Loading...
05/16/1988GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 1988 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 May 16, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Norman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Fran Van Gelder, Vice -Chairwoman Gerald Cole, Commissioner Stanley Hargrave, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commmissioner Jim Sims, Commmissioner ABSENT: Jerry Hawkinson, Commissioner PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Gerald Cole, Commissioner ---______._.._--- ---- WORKSHOP CONVENED AT 6:30 P.M. Discussion on changing verbatim minutes to action Ominutes. WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 7:00 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENED AT 7:00 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-38 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-38 Chairman Caouette made the motion to have action minutes for the future Planning Commission Meetings. Commissioner Gerald Cole second. MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES. 6-0-0-1. 1 ITEM #1 CUP-88-3 CLARK/FEENEY N.W. CORNER OF LA CROSSE/I-215 The Planning Director presented the staff report with conditions and recommendations from staff, the reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder asked if the applicant had received a copy of the conditions. The Planning Director stated they had. Commissioner Hargrave referred to item #7, part of the recommendations, "...install standard driveway approaches." He stated that since they were not indicated on the plans, he had no idea where they were to be. The Planning Director stated that the exact O location of the driveways would be up to the City Engineer. Commissioner Sims asked if the existing asphalt was up to par. The Planning Director stated nothing stood out that was deteriorating when he did his inspections. As the parking and landscaping work required in the conditions are done there may be improvements completed. Commissioner Sims mentioned that the plans did not include any improvements. The Planning Director stated that the orginal plans were submitted to Cal Trans due to the belief that they had the right-of-way. However, since referring to an updated record it has been found that La Crosse was not in Cal Trans right of way. The City Engineer, therefore, requested that the driveways be made part of the conditions. One of the problems is where the easterly property line is. Some of the Site improvements require a surveying to determine the property lines to enable the City Engineer to determine where he wants the driveways to be. He indicated that 2 e right now it is in the area of the rolled curb. Commissioner Sims asked if the Planning Commission would be able to see the boundary lines indicated on future plans. The Planning Director stated they could set that up so that they could deal with that on a staff level. He suggested not holding up the entire Conditional Use Permit on that. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the mobile home park and asked how many pads the applicant was asking for. The Planning Director stated 4. Commissioner Hargrave asked if there were utilities going back to the site. The Planning Director stated that they had not indicated any need for utilities. He stated that there was a utility pole near that site. Chairman Caouette asked how they should handle the applicant's CUP and SA. The Planning Director explained that they should continue discussion on the two items, act on the Conditional Use Permit first and make two motions. One regarding the Vinyl Top Shop conditions and then a second motion for the mobile home site conditions and then act as the Site and Architectural Review Board for the SA Review which would cover all of the items. Discussion on what type of security fencing was required. The Planning Director stated that the code required a 6' block wall under Site and Architectural Review, unless waived by the Planning Commission. It was never interpreted for the frontage always the rear and side properties. His recommendation was for the property lines surrounding the modular home lot can also be extended to include the entire property. Commissioner Sims asked about the future development on parcel #2. The Planning Director stated the applicant owned 3 0 it and they had no future plans at this time. The Planning Director referred back to the brick wall and stated that if it is approved, that he would not require it to bissect the property. Commissioner Sims asked if there would be any fencing in the east/west area. The Planning Director stated that there would not be fencing between the two properties. Commissioner Hargrave asked if the northwest quadrant portion of the plan as zoned R-1. The Planning Director stated that it was an extension of the property that they owned and it was zoned C-2. Commissioner Hargrave asked where the single family R-1 zone started. The Planning Director explained approximately another 200 feet beyond the scale of the map. Chairman Caouette asked if there were any architectural improvements required on the building. The Planning Director stated the applicant indicated that they would match the existing architecture. The project is next door to another proposed project (RV Park and Retail Center) and he suggested something that would be in close design to what they have proposed. Presentation of photographs on existing buildings and signage. Commissioner Munson asked if any of the signage had been grandfathered in. The Planning Director stated no. Chairman Caouette opened the public hearing. He asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the project. PUBLIC COMMISSION ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M. 4 PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED AT 7:30 P.M. Harold Clark Owner 12028 La Crosse G.T. Joe Feeney Applicant 12028 La Crosse G.T. Mr. Clark presented their project. He stated that it was their intention to give some additional building to the tenants presently there. He stated that there was a mobile home site, utilities and water in the area before. Chairman Caouette asked how the mobile home unit sales would work. Mr. Feeney stated that he was trying to build a model village with roughly 3 or 4 homes. The banks require that they remove the homes every 4-6 months. He wanted to build permanent pads, 24x60 outlined within the asphalted area. Chairman Caouette asked if there was sales tax associated with the sales. Mr. Feeney explained that there was a 4% dealer's tax that he would have to pay and the customer has to pay an additional tax depending on where the home was going. Commissioner Sims asked about security for the modular homes. Mr. Feeney stated that he did not support the block wall concept due to restriction of visibility for his site. He suggested a decorative fence all the way around the property. Commissioner Cole stated another point besides Wn C. security was aesthetics. Mr. Clark felt that a block wall would isolate those existing buildings and cause an increase of theft. Mr. Feeney referred to a point brought up earlier regarding the water facilities at the mobile home site. He stated that the water was out there, however, the way he wanted to structure it was not to have any plumbing in the ground. The reason being that if they need to move the homes their landscaping should be transportable. He pointed out that the plantings would be in containers. Commissioner Cole referred to the parking in the rear and the Commission's desire to see permanent type landscaping. He asked the applicant for their comments on the curb and gutter requirements. Mr. Clark expressed his concern with the financial outlay on this particular project. Commissioner Hargrave referred to the parking and once that is in the pads are permanently set. Mr. Feeney explained that he was satisified with the lineup. Discussion on the length of time the mobile home business would be on the site. Mr. Clark indicated that there was no formal commitment between Mr. Feeney and himself. Commissioner Hargrave, in order to establish clarification as to what the owner wants on the project, listed conditions #1 through #7 on the staff report and asked for a response either yes or no. Mr. Clark responded NO to conditions #1 through #7: #1 Remove existing berm the two parcels; #2 Construct standard from center line; along the curb and frontage of gutter at 20' #3 Install sidewalks along frontage of subject's N9 MW properties; #4 Install ornamental street lights; #5 Install paving as may be required from the lip of the gutter to the street center; #6 Provide adequate drainage facilities; #7 Install standard driveway approaches; Mr. Clark stated yes on conditions ##8 and #9, to keep project going would have to respond in positive. Mr. Clark stated that he was unable to go further with any requests without doing a financial study to check on the feasibility of their project. Commissioner Sims asked the Planning Director if there was a bonding mechanism that would allow the applicant to do their improvements. The Planning Director stated that they could set up a bond to cover some of the improvements continent upon some event and time frame. The City Attorney mentioned that some of the conditions the owner could not do presents a severe liability to the City and to the developer. Mr. Clark stated that they were not adding additional asphalt to create a drainage problem. The Planning Director pointed out that the additions to the center may be small but there would be a 40% increase for square footage to the entire center. Chairman Caouette pointed out that the existing building site did not meet the current code. Chairman Caouette suggested the owner come back with a site plan that shows their changes allowing them time to do a financial study. Mr. Clark asked if it would make any difference if the Planning Commission dealt with the mobile home site project only and continued his project (building additions). 7 M NJ The Planning Director clarified that the staff had looked at it as a single site application since there were no office facilities being proposed on the mobile home site. However, there would have to be some changes made if they were to look at a separate modular home facility. Mr. Clark pointed out that they had designed the project in order not to hold tip traffic that comes off of the freeway, La Crosse Avenue. The Planning Director reminded the applicant that if they split the project into two then the Commission would not be looking at making all of the requirements on the existing center they would be looking at those same type of requirements on the modular home. Chairman Caouette suggested taking a couple of weeks and working with the Planning staff. He asked if there was any problems with that from the Planning Commission. There were no further comments from the Commission. Chairman Caouette asked for any further discussion from the public. Eddie Hogue 11955 Rosedale Avenue G.T. Mr. Hogue stated he is the property owner to the north. He also discussed his opposition to the previous downzoni.ng of his property. Tony Petta 11875 Eton Avenue G.T. Mr. Petta asked what sales tax would be generated by the mobile home business for the City. He discussed the General Plan and its relation to this project. Mr. Joe Feeney 0 10] Applicant 1.2028 La Crosse G.T. Mr. Feeney explained that the City of Grand Terrace would get 1% and credited to the point of sale. Chairman Caouette closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. MOTION PCM-88-39 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-39 Chairman Caouette made the motion to continue CUP- 88-3 and SA-88-4 to the next Planning Commission meeting, June 6, 1988 with a more detailed site plan which shows the public improvements, parking and landscaping requirements per the code, whichever site plan the applicant comes back with. Vice -Chairwoman Van Gelder. second. Discussion on making improvements on the project to make it meet legal and safety codes and acceptable by the Planning Commmission. MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES. COMMISSIONER HAWKINSON ABSENT. 6-0-0-1. The Planning Director stated he would bring the project back (if it is a separate modular unit) as a Conditional Use Permit only and not have it tied to the entire center. If they choose to come back at a later time with the entire center they can indicate that or withdraw the portion of the CUP. BREAK AT 8:30 P.M. CONVENE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AT 8:40 P.M. 9 W ITEM #3 SA-88-5 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE RICHARD HIEB 11663 GRAND TERRACE ROAD G.T. The Planning Aide, Jeri Ram, presented the staff report the conditions and recommendations from staff, reviewing agencies and the City Engineer. Chairman Caouette asked if the applicant had a copy of the conditions and concurred. The applicant stated that he agreed with the conditions. Discussion on the single family residence, grading conditions and minimum standards for fencing. PUBLIC HEARING CONVENED RICHARD HIEB 11663 GRAND TERRACE COURT G.T. Mr. Hieb presented his project and indicated that there had not been any final decision on the fencing. He would be agreeable to work with staff on the fencing issue. Discussion on the single family home project subject to the following conditions: 1. A landscaping and irrigation plan shall be approved by the Planning and Engineering Department for the slope and front yard areas of the home; 2. A side and rear yard fencing plan (including fencing materials) must be approved by the Planning Director; 3. Applicant shall plant an approved street tree and provide irrigation pursuant to Section 12.28 of the Grand Terrace Municipal Code. 10 .r. L �M MOTION PCM-88-40 MOTION VOTE PCM-88-40 Commissioner Hargrave made the motion, based upon the applicant agreeing that the Planning Director appprove the final fencing to be added to condition #2, to approve of SA-88-5 including all of the conditions as proposed by staff. Commissioner Sims second. MOTION CARRIED. ALL AYES. 6-0-0-1. Chairman Caouette asked for any further discussion on the agenda. The Planning Director stated that tonight, May 16, 1988, would be the last meeting for Commissioner Cole due to end of term. He stated for the record the heartfelt appreciation to Commissioner Cole from the City, Planning Commission and Planning Department. Chairman Caouette concurred with previous statement. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. Approved By: � rman�Caoue��e, Chairman/Planning Commission it Respectf Qly Submitted, Nivia R. Sawyer, Planning Director