Loading...
10/04/1982 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 4 , 1982 The Grand Terrace Planning Commission regular meeting of October 4 , 1982 was called to order at 7 :00 P . M . in the Terrace View Elementary School Multi -Purpose Room , 22731 Grand Terrace Road , Grand Terrace , California by Chairman Douglas E . Erway . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE : Led by Commissioner Smith ROLL CALL : Commissioners Present : Cole , Collins , DeBenedet , Erway , McDowell , Munson , and Smith Commissioners Absent : Andress (excused ) and Bartel (excused ) Others Present : Virginia Farmer , Planning Director Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney Randall L . Anstine , Community Services Director Gloria J . Flood , Planning Secretary MINUTES : The minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 13 , 1982 were approved as submitted . PCM 82-74 MOTION by Commissioner Cole , seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 7-0 VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982 AS SUBMITTED. NEW BUSINESS : ITEM #1 SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW NO . SA 82-14 JOAN TRAMMELL 22119 DeBerry Street Virginia Farmer , Planning Director , presented the staff report . The application is for Site Plan and Architectural Review for a single family dwelling unit . The lot is 7475 square feet . The roof is cedar shake and siding is cedar . The proposed dwelling is 1421 square feet . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 1 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Chairman Erway asked the applicant to come forward and give his name and address . Bill Trammell stated he would be the builder . He further stated the roof would be composition tile with cedar siding . Chairman Erway asked if the Commission had any questions for Mrs . Trammell or Bill Trammell . Commissioner DeBenedet asked if the siding would be natural or if it would have a stain on it . Bill Trammell stated he would have it treated with a stain and then sealed . Commissioner DeBenedet asked the width of the overhang over the gable . Bill Trammell stated the overhang is 18 inches . Commissioner McDowell asked when the roof changed from shake to composition . Bill Trammell stated it was always composition . Mrs . Farmer stated the plans read shake . Joan Trammell stated the original plans they got stated shake . Bill Trammell stated the plan was originally from Oregon . It was a mountain type house and was revised to show composition . Bill Trammell stated he met with the Building Inspector and he made note of it and feels it is a better roof. Chairman Erway asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or in opposition to this proposal . Hearing none the public hearing was closed . COMMISSION DISCUSSION AND ACTION : Commissioner McDowell stated he is concered about the shakes and composition tile roof. The applicant stated he changed that because he thought that shakes were not as good a roof as com- position . If the Commission were to require you to put in shakes could you . Bill Trammell stated if it was required . PCM 82-75 MOTION by Commissioner McDowell , seconded by Commissioner DeBenedet and passed by a 5-2 VOTE TO ADD A CONDITION REQUIRING SHAKE ROOF ON THE DWELLING . Commissioner Collins and Commissioner Smith voted in opposition to this motion . Bill Trammell stated if this condition is imposed it will be the only house in the area with this type of roof. Commissioner Collins stated he thought the Commission had dis- cussed previously the idea of getting away from shake roofs . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 2 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Joan Trammell stated she has a problem with shake roofs . This is my home for retirement and I would like it to be the way I want it . Chairman Erway asked the members of the Commission to reconsider what was done about the roof. Commissioner Cole stated the plans we are looking at indicate all wood siding yet the applicant stated it has stucco on it . Are these plans the plans they are actually using? Bill Trammell stated from the fireplace completely around to the other side of the garage is stucco . Commissioner Cole stated he based his vote on the set of plans before him. He said the applicant is to provide plans of what they are actually going to build , which in this case doesn ' t appear to be the case . Chairman Erway asked if the plans are complete . Bill Trammell stated they were approved by your Building Inspector. Mrs . Farmer stated these plans have not gone to the City Building Inspector as of this point . They are not approved by the Building Inspector until after Planning Commission approval . The plans that I submitted were the plans submitted to Planning . Commissioner Cole stated his problem was that obviously it appears that the elevations that we are to approve this evening are not actually what is going to be built . If that is not the case I think maybe we should have an opportunity to look at what actually is going to be constructed . Bill Trammell stated the face of the house is wood siding and as it wraps from the fireplace it goes to stucco . The elevations and footings will be as shown on the plans . I got together with the Inspector and he helped me draw the footings on the plans . Everything is the same but the wood shake roof. Chairman Erway asked the Commission to make a decision about the plans . Commissioner McDowell stated he withdrew his motion if the second would withdraw his and asked that approval be continued until such time as we can get a set of plans that will incorporate exactly what they plan to do . Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney , stated a new motion is in order because the Commission no longer has a motion on the floor . There is an action by the Planning Commission . Chairman Erway stated the Commission would have to make another motion . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 3 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney, stated the motion would have to cancel the previous motion made . MOTION by Commissioner McDowell , seconded by Commissioner DeBenedet TO CANCEL MOTION PCM 82- 75 THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CONTINUE THIS ITEM UNTIL WE CAN HAVE THE CORRECT PLANS ACCORDING TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW ORDINANCE . No vote was taken and discussion continued . Bill Trammell stated he has been trying to build this home for four years . A loan is to be approved subject to obtaining site approval by the Planning Commission . Joan Trammell stated the interest rate is wavering and if we wait another 30 days which we would have to , then interest may go higher. It if means a shake roof, then lets go with it . We just can ' t wait 30 days . Bill Trammell stated the Building Inspector showed him step by step and the plans are fine . Mrs . Farmer stated that the people went to the Building Department before they came to our office and they were told about all the submittal requirements . They have met all the requirements with the exception of the site plan which is not to scale . They did not tell me they had plan changes . Apparently they did not understand the review process and that we needed an accurate drawing and therefore I didn ' t know the exterior had been changed . So what we have is a good set of plans as far as the Building Department is concerned , but inaccurate as to exterior materials . On a single family dwelling we have not been requiring the applicant to submit the same sorts of plans as a commercial development . We can alter the exterior plan here and approve it with stucco and natural colors or earth tones . With either cedar shake or composition . The house we approved on the corner is in tones of tans and browns with composition roof. The pro- posed house wouldblend in well with the neighborhood . Commissioner Smith stated she would like to amend the motion .to delete the part about the plans andcontinuance and simply reverse the motion so we can tackle this one thing at a time . Chairman Erway asked the City Attorney if Commissioner McDowell could just withdraw his motion and the seconder consent , and then we can have a new motion . Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney stated they could . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 4 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Commissioner McDowell withdrew his motion . Commissioner DeBenedet withdrew his second . Commissioner Smith stated she believed the motion on the shake roof was based on aesthetics of an entire cedar shake house . PCM 82-76 MOTION by Commissioner Smith , seconded by Commissioner Cole and passed by a 7-0 VOTE TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND BASED ON THE MATERIAL IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION , REPORT AND TESTIMONY RECEIVED , MOVE TO APPROVE SA 82- 14 , INCLUDING THE FINDINGS AS WRITTEN IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT ONLY THE DWELLING FACING THE STREET BE MADE OF CEDAR SIDING WITH THE REST OF THE BUILDING BEING STUCCO WITH A COMPOSITION TILE ROOF. ------------------------ ---------------------------------- ----- ITEM #2 ZONE CHANGE 82-4 CITY OF GRAND TERRACE - PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 13 , 1982 Placement of Chapter 9 Ordinance 57 overlay provisions to C-2 land west of 15 E Freeway , south to Barton Road westerly of Michigan and northerly of Pico Street . Virginia Farmer, Planning Director , summarized the staff report . The purpose of the proposed Commercial Planned Development over- lay zone is to provide phased development in the area adjacent to the freeway which is zoned C-2 . The zoning would provide flexibility in street designs , architectural theme and open space so as to benefit the adjacent property owners . It will allow buffering of residential areas from commercial activity . Many times the success of commercial projects is determined by design . Poor design and poor business establishments can go hand in hand . The request for this overlay should not be confused with the issue of a shopping center. The zone change and any future shopping center are separate items . No proposal for a shopping center has been received in the Planning Department . However, due to the large area which is undeveloped to its potential there are zoning choices . The Planning Commission can place the overlay of Commercial Planned Development or leave the zone as it is . Staff is requesting that the parcels owned by Wilden Pump and Engineering be taken up in a separate motion and be zoned MR . MR is Restricted Manufacturing and is requested to take care of a housekeeping item with those parcels . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 5 of 17 October 4 , 1982 If the overlay is considered in the affirmative , staff is also requesting that C-2 land at the northwest corner of Van Buren and Michigan be omitted because there is a development plan for the meat market on property owned by Max Archer . There was a question as to the seven items in section 9 . 070 which are required with an application or can be required with an application for a zone change . There are two ways to use the section . An outside developer can request an overlay zone and the seven items would be required . The City can request an overlay and defer the seven items until a later date . Chairman Erway asked if the Commission had any further questions of the Planning Director on this matter . Commissioner Munson asked if this is an overlay or a zone change . Mrs . Farmer stated the underlying zone of C-2 would remain the same . The overlay is called a zone change but it isn ' t a com- plete zone change . In other words , we are adding to the zone . We would be imposing other conditions besides the conditions in the regular C-2 zone to this land . Commissioner Smith asked if there was any other way to control the circulation without an overlay . We have an area where the circulation needs to be improved with any development . Can the City master plan for circulation ? Mrs . Farmer stated probably there is not just a single road necessary . There may be a frontage road , a continuation of Commerce Way. Whether there are any other roads in the area depends on how it is developed . Design control is important to the overall development of the area . Commissioner Smith asked if the Planning Director could give examples of the effects this overlay would have which might be to the detriment of the individual property owners . Mrs . Farmer stated that I don ' t know that it would be a detriment , I don ' t know that anything would be a detriment . We would require a development plan . The development plan would be presented to the Planning Commission prior to any development and the Commission and City Council would meet with developers or land owners in conference to work out any difficulties or problems in the design , architecture , and uses . Then when the problems and issues have been reconciled the developer would have a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on the development plan . The Commission would have control over uses which it doesn ' t have under C-2 . Whereas , in the C-2 the permitted uses are listed . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 6 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Mrs . Farmer displayed a transparancy showing the area . She further stated she has not computed the acreage . Commissioner McDowell asked if the overlay covered any of the area outside of the slash marks . Mrs . Farmer stated only the slash marked area is affected . Commissioner Collins stated the Planning Director and City Attorney feel this is a good request we have before us . Nevertheless I will make a motion . MOTION by Commissioner Collins , seconded by Commissioner Smith that until paragraph 9 . 070 of Chapter 9 of City Ordinance 57 is complied with this zone change be denied . Chairman Erway stated a motion had been made and that until paragraph 9 . 070 of page 33 of the zone ordinance had been complied with by the City that this request be denied . Chairman Erway asked for discussion . Commissioner Cole stated he does not see how the City could pro- vide some of those requirements such as architectural theme un- less we are going into the design business also . The proposed use of lots , we have no idea unless we are going into the development business also . So some of those things it seems to me the City is in no position to provide . Commissioner Munson stated he was voting no on this motion . Chairman Erway asked if anyone else wished to make a comment on the motion . Commissioner Collins stated that in addition to the fact that there is an ordinance that says what you have to do for this zoning change . It is back to the same old complaint I have so many times is that if the City wants to get revenue they should quit depriving themselves of the revenue of all the zoning changes , the general plan changes that all carry a pretty hefty fee . Commissioner Smith stated as she understands it Commissioner Collins objection is that he feels that when the time this property is ready to be developed , the developer should come in for the requested change . That would be the proper time for this overlay . Chairman Erway stated we have a motion from a member of the Commission to not consider the zone overlay . Does anybody else want to make any comments . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 7 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Commissioner DeBenedet asked when will this come back to us . How long? Commissioner Collins stated he is not asking it be delayed . He is asking for it to be denied . Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney , stated he is not for or against the overlay just simply here to respond to questions . If you don ' t put the overlay on the property it will be developed C-2 . Anything that is developed in that area so long as it follows the guidelines of C-2 would not come back to you for zoning . The overlay is meant to accomplish that so that the developer does in fact have to bring this material to you . Otherwise no zone change is required and they may develop in accordance with the C-2 zone . PCM 82-77 MOTION by Commissioner Collins , seconded by Commissioner Smith and failed by a 2-5 VOTE THAT UNTIL PARAGRAPH 9 . 070 OF CHAPTER 9 OF CITY ORDINANCE 57 IS COMPLIED WITH THIS ZONE CHANGE BE DENIED . Commissioners Collins and Smith voting ayes . Commissioners Erway , DeBenedet , Cole , McDowell and Munson voting noes . Chairman Erway stated the motion does not carry . Chairman Erway stated the proposal is to place a zone change of Commercial Planned Development district zone over a C-2 commercial zone . He asked anyone wishing to speak in favor of the proposal to step forward give their name and address and speak . Samuel Crowe , Covington and Crowe Attorneys , 1131 West 6th Street , Ontario , stated he is speaking for the proposal only on the grounds of Wilden Pump ' s request to be excluded from the plan . I made my comments at your last meeting and I don ' t intend to make them over again only to bring to your attention regardless of what you do we are caught in the middle of a serious problem . We would like to expand and I believe the entire City staff concurs that we should not be in the zone . That we should continue in an industrial zone that would allow us to operate and expand . Just in case you still have some question about the location I am going to deliver to Mrs . Farmer an outline of our property . But regardless of what you do we would hope that you would proceed to rezone our property as indicated by your Planning Director. Chairman Erway stated that Wilden Pump is asking that they be allowed to zone their property MR Restricted Manufacturing district . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 8 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Dennis Cardoza , representative of the nine acres just north of DeBerry along the freeway . He stated the last few meetings there has been a large misinterpretation of what is happening . I am interested and I don ' t want to give any opinion for or against a shopping center but I am very interested that the City does not just throw out the proposal for having what I call a specific plan or what you call an overlay. To make sure that I don ' t build a nice project and right next to me , the way it is right now , the next landowner can put something that is not compatible with my development but fits the C-2 zoning . I want to be restricted by the City along with the other property owners around me to insure that my development on my nine acres is compatible with the area and the people next to me are compatible with my development . I would like to eliminate the reference to 30 acres and have it more general saying that any- one wishing to develop their parcel of land may be required by the City to design it with the area that affects it . Chariman Erway stated that the land can be developed in less than 30 acre increments . It is permissive in the ordinance and I want to make sure you understand what is proposed tonight . That is the Commerical Planned Development district is established to provide an area for commercial uses to offer a selective range of good and services including comparison shopping , restuarants , take out food establishments . To provide for the classification and development of parcels of land and coordinated , comprehensive projects in order to take advantage of superior environment which will result from large scale community planning . That is basically the purpose of what we are here for . Chairman Erway asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of this project . Jerry Mathews , 21917 DeBerry , asked what is going to happen to the uses to the property in this shaded area if the overlay goes through as far as businesses or houses . What effect will that have on the use of the land in this area . Chairman Erway deferred that question to the Planning Director. Mrs . Farmer stated any uses other than thoses allowed in the C-2 right now are nonconforming uses in the area . They are allowed to exist as they are now . Mr. Mathews stated he has some vacant land there . It is about two acres and what can we do to develop this land in the same use as we already have there . Chairman Erway stated if this proposal went through you would have to submit a plan that would have to be approved and be compatible with a larger development . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 9 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Mrs . Farmer stated that Mr. Mathews has a nonconforming use there now . Mr . Mathews stated are we locked into that only . It there a way that we can do something to develop that or someone else develop that . The zone changed after we bought the property . Chairman Erway stated you can make any request to Planning Commission to do almost anything you want to do with your land at the time you decide what you want to do with it . Mr. Mathews stated that we also have a house on this property . Is there anyway they can say you have to take that house off you are not in the right zoning . Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney , stated the City Council could through the Planning Commission at some stage give you notification that you are a nonconforming use and set up an amortization schedule . It would have to be a reasonably sufficient time . There is no comtemplation of that at this time . Mr . Mathews asked what the City Attorney meant . Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney , stated the use is nonconforming . Sometime in the future , the City could amortize nonconforming uses . In order to do that , there must be a reasonable period of time in which to amortize the investment on that property . Every use has to be looked at personally as to whether or not there is a reasonable period of time in which to amortize the use . Commissioner Collins stated as I understand it this gentlemen has two empty acres and he is already a nonconforming use and he is asking about whether he can do some expansion I gather. I don ' t believe he got the right answer . Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney , stated he cannot expand whether or not this overlay goes through . Right now he has a nonconforming use . He cannot expand a nonconforming use . Further he could ask that his zone be changed . Chairman Erway asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the project . Dennis Evans , 22064 DeBerry , stated he would like clarification on Commissioner Collins ' motion concerning denial of the overlay zone . Chairman Erway stated the motion failed in a vote of the Commission . We are now considering the application from the City to impose a zone change to Commercial Planned Development . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 10 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Chairman Erway asked if anyone wished to speak in favor. Hearing no one , he asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition . Dennis Evans stated he is representing himself as a resident homeowner in the area and also as a representative of the Committee Against Regional Shopping . He stated tonight we stand up in opposition to the proposed zone overlay . We oppose this overlay viewing the proposal as a move by the City of Grand Terrace to hinder private development under the pretense of control while buying time to further the City ' s effort in attracting a shopping mall developer . At the last meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency , Councilman Tony Petta made a plea to the audience that the majority of homeowners threatened by the proposed regional shopping mall reconsider our position for the good of the community . There are over a 150 homes in the area that we feel are in jeopardy if the mall is allowed to develop . I asked you if your home was within the target area would you be willing to sacrifice it for the good of the community while seeing a few profit at the misery of many . We have been labeled emotional and a vocal minority . Chairman Erway was recently quoted in the newspaper as saying the zone overlay is not an excitable issue . We believe this is far from the truth for anyone living within the targeted area . Our homes are threatened by condemnation and the zone overlay is furtherance of a shopping mall . The individuals attempting to push through this gigantic project are the minority . They have never proved the need for a regional shopping mall for the City of Grand Terrace and until our group began to educate the Grand Terrace populous there was no publicity regarding the progress of this proposed mall . Why not ? Tonight we encourage every member of the Planning Commission to talk with the citizens of Grand Terrace . I think you will find as we have that the over- whelming majority are opposed to a regional shopping mall and this opposition is coming from all sectors of our community . As Mr . Petta asked us to reconsider , we ask you tonight to reconsider this momentous decision . As sensitive human beings and represent- atives of Grand Terrace which include those of us living in the southwest portion of the City , we ask you to defeat this proposed overlay . In closing , I would like to restate that those of us within the target area stand to lose our homes , however , those elsewhere stand to lose the Terrace as we now know it . Ken Simmons , 12206 Mighican , stated it was said earlier that most of us in here did not live in the affected area . I live on Michigan Avenue and the reason I am opposing this is that it is going to make the street I live on a freeway . There is going to be a lot of road work done . Now would we be responsible for the road work and have to pay for it in our property tax or would that mall that goes in be doing all that road work ? Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 11 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Chairman Erway asked if that was a question . As a citizen of the City you are responsible for any road work that takes place within the City . Mr . Simmons stated that automatically makes us who live on Michigan Avenue pay for everything that has to be done on Michigan Avenue because there is going to be some shopping mall go in . Chairman Erway stated that if you want the road improved you pay for it . Mr . Simmons asked who pays for road improvements for a mall . Chairman Erway stated we are not considering a mall . We have no mall proposal in front of us . The proposal is an overlay on a Commercial Planned Development zone . Mr. Simmons stated this overlay is actually something that is being made up that will make is easier for somebody like that to move into that area . Is this not true ? Chairman Erway stated that he read earlier the restrictions to provide for classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated comprehensive projects . That is what the overlay is designed to do . It does not necessarily say there is a mall going in there . Mr . Simmons stated this he understood . But this overlay you are making up or want to make up . . . . . Chairman Erway stated that the City is proposing . Mr. Simmons stated that will make if easier for say that mall if it ever comes to be easier for them to move in and take over the ground and build . Chairman Erway stated the Zoning Ordinance will allow the City Planning Commission and the City Council to have greater control over development in an already zoned commercial area . It will coordinate development and make it fit in better with our community . Mr. Simmons stated it is already a commercial zone . This overlay zone is to do what to it ? Chairman Erway stated it is to provide for coordinated development . It allows a coordinated effort on the part of the City . Mr . Simmons stated that is what he thought C zoning was already. Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 12 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Chairman Erway stated C zoning allows commercial development to go in anyway anybody wants as long as it is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council . Mr. Simmons stated then actually this overlay is meaningless because you would have the say anyway . Chairman Erway stated we would have the say over an individual application but what this allows us to do is coordinate development so it fits in better . Mr. Simmons stated a larger development of land like a shopping mall . Chairman Erway stated you said it . Mr . Simmons stated he is just trying to get it down straight because I don ' t want my street to become a freeway . Chairman Erway stated I can ' t tell you what is going to happen because I don ' t know . Mrs . Farley , Michigan Avenue , stated she understands that this overlay gives you more control as to what goes into that land . Correct ? Chairman Erway stated that is correct . Mrs . Farley stated the people want the control . Sharon Williams , Van Buren around the corner from Mrs . Farley , stated she would like to understand that this is giving you more control to coordinate to make everything beautiful . Jackie Perkins , Van Buren , stated this is just another way to try to get a moratorium on there without actually putting one because you can ' t legally do it . That is all you are doing . You are putting that overlay over there for nothing because it is already in C-2 . People have to come to you to ask can we putthis in . It this going to be okay . They don ' t need another moratorium . That is all you are doing . Ed Courtney , 22074 DeBerry Street . Stated he does not live within the cross hatched area but just down the road from it . He stated the C-2 zoning will affect me even though my land does not lay within the cross hatched area I feel if this overlay does pass my property will be affected . Why because it will limit individual parcels from being developed separately . It will require that larger type developments go in . Now we have heard in other meetings that really the only feasible larger Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 13 of 17 October 4 , 1982 type development that could be put in there are the ones that are being promoted by the City . Which means that if you pass the overlay you will almost be mandating a shopping mall . When that goes in , it will affect the adjoining areas . It will require roads to be widened . Now the overlay does not benefit the owners of the property . The ideal thing for the owners of the property and to benefit them the most would probably be to let them do whatever they want . The Planning Commission already has the power to control types of development that goes in . You people have shown for instance tonight with your debate over shake roofs versus composition shingle that you are sensitive to types of things that are going on in the City . The types of housing and what they look like and so forth , well I think you have enough good sense to allow the right kinds of development with beautiful buildings without requiring people to go to a 30 acre minimum. I submit that this is what you should do . Thank you . Tom Glasser, 22032 Tanager, Grand Terrace . Stated he is testifying as a private resident as well as member of the Committee . I am of the opinion that the overlay is for the purpose maybe not consciously maybe no one really wants to acknowledge it but for one thing I am pretty sure that effect would be to facilitate a large development such as a shopping center . As you know one is proposed , one is being admittedly opposed . I think and I offer you one alternative to passing or denying this overlay at this time and I think the only really intelligent alternative is to continue the matter until the City Council has spoken . I think you are going to find in the long run that the shopping center is not going to go in . If that is true you are going to place an overlay on that area that is C-2 zoned which you may feel later creates problems that you didn ' t want . Assuming that the shopping center does not go in then you have imposed something that you may not want . I don ' t see any harm to anyone by continuing the matter until the City Council has given you some direction in the long term sense . Thank you . Chairman Erway asked if anyone else would like to speak in opposition to the proposed overlay . The following people spoke in opposition : Ron Harmon , Renee Lane . Peter Briscoe , Wilmac . Chairman Erway closed the public hearing . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 14 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Commissioner Smith stated that the circulation seemed a problem. The people are concerned with the cost of roads and traffic and the impact of traffic . From the Planning standpoint the overlay gives the City the control to put in circulation that would not impact most residents . That would not cost citizens money. We can require the developer to put in improvements and pay for them. If an individual lot is developed we have no control without the overlay . There is nothing we can do about the extra traffic on DeBerry , Michigan , Van Buren and so on because it would be coming down the existing roads and going out on Barton Road . If a shopping mall is developed traffic cannot be handled with our present Barton Road on and off ramp . There would have to be another ramp site . I don ' t think that has been resolved to anyone ' s satisfaction and Cal Trans has control over that . They can say yes or no . As I understand it they would not allow an off ramp at DeBerry without closing Barton Road . That is something that I don ' t think any of us would want and that would change the character of the City . I think an interchange is crucial to the development of a shopping center. I don ' t think a shopping center would fly without an interchange . But suppose this shopping center does not fly . We still are faced with the development of this property . How do we keep all the local traffic from coming up Michigan and impacting homes . The only way I know of is to put in another road . A frontage road extending Commerce Street . This is the situation that we are faced with . People are very much against the shopping center but we see our problem right here is not so much the shopping center as the development of the property regardless of what it is going to be . How do we provide for things that people want . They want streets , curbing , and lights on Michigan . We cannot tell the people to pay for it . It has to come out of the City budget if there is money . But if there is an overall development there will be money to take care of Michigan Avenue . Commissioner McDowell stated that all the words have been used up . The question has come up who is paying for all of this . It has been asked several times before . We are asking for Michigan Avenue to be developed ; we are asking for sidewalks and lights . The CRA is going to pay for them and the only way the CRA can get money is through development . Commissioner Munson stated he thought he heard that the City could not go out and buy anybody ' s property except for a road . They could not go out and buy property so they could have more property to offer a development . Is that correct ? Ivan Hopkins , City Attorney , answered that eminent domain must be for a public purpose . The Community Redevelopment Agency does not have the power of eminent domain so they cannot condemn for any purpose . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 15 of 17 October 4 , 1982 Chairman Erway said the question before the Planning Commission is to place an overlay on an already existing commercial zone . There is no proposal at this point for a shopping center or shopping mall . In fact there is nothing sitting on the table that we are to consider tonight that is specifically going to put anything on that property . We don ' t know what is going in there . We have limited commercial space . That limited commercial space deserves greater controls over it and to my mind this over- lay gives those greater controls . If we decide to put this overlay which is called a Commercial Planned Development district over this C -2 zone it is going to insure such things as we can insure such as stimulating architectural design in all the areas , low intensity lighting which I know people are concerned about , generous landscaping which is one of my primary concerns . We are right now involved in a beautification study and there is nothing I would like to see more than our parking lots looking like parks with plenty of shade trees . So I am telling you right now that I support the overlay . PCM 82-78 MOTION by Commissioner Munson , seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 6- 1 VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 82-4 BASED ON THE MATERIAL IN THE STAFF REPORT , PRESENTATION AND TESTIMONY RECEIVED EXCLUDING LAND OWNED BY MAX ARCHER AND WILDEN PUMP AND ENGINEERING . Commissioner Collins voted in opposition to the motion . Chairman Erway thanked the audience for their participation . ------ - -- -- ---- --- ------ ----- ---- -- ---- ---- - - --- - - -- -- ---- - -- - - ITEM #3A PROPOSED POLICY STATEMENT Discussion followed on a proposed policy statement . It was de - cided to study parkways at the next meeting and to take the subject of policy statement under submission . - --- ----- -- -- -- - -- - - ---- - - - -- -- - ---- --- - - - - - --- - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - - ITEM #3B FINAL TRIANGLE RECOMMENDATION Commissioner Cole presented a sketch for the triangle . Chairman Erway requested comments by the Commissioners . PCM 82-79 MOTION by Commissioner McDowell , seconded by Commissioner DeBenedet and passed by a 7-0 VOTE TO APPROVE AND ACCEPT THE RENDERING PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER COLE AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL . Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 16 of 17 October 4 , 1982 ADD ON ITEM John Lotspeich asked the Commission for clarification on the plans for the Catholic Church property on Oriole Avenue . He asked about the appeal procedure . ---------------------------------------------------- ------ -- --- Chairman Erway asked if there was anything else . Seeing nothing Chairman Erway adjourned the Planning Commission to Thursday , October 7 , 1982 at 5 : 30 P . M . to Grand Terrace Elementary School , Multi -Purpose Room , 12066 Vivienda , Grand Terrace , California . The meeting was adjourned at 9 :43 P .M . Respectfully submitted by , Vir inia Farmer Planning Director APPROVED : /1 4UGk�AS_ E . ERWAY , CHAIRMAN Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 17 of 17 October 4 , 1982