vernon side of the building.
Mr. Dowd stated that he understood that this was not
part of the required landscaping. He referred to Vice-
Ch irwo an Van Gelder's idea that he would want to
integrate the development when he does the second part
of the project. He stated that at that point in time
he was planning to do extensive landscaping at the
section of Mt. Vernon and Barton Road. One of the
ideas or recommendations that the Planning Commission
stated earlier was to add some landscaping through the
parking area which he would be willing to do. The
biggest problem with moving the building in was that as
he built another building at some future date,
somewhere in 3-4 years, he would be creating a dead
space or unleasable space with no visibility with any
of the tenants. He stated that one of the .things they
have done in the past, especially when they have built
the other building, was to create gate work and
integrate the two architectures of the buildings so
that there would not be an open area.
He mentioned at this point in time this project has a
trash enclosure in there and he would be willing to add
additional landscaping up in the front towards the
street. He stated that it would be best to close off
that area to prevent the public from having access. It
was put on the Site Plan but it was not required to
meet any city code. He felt that the landscaping into
the parking area was a much better idea.
Commissioner Cole asked if there were any studies as
far as where the future building would be located or if
they would be physically attached. He asked if there
was some thought as to the physical separation
regarding the two buildings.
Mr. Dowd mentioned that they would like to get rid of
the liquor store due to the traffic problems it causes.
However, they have an existing lease for about 3 1/2
years so they are forced to live with that lease.
Whenever he develops the second building he would be
18
required to dedicate about 17' feet along Barton and
in addition to that there was a 50' foot building
setback. The buildings will come pretty close to each
other enough so that a rod iron gate would work.
Commissioner Cole mentioned that the Commission's
concern is when the building is put in there it would
be fairly close to the existing building and the future
building then you are really creating a dead space back
there.
Mr. Dowd stated that they were going to try to get them
as close as possible. He mentioned that they would be
putting in a block wall along the northerly property
line. He stated that his biggest problem was
developing something on its own but not something that
would create a dead retail space or no visibility from
a major street. The preliminary plans he had done for
landscaping showed substantial landscaping at the
intersection.
Commissioner Munson asked specifically how many square
feet were proposed in the second building.
Mr. Dowd replied 3491 sq. feet.
Commissioner Munson asked if that would go along the
property line.
Mr. Dowd replied it would go along the west property
line which would back up against the existing building.
Commissioner Munson asked if there was 17' ft. plus 50'
ft. for the front of the building.
The Planning Director reminded the Commission that they
are having to look at this as a project on its own.
Also, remember when the project comes back to add the
second building they will have to start from scratch as
far as a Site and Architectural Review approval. He
mentioned that the Commission would be considering all
of those items at that time as to where the trash
enclosure should be, parking decisions, where signage
should be placed all of these items will have to be
dealt with then.
Mr. Dowd stated that he understood this because from
their standpoint they are looking at 3-4 years in time.
Commissioner Sims stated that it sounded as if the
applicant had put in some thought to a second building.
He stated that the Commission was trying to look at
19
c
1*1
this project and felt that it would not be compatible
with a project that may occur 3-4 years from now. He
questioned as to how he could justify in his mind the
location of the building and the planning of the
project and if it would be compatible with what would
be happening later. He mentioned that they are dealing
with numbers but nothing concrete to look at.
The Planning Director explained that this was a project
that he would like to do in one overall site review.
However, the applicant is coming in now on the 1st
phase with its own separate legal parcel and that the
applicant wants to come back and combine it with
another parcel later. From a planning point of view it
has to be looked at as the one application now, but
keeping in mind that there are some things that can
happen in the future. We don't want to give an
indication at this time that something will be
approved in the future. Basically, the applicant is
gambling that the Commission is going to approve this
project and that the applicant will be able to do what
they have planned later.
Commissioner Sims asked why he could not see the
preliminary layouts on the future development.
Mr. Dowd explained that originally they were going to
submit one plan but decided that in everyone's best
interest because it was 4 years off and could not phase
the development to build a second building when the
liquor store lease was up. He stated that the biggest
problem for the City and themselves was the phase
development parking.
The Planning Director stated that he had a preliminary
plan which the applicant had just handed to him and
reemphasized that it was preliminary. He mentioned
that staff had not done a review on it.
Commissioner Sims stated that he had the same concerns
as Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder with the landscaping,
parking and gate enclosure in relationship with the
future building.
The Planning Director mentioned that as he passed the
preliminary plans to keep in mind that staff had not
studied them and they are not ready for actual
submittal.
Chairman Caouette suggested that as a stand alone he
had a problem with the landscaped area, where it was
and really felt it would be better off with the
O,
C
landscaping along Barton Road. He mentioned that
looking at the future preliminary plans he did not
see that improving with a second building it was still
a problem area with dead space.
Commissioner Munson asked how much dedication would be
on the westside of Mt. Vernon, north of Barton Road.
He asked the applicant if they were planning to
dedicate any of that property to the City.
Mr. Dowd explained that there was 11' as part of the
proposal that was being dedicated along with all of the
offsite improvements that would be done along Mt.
Vernon.
Commissioner Munson referred to the driveway near the
liquor store. He mentioned that if 11' is removed from
the proposed building, will that eliminate the
driveway?
The Planning Director mentioned that the 11' of
dedication was only on this parcel and staff was
hindered from requiring any dedication on the southerly
parcel which would affect the liquor store at this
time.
Commissioner Hawkinson clarified that at some point in
time there will probably be a need for a turn pocket at
the intersection. Therefore, that would be the 2nd
' Phase and was there some street dedication along there.
Mr. Dowd mentioned that there is an 11' dedication and
then it would go to 17' along Barton Road, but it can't
be dedicated until the liquor store is torn down.
Commissioner Hargrave mentioned that he was concerned
also with the dead space and was not sure if he was in
agreement with the applicant as far as dead space for
renting. He assumed that there would not be anything
to the north of the trash enclosure area. He pointed
out the dilemma the Commission had in dealing with a
possible second building. Commissioner Hargrave
pointed out that he would like to see maximum usage of
the property as far as square footage and felt that
this location is a key area for the City of Grand
Terrace.
Mr. Dowd asked for a continuance to come back with the
project.
Chairman Caouette asked if two weeks would be
sufficient.
21
The Planning Director stated that the next meeting
would be December 21, 1987 and the agenda already had
two different items for Site and Architectural Review.
He suggested continuing to the first meeting in
January, unless this would be an undue hardship on the
applicant in which case it could be continued to
December 21st, 1987.
Mr. Dowd mentioned that he had no problem with
continuance til January 4, 1988.
The Planning Director asked the Commission if there
were any particular issues that they would want -to see
or want staff to look at.
Chairman Caouette referred to earlier discussion on
moving the building back some and removing the
landscaping. He stated that he also wondered about
adding some square footage in that process.
The Planning Director stated that he had also noticed
there was some concern about the traffic study and
asked if there were any questions along that line.
Commissioner Hargrave stated that he thought the base
traffic study was dated 1985 but requested staff to
check with the City Engineer.
The Planning Director mentioned that the current
traffic study did have a date of October 1987 and had
projected generated trips added onto that number but
thought the traffic base was 1985. He stated staff
would check on the base traffic study used.
Commissioner Hargrave requested the developers not to
change the trash enclosure area while preparing for the
next meeting.
The Planning Director pointed out that the Commission
will be looking at design alternatives.
Mr. Dowd stated that he felt the greatest concern from
the Commission was to minimize the dead space and
remove some of the landscaping along Mt. Vernon as a
trade off.
Chairman Caouette requested the applicant to consider
putting landscaping along the southern portion.
Mr. Dowd asked would it be better to look at stones
rather than a landscaping area.
22
0
Commissioner Munson suggested tying the building
together with a slanted visual connection. This would
not provide as wide a frontage but it would provide the
visibility.
Commissioner Hawkinson asked if there would be a
limited access and possible difficulty in dumpster
entrance for the enclosed trash area.
The Planning Director stated that he had similar
concerns in putting the trash area back in the corner.
He mentioned that it may be convenient for the
applicant in placing it back there but the wheeling in
and out of the dumpsters can cause damage to
landscaping and pavement. Staff has been working with
the applicant in remedying those concerns.
MOTION
PCM-87-83
Chairman Caouette moved that SA-87-11 be continued to
January 4, 1988. Commissioner Munson seconded the
motion.
MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES.
PLANNINT COMMISSION MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:35 P.M.
eChairman Caouette mentioned that there was still
unfinished business, items #2,#3, and #4. The
Commission did not have the benefit of the presence of
the City Attorney at this meeting yet. He asked the
Planning Director if this should be continued to a
later date to allow some sort of discovery on the issue
of the placement of the roadway.
Commissioner Hawkinson asked if the City of Riverside
would be receptive to a relocation of the well, if it
does prove there is a conflict, or would there be a
major street alignment.
The Planning Director stated that the well site was
designed with a 50' buffer between the sewer lines and
a 50' buffer between the property line of parcel #1 and
the actual dwelling site of the well. They may run
into problems if they have to move the well and come in
too close with the existing sewer lines. As it is
proposed now on the map and what the Planning
Consultant is considering for the alignment of that
road, the well sites would have to be moved and they
wouldn't be able to move the site within the parcel
23
C
LJ
C
MOTION
PCM-87-84
they would have to move the parcel over in order to do
that.
Commissioner Cole asked if because of the preliminary
study, as far as the road realignment, would there be a
major impact one way or the other.
The Planning Director stated that he did not see how
there would be an impact for that area but there would
be a burden for certain property owners.
Commissioner Cole mentioned that he understood the City
�f Riv sid has acquired the property by eminent
omainiereefore there w u d b a new legal battle to
move it over 50 ft. or wl°a-eves.
The Planning Director suggested that the best
compromise would be to move this item to the next
meeting and at that time receive the answers to the
legal questions hopefully by that time.
Mr. Kostel stated that the possible road alignment has
caught the City of Riverside by surprise. He stated
that they had to go through eminent domain and need to
go ahead due to the lack of water available from other
sources prior to the summer deadline. He mentioned
that they would appreciate the Commission's efforts to
speed this up.
Chairman Caouette made the motion to continue TPM-87-6,
CUP-87-13, and SA-87-13 until the December 21, 1987
Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Hawkinson
seconded.
MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES.
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.
Resp c 1 Submitted,
David R. Sa yer,
Planning Director
24
Approved By,
rman Caouette,
Chairman
Planning Commission