Loading...
03/21/1988c GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21, 1988 PUBLIC HEARING/GENERAL PLAN 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 March 21, 1.988, at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman, Norman Caouette. PRESENT: NORMAN CAOUETTE, CHAIRMAN FRAN VAN GELDER, VICE -CHAIRWOMAN GERALD COLE, COMMISSIONER STANLEY HARGRAVE, COMMISSIONER JERRY HAWKINSON, COMMISSIONER RAY MUNSON, COMMISSIONER JIM SIMS, COMMISSIONER IVAN HOPKINS, CITY ATTORNEY JOE KICAK, CITY ENGINEER DAVID SAWYER, PLANNING DIRECTOR STAFF ABSENT: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: COMMISSIONER SIMS ------ - - ----------- - SPECIAL WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 5:30 P.M. Information/Comments from Staff. Information/Comments from Commissioners Information/Comments from Consultants-Wiidan and Associates Special Presentation (pursuant to Federal Regulations) from Stewart Long/Environmen.tal Health and Waste Management WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. Chairman Caouette explained the procedures regarding the public hearings (for the Planning Commission and the City Council) pertaining to the General Plan 87-4 and the EIR-87-1. GP-87-4 EIR-87-1 The Planning Director presented the staff report to the Planning Commission with the recommendations from staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. He explained that this hearing deals with the General Plan and the zoning ordinance will be handled after the General Plan is finalized. MR. ROSS GELLER CONSULTANT WILDAN AND ASSOCIATES He presented the proposed major changes in regards to the General Plan. He defined their mission brought on by the City Council. He presented their proposed General Plan and analysis including the underdeveloped area of the southwest portion of the City, circulation issues, upgrading landuse designations and the park and recreation in terms of the General Plan. Referred to previous portions of the General Plan that had been adopted during the 1987 summer and the changes regarding density issues. Mr. Geller presented a slide presentation of Southern California business parks. MR. JERRY HAHS TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANT WILDAN AND ASSOCIATES He stated the purposes of their analysis and studies. He explained problems with previous studies. He outlined their project in relation to the landuse changes of the proposed General Plan and the effect on traffic volumes and flow. He defined the different levels of service and specific areas that needed attention. He presented their proposals in regards to changes of major and secondary roadways in the City. r1 C) C Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions regarding traffic. Chairman Caouette asked Mr. Hahs to clarify their treatment of traffic going down the hill. Mr. Hahs explained that he was asked about on the distribution of trips on the roadway. They assumed that the roadway would be 4 or. 2 lanes and with the traffic volume estimated that it would stay as 2 lanes. However, he referred to the chart in the report they did go ahead and use that classification. They took the trips and put that onto a four lane section and made the determination or calculation necessary to determine the level of service. It is shown in the chart as Level A but he did not expect it to be that if it goes to a two lane roadway, then it would be a level of service as a low C or high D. He clarified that would only pertain to the section going down the hill. Commissioner Munson asked how far east would the median go at the end of Barton Road. Mr. Hahs stated they proposed the median from the eastside of the freeway interchange just east of Mt. Vernon to the area where it was proposed to be six lanes. It would go down to a four lane section east of Mt. Vernon to where it exits the city, that area would have a median but not the six lanes. Commissioner Munson asked if they would consider a median down Mt. Vernon in either direction. Mr. Hahs stated that they could probably operate sufficiently without it. From an aesthetic standpoint the city may wish to consider that. Commissioner Munson asked if he had any input to present in regards to Colton's plans for the bottom of the hill. Mr. Hahs stated that he did not discuss that issue with the City of Colton. He had received that information later from the City staff. He discussed basically the proposed development on the eastside of Washington Avenue and asked the City of Colton about Mt. Vernon as it goes up the side of the hill. He stated that on that issue the City of Colton proposed reducing that to a two lane section. He stated that they will make a recommendation to the City and get together with 3 N' the local transportation agency to see if there is an agreement to get that done. The City Attorney clarified that the closest onramp goes into the north traffic of 215, traffic coming down Mt. Vernon will be blocked from turning left onto the onramp and will have to go onto the second onramp which is next to Fiesta Village. Traffic coming from Washington Avenue will turn right onto that onramp. Commissioner Munson asked what the time element would be for improving the road and the Barton Bridge. Mr. Hahs estimated, with funds availability, it would take between 3-5 years. Commissioner Munson asked if they had a monetary amount for same. Mr. Hahs stated that there were so many alternatives on how it could be done it would be estimated for the interchange improvement alone would be somewhere between $5-$6 million dollars. Commissioner. Sims referred to the traffic study and Commerce Way as a secondary. He stated that on Michigan Avenue they did not indicate any type of northbound flow north of Commerce on Michigan. He asked if the location of Commerce to Barton would be sufficient to generate the traffic flow of the business park. Mr. Hahs explained that he felt there was enough room to store the traffic. He explained that with clever traffic signalization it could handle that traffic well. However it may take an existing traffic signal at Barton and another at the intersection of Michigan and Commerce Way. Commissioner Sims referred to the level of service C south of Barton. Mr. Hahs stated that they would increase the intersection by widening Michigan and through the traffic signal improvements he felt it could be handled at a level C. He stated that would be in the future depending on the amount of volume generated down there. Commissioner Sims asked the Traffic Consultant if the proposed landuse for this area regarding the trucks anticipated in this area would not cause a 2 C great deal of congestion. Mr. Hahs clarified that with proper signalization, channelization and good curbage design there should be no problem. Commissioner Hawkinson asked the Traffic Consultant to define the Levels of Service. Mr. Hahs explained that Level A is that you could do anything you wish on the street, Level B is a good level but have to take some consideration to the cars around you, Level C is average, there are people around you but not interferring with traffic progress, Level D is where you start experiencing some problems and delays, Level E is a total breakdown and a sporadic type flow. Commissioner. Hargrave asked if there were any studies at Level D or higher in the horizon between now and the year 2010. Mr. Hahs stated they were recommending that all of the streets be at Level C or higher. He explained that most were at Level A now, most of them by the year 2010 were Level A also assuming that they would be built out as introduced in the proposed General Plan. Commissioner Hargrave asked if in the year 2010 the City should be at a C or D Level in regards to the circulation element, at its worst situation. Mr. Hahs explained that the freeway was also its most challenging issue. The freeway would be at a Level D service. Commissioner Hargrave asked how cities get $5-6 million dollars to build traffic interchanges. Mr. Hahs stated that generally speaking one of the ways would be an assessment district concept where you tax all of the people (residents) who would benefit from the improvements, that would be a community issue. Although, Cal Trans does have some monies if the project can get on their priority list. You take it to the Regional Transportation Agency and push for that project to have it included in the process. He stated that it was his understanding that from the people who tried to pass the half -cent sales tax for transportation they are considering reviving that for the next election, so that is another alternative. He stated that he is not aware of 5 G) the outcome of the Governor's bonding issue but it that proposal went through that would be another alternative. He stated that one of the recommendations from the consultants was a traffic impact fee. As the change in development occurs in the community that fee (which must be equitable) can be put into a fund to help pay tor traffic and transportation development. Other alternatives were gas tax, and transportation development funds. He explained that the project at Barton Road does not have to be built at once. There are some ways to do parts of it at a time. Commissioner Hargrave asked if it were safe to say that whatever type of interchange development that there would be some traffic decrease there due to the building at the bridge. Mr. Hahs explained that there would be delays no matter what is done to the widening of that structure. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if the widening of Mt. Vern6n, north of Barton Road, to four lanes would lower the traffic level even though it decreased it to two lanes at the top of the hill. Mr. Hahs explained that he doubted, with the traffic volumes involved, that the level or traffic volume would be reduced or increased substantially by a widening or non -widening of that roadway down the hill. The main thing you would gain would be a high level of service. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed her concerns with reduction of four to two lanes. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any questions. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 8:06 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 8:06 P.M. Chairman Caouette explained the Public Hearing process to the public. The Planning Director suggested that the Reviewing Agencies speak first in order to answer questions. h CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. SUE NOREEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY She wished to discuss the 40 acres of Edison owned property between Pico and Van Buren, which have been owned by SCE for approximately 50 years, with hopes that they could be developed for utility service facilities. She mentioned that the way the zoning was proposed for the business park it would make their future plans impossible. She stated that they are not looking at developing a high generating station as much as utility services that could be developed in the future. She stated that if it were zoned to be light industrial, compatible with an area on Michigan and Van Buren, it would be consistent and make it easier for them when they have plans to develop this area. Her other concern dealt with the extension of Commerce Way which cuts into their property. She stated they have recently signed a ten-year lease agreement with the City to develop the ten acres for park development. Even if the property were developed she felt that the park would be allowed to stay there as a buffer zone for them. It appeared to her that the 5 acres to the east has been zoned as residential, unknown to SCE. SCE does not have a problem with Commerce Way coming down the border of their property and coming down into Taylor but they are opposed to Commerce Way coming down into the middle of their property. ROSS GELLER WILDAN AND ASSOCIATES He stated that in the Commission's packet, the Final EIR, SCE's concern was addressed. This basically sets forth a performance standard or quality of development which they are anticipating for this area. The zoning obviously will set forth the exact types of permitted uses that will ultimately be allowed there. They do not at this point have a business park zoning designation. If SCE wanted to expand their facilities, one way to allow them to do this and still meet some of the intents of a high development area would be to permit the uses but make SCE implement some serious high quality development standards when they do expand their utility facilities. That would be one alternative. In terms of the park it was his understanding based on the information he received from the community that the park is nothing more than an interim park because it doesn't really serve the community's needs in terms of having permanent �J facilities there, therefore the General Plan addresses that and sets forth the program. K.ENT VAN GELDER COLTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The Colton Unified School District responded in writing regarding the Draft General Plan and MEA-EIR. Regarding the Barton Road interchange, under this proposal to widen Barton Road by ten feet on both sides to establish a median and improve traffic. He mentioned that Grand Terrace Elementary School would be affected by this project. The district would like to review a cost analysis of this project vs. the cost of developing a second freeway entrance and exit to the City which could improve traffic flow without requiring the condemnation of public pro pety. It is the district's understanding that the Barton Roard bridge would also need to be widened which would add significant costs to the project. Once the sidewalks are added there will be little frontage left on the school site and increased noise. For these reasons the initial position of the district would be for the City to exhaust all alternatives before adopting this plan. Commissioner Hargrave asked Mr. Van Gelder if he was familiar with the requirements for building high schools in the State of California. Mr. Van Gelder stated that they did research for City Council on that subject about two months ago. Commissioner Hargrave asked how much acreage would be needed for a high school. Mr. Van Gelder stated that for 600 children it would require 20-30 acres and there are accredited schools for enrollment of that size in small communities. Mr. Van Gelder stated that it would depend on how the City would want to finance it. If the State of California would finance it they require 40 acres. He did mention that at the current time the school district did not qualify for a high school. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the City was built out to maximum, would the City have a maximum of 600 high school children? Mr. Van Gelder stated that there would be students total. E-3 c approximately 600 c c Commissioner Hargrave asked if it would not be feasible due to the small present enrollment. He stated that if they took that into consideration they should be thinking of 40 acres as a potential site if they were to consider that based on today's requirements. Commissioner Munson asked what the cost of building a school would be. Mr. Van Gelder used the City of Redlands as an example. They are voting a bond initiative for 2500 children and looking at $25 million dollars. DIANE ESPINOZA 12794 MICHIGAN G.T. She mentioned that this plan was too aggressive for a community of this size. She did not favor the division of Michigan Street residents from other residential areas. There would be Michigan Street on one side and Commerce Way on the other. She asked what would happen to her if Michigan Street were widened. She asked if the General Plan was accepted does the City Council have the power to change one part of the plan at a later. date. Chairman Caouette stated that the plan was subject to cycles of amendments and there are opportunities during the year (4 times) when the plan can legally be amended for whatever purpose. The Planning Director clarified for everyone that this plan did not call for the widening of Michigan Street from south of De Berry anymore than what has already been designated in the current General Plan. This plan will actually decrease the amount of property that would be required to widen the street when any improvements come about. He mentioned that currently the existing General Plan called for a secondary highway which has a pavement width of 64'. The proposed plan as being presented will decrease that necessity down to a 44' width and that would be approximately less than 10' wider than what is currently paved now in most areas along Michigan Street. So therefore it is a decrease of what would be needed when that street is eventually widened. Ms. Espinoza asked if at a later date the City Council could change its mind and come in and widen that street or any street later. The Planning Director stated that was correct and they would have to go through the same process that the Commission is 0J CM going through now. TOM THOMSON INLAND LUMBER 21900 MAIN STREET G.T. He opposed the rezoning of his property, at the corner of Michigan and Main Streets, from light industrial to low density residential. Also he opposed Commerce Way going through the center of his property. Mr. Geller clarified that this was a long term plan and would not occur overnight. He stated that the reasons they looked at the residential in that area was to provide an opportunity for development and in consideration of the direct impact that those type of operations are having on single family houses. This will not affect his operation nor close him down. DIANE ABBOTT 22570 LA PAIX G.T. Referred to correspondence, with signatures of other neighbors, sent to City Council on April 14, 1987. She expressed her concerns with the zoning of the property surrounding the fire department (C-2) and any future developments which would effect their residences. They suggested placing a limitation of one-story development and not allowing businesses which would add to the existing noise level from the fire department. The Planning Director clarified that the C-2 Zone does allow certain services such as auto repair but would require a Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to insure that the site the business is going into does not have a negative impact on the surrounding property and a public hearing does allow us to look at that situation and then condition that application. In regards to the suggestion of a one-story height limitation, C-2 zone does have a two-story height limitation, unless a Conditional Use Permit were required or architectural conditions through a Site and Architectural Review. All of those issues a��e r}}e 81ri���� e1S�sL4 a�g��}}otwqddea�edain18�3 GeaerfliePlnhdd r inance, when we ring tha into conformance wi General Plan. Commissioner Sims asked for clarification of the process for the General Plan Review. 10 c The Planning Director explained that the process includes bringing the zoning map in compliance with the General Plan. There is some flexibility for example the low density, residential zone has three different zoning classifications the properties can go in to; the R-1-72, R-1-20 or R-1-40. Therefore it is very general in that designation for the General Plan Map. Commissioner Sims stated then that if the residential uses are approved per the General Plan and if someone would come back in and the zoning was appropriately changed for landuse and if it was to be light industrial :initially and now it was changed to residential then you would not be able to come in and propose light industrial for a facility. The Planning Director used the lumber yard as an example and the proposal that it be changed to light industrial. The zoning would be changed and the lumber yard would become a non -conforming use. They have the right to continue that use indefinitely and have the right to have certain improvements on that property up to 15% per year as far as repairs go and can go up to 20% improvements and additional square footage with a Conditional Use Permit. He can continue his business there. Commissioner Sims clarified that the business therefore can continue its light industrial use. The Planning Director stated that was correct and a homeowner would be allowed to continue to live in his or her home with a 15-20% improvement level per year. An issue of whether or not they could sell the property as residential or as a lumber yard could best be answered by the City Attorney. The City Attorney stated that either properties could be sold. However, if they ever discontinued to use it as a light industrial use for a prolonged period then the non- conforming use would expire and they could no longer use it as such. Commissioner Sims stated that if it has always been used as light industrial and if the intent is that it continue to do so and is sold on that basis then they could proceed with that type of development without any problems. The Planning Director stated that what they would not be able to do would be to increase the degree of non- conformity. If they were going to increase the sizes or intended use then that would have to come back for a Conditional Use Permit at that time. 11 BREAK AT 8:45 P.M. RESUMED PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:50 P.M. KIM & LARRY STROMWALL 12522 MICHIGAN G.T. Mrs. Stromwall voiced their opposition to the General Plan position of rezoning her property to light industrial. She stated that she understood if she wanted to put anything in a room addition, a pool or spa to forget it they could not develop their property. WENDY CURRAN 12409 CARDINAL COURT G.T. She voiced her opposition to the proposed rezoning of the area to light industrial. Also, she was in opposition to the widening of any streets to four lanes in Grand Terrace but perhaps leave sidewalks on one side. For the record, she wished to state that she was in opposition to any relocation of the Grand Terrace Elementary School and felt that was a matter for the School District and viewed it as a historical property. DICK YOST SPEAKING FOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Referred to earlier written communication addressed to the City Council stating the Chamber of Commerce's opposition to the General Plan as proposed. FAITH KELLY 22107 DE BERRY G.T. She expressed her opposition to having a business park near her residence and property (3/4 acre) as well as the widening of Michigan. The Planning Director clarified once again that this plan does not call for Michigan to be a four —lane road it calls for it to be a two—lane road. 12 C C3 RONALD OGAWA 12556 MICHIGAN STREET G.T. Mr. Ogawa stressed his opposition to the rezoning of his property to light -industrial use which would not allow them to do any modifications to their home. Mr. Ogawa mentioned that he felt this proposal would jeopardize this community and effect the residents of Grand Terrace and would be affected by the increments of development. He understood that if the zoning is accepted Michigan will be four -lanes from Barton Road to Main Street. TONY PETTA 11875 ETON DRIVE G.T. He referred to an earlier meeting and the concerns that were brought out by the public. He mentioned those concerns for the benefit of the Planning Commission. One of the concerns was the widening of Michigan Avenue and the sidewalks being closely situated to the residences. He pointed out that was not the case as earlier stated by the Planning Director. He asked for a solution to confirm that Michigan Avenue would not be widened for the benefit of the public. He felt that Michigan Avenue should stay at its present condition. The other concern was the placement of Commerce Way through the park and through residential neighborhoods. Another concern was the business park and rezoning to light industrial in that area west of Michigan. He questioned why the residential portions of that area were included in the rezoning, they could be left out at this point. He suggested that the Commerce Center be relocated so that it would not impact the park and residential areas. Also that the Business Park Zone which encompasses the residential neighborhoods to the west should be left out of that concept. The residences cannot improve their property a full 100% only 15% per year. He suggested leaving the residences out of the Business Park area. What is needed is a study to determine what would be the income requirement for this study and the General Plan should reflect and satisfy the need of income for future generations. The Business Park would be a long wait to attract corporate headquarters and would not allow a retailer in there who could provide sales tax. 13 WE JAMES DF.CKERT 22034 DE BERRY G.T. He stated he was in agreement with previous speakers that his area should remain as residential and not rezoned to commercial. FRANCIS CARTER 11938 ARLISS DR. (RESIDENCE) PROPERTY OWNER ON MICHIGAN She was in opposition to the new industrial zoning. She favored the previous General Plan which integrated commercial with residential. She was opposed to the alternative plan that was presented at the special meeting on March 17, 1988, (Councilmembers' Pfennighausen and Evan's meeting). Also, she opposed the moving of the school and rezoning of that area to residential. She felt that there should be commercial areas for a sales tax base. She opposed the location of the park at that site. She suggested using this project on a joint use with the school district and use their facilities. She was in favor of the changing to low density residential in the property between Canal and Mt. Vernon (Forrest City Development Phase II). BRIAN HARBER 22032 PICO AVENUE BUSINESS AT 21999 VAN BUREN (HARBER COMPANIES AND ROADRUNNER MINI STORAGE) PROPERTY OWNER/9 ACRES NORTH OF THEIR BUSINESS) He stated that he was in support of a business park, referred to previous success from other business parks in other cities. Any residential or commercial development in that area would create traffic problems but would have to deal with those when they occur. He commended the consultant and planning for giving a starting point on the General Plan. BARBARA BAYUS 22664 ETON DRIVE G.T. She commended Wildan and Associates for starting in the right direction and we need to have foresight in continuing. She opposed the residential area in the middle of the apartment complex, the triangle north of Barton Road and 14 west of Mt. Vernon. She stated that she did not think it was conducive to have R-1 in the middle of the apartments. It was very difficult to sell the property as such. She suggested it should stay as multiple dwelling. Per written request (received by the Planning Department) she suggested zoning the area south of Barton, eastside of Mt. Vernon, to AP or office commercial would be conducive to the surrounding area. She opposed the cutting of Edison Park in two by Commerce Way. She disagreed with the changing of the area on Main Avenue and Michigan Avenue from light industrial to residential. The Planning Director stated that the low density residential designation in the triangle section would also allow R-2 development as well as the R-1. The consultants and Planning staff did consider the request of zoning the area south of Barton, eastside of Mt. Vernon, to AP -or office commercial but felt it was better left as it is. KIRK TURNER 22054 DE BERRY G.T. He stated opposition to the proposed zoning for the incorporated areas west of Michigan. He has had their home previously threatened by a proposed shopping mall.. He suggested that he would like to see the proposed zoning change to residential excluding those already developed areas with the addition of a park site west of Van Buren. He felt the residential element would be more conducive to the environment of Grand Terrace. WILLIAM DE BENEDICT 11963 HONEY HILL DRIVE G.T. He asked for clarification of the zoning presently around the Fire Department. The Planning Director stated that there was no proposal to change the zoning in that area around the Fire Department. He clarified that the present hearings are dealing with the General Plan and his concerns with zoning hearings would be dealt with at the zoning ordinance's public hearings. 15 LEE SWERTFEGER 12438 MICHIGAN G.T. He stated that he bought his property due to it being an M-1 zone and it has been changed far too many times. He approved the new proposal of rezoning and the Business Park proposal. BARNEY KARGER 11668 BERNARDO WAY G.T. He asked for clarification on the traffic flow break down; Levels A,B,C or D. He asked if Level A meant free flow of traffic. The Planning Director stated that was correct. Mr. Karger asked that at the present time at peak hours at Barton Road and Mt. Vernon intersection and the freeway and Barton Road intersection are they classified as Level A. Mr. Hahs, Wildan Associates, stated that they were not asked to do peak hour analysis, but were asked to do an average situation, with a 50-50 split. The mathematical methods they used would indicate that it was Level A. Mr. Karger asked if at buildout at 14,000 people and if the Barton Road bridge was not enlarged and do very little towards improving Barton Road and Mt. Vernon would the traffic flow level be downgraded to a C or B-, at peak traffic hours. Commissioner Hargrave referred to Table II-9 on page II-38 of the General Plan Section, which showed Level D at the year 2010. Mr. Karger stated, in his opinion, there was no difference in downgrading from medium density to light density, nor light density to industrial or business park. The only difference he saw there was the effect on votes. He opposed the rezoning on the area owned by Inland Lumber. He suggested that the corner 10 acres could be rezoned and that might make a good business park. He saw the landuse north of Barton Road as not good planning. He questioned the difference between the density of residential and apartments, such as exampled by the triangle section by Mt. Vernon. 16 BILL DARWIN 23172 PALM AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/TWO LOTS NORTHSIDE OF BARTON ROAD, NORTH OF CANAL G.T. He presented a commercial plan for a mobile park to the Planning Commission. He expressed his concern with the moratorium and the rezoning on the second lot thus halting his project. Presently there is 14,000 of commercial space and 70 off street parking spaces designed for C-2 criteria. If the area is downzoned to AP it would make the project impracticle. He referred to the office units across the streets which always have vacancies. He asked the Planning Commission to reinstate to C-2 zoning. The Planning Director explained that this was an example of GP and Zoning map not being consistent. The General Plan shows that area as C-2 and our current Zoning Map shows as AP under the current regulations if he were to come in and apply for a permit to build then we would go according to the current Zoning map which would call for the AP regulations. The AP zoning does not necessarily eliminate retail uses, there are certain retail uses that are allowed in the AP zoning with a Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the recommendation is that the property be changed on the General Plan map to the AP land designation. He mentioned that what is being done this evening is discussion and the Planning Commission will make their own recommendation. LARRY WILSON PASTOR/PRAISE FELLOWSHIP CHURCH 12667 MICHIGAN AVENUE G.T. He stated that his particular concern dealt with their 5 acres at the corner of Michigan and Pico. He would be opposed to light industrial across from their church. He had been informed by school authorities of a market for a future development of a day care or school on that acreage. 17 c RICHARD SIEGMUND SIGLAND AND ASSOCIATES 364 ORANGE SHOW LANE SAN BERNARDINO, CA. 92408 REPRESENTING MARK HENDRICKS 12394 MICHIGAN AVENUE G.T. He mentioned that Mr. Hendricks previously had plans to subdivide his property. He stated that they did put a tentative map together and the project was stopped by the moratorium. This property lies on the easthalf of the part that borders between Commerce, Michigan, De Berry and Van Buren. He questioned whether the monies would be there to handle schools, traffic or freeway. He asked if the land use of -the business park would allow a lesser zoning such as a residential development. The Planning Director explained that the residential uses would not be permitted in the business park area. Mr. Hendricks explained that any development that does go in there would require the widening of Van Buren and need to account for the safety of the student flow along Michigan. He suggested taking portions on the westside of Michigan as residential with the compromise of a business park. He mentioned that along Commercial Way there were more appropriate sized parcels that could handle a business park rather than the accumulation of smaller parcels on Michigan. MIKE ROACH 22799 FAIRBURN G.T. He stated that he lives on the northside of the City so he would not be directly affected by any proposed changes. However, he favored keeping the City a residential community. DOROTHY FARLEY 12513 MICHIGAN G.T. Her property lies on the southeast corner of Van Buren and Michigan and wishes to keep it as residential. She suggested putting in more stores on Barton Road to obtain additional tax monies. 18 LESLIE LIST 22034 DE BERRY G.T. He opposed the industrial park and expressed his concern that it would not provide a safe environment for the children or residents of the community. CHAIRMAN CAOUETTE SUBMITTED TWO LETTERS FOR THE RECORD. 1) FOREST CITY DILLON DEVELOPMENT ADDRESSED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION SIGNED BY STEVEN P. ALPERT, VICE PRESIDENT They opposed the proposed changes downzoning the Phase II land to low density residential. They stated they are entitled to complete the Mt. Vernon Villas Phase II project. 2) FRED S. THOMSON 21900 MAIN STREET GRAND TERRACE 0 P.O. BOX 190 COLTON, CA. 92324 Properties located at 21900, 21850, 21800 Main Street Lots 57, 58, 59, 60 and 55 Mr. Wm. 0. Lewis, attorney, represents above mentioned property owners and their opposition to the proposal of the rezoning. Chairman Caouette asked for any further public comments and being none, closed the Public Hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 9:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION CONVENED AT 9:50 P.M. 19 MOTION PCM-88-8 GP-87-4 X Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder made the motion to continue this item until the next meeting in order to allow the Planning Commission sufficient time to reflect on all of the comments. Chairman Caouette asked the Planning Director when the next meeting would be. The Planning Director explained that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for April 4, 1988 and stated the agenda was already full with seven different items on it. He suggested that they could consider a special meeting prior to that meeting or recognize that some of those items may need to be continued. Chairman Caouette asked if he had a suggested time for a special meeting. The Planning Director stated that depending on how long the Commission may wish to deliberate about the comments, this Wednesday night may be appropriate. He stated that he would not be available next Monday night but any night during the next two weeks would be appropriate. Chairman Caouette asked for a real brief summary of the Public Hearing concerns and possibly staff recommendations. The Planning Director stated that could be done and suggested perhaps not Wednesday night due to the time element. Chairman Caouette asked for any other discussion on the motion. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if staff could make arrangements for a time when it is convenient for everyone. The City Attorney explained that if staff was going to do it a special meeting would have to be called, otherwise you would have to adjourn this meeting to a time certain. Staff just can't set up a special meeting for this purpose. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if they could call it a workshop. 20 AMENDED MOTION PCM-88-8 c c Chairman Caouette asked if that was to be part of the motion. The Planning Director suggested that if you want that as part of the motion that staff arrange the special meeting then have the Chairperson call a special meeting if that works out. Chairman Caouette asked about notification for the public. The Planning Director explained that could be done. The earliest and the best that could be done would be a 72 hour posting and notification in the paper. The public would have to watch the newspaper for the next two weeks. Chairman Caouette clarified the motion to continue to a special meeting arranged by staff and duly noted with appropriate summary of public concerns and recommendations from staff. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder concurred. The Planning Director stated that it sounded as if the meeting might be the middle of next week. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the next special meeting would be a public hearing. Chairman Caouette clarified that the Public Hearing had been closed so it will be for decision purposes. The Planning Director explained that was correct and the Chairperson would have the option to reopen the Public Hearing if he so desired. The City Attorney corrected stating that if the Public Hearing is going to be reopened then it must be advertised as a public hearing. Either the Planning Commission is going to have to continue this meeting to a date certain or keep the Public Hearing closed because it would not be advertised as such. Chairman Caouette recommended Hearing be kept as closed. Commissioner Munson stated his 21 that the Public opposition to the MOTION VOTE PCM-88-8 motion due to the public here this evening waiting for a decision. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder expressed concerns that the Planning Commission needed more time to digest and make good intelligent decisions. MOTION CARRIED. COMMISSIONERS MUNSON, HAWKINSON AND SIMS VOTING NOE, 4-3-0-0. Chairman Caouette referred to one other item on the agenda (SA-88-2/CY Development/Coffin) but understood they had withdrawn their request and asked to be continued until April 4, 1988. PLANNING COMMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:55 P.M. Approved by: Nor and-C-a�oyuette, Chairman of Planning Commission M_ 22 Respectfully Submitted, a7 David R. awyer, Planning Director