11/01/1982 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 1 , 1982
The Grand Terrace Planning Commission regular meeting of November 1, 1982 was
called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Terrace View Elementary School Multi-
Purpose Room, 22731 Grand Terrace Road, Grand Terrace, California by Vice
Chairman Sanford L. Collins.
Pledge of Allegiance : Led by Commissioner McDowell
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Andress (arrived at 7:45 p.m.) , Cole ,
Collins , DeBenedet, McDowell , Munson
and Smith
Commissioners Absent: Bartel and Erway (excused)
Others Present: Virginia Farmer, Planning Director
Gloria Flood, Planning Secretary
MINUTES: The minutes of the adjourned regular meeting of September 20, 1982
were approved with corrections to page 1 of 7 as follows :
Commissioner DeBenedet stated that La Alba Court has been
changed to Center City Court.
PCM 82-80 MOTION by Commissioner McDowell , seconded by Commissioner Smith
and passed by a 6-0 VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER
20, 1982 WITH CORRECTIONS.
MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of October 4, 1982 were
approved as submitted.
PCM 82-81 MOTION by Commissioner McDowell , seconded by Commissioner
DeBenedet and passed by a 6-0 VOTE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
OCTOBER 4, 1982 AS SUBMITTED.
NEW BUSINESS:
ITEM #1
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
NO. SA 82-16
ROY ADCOCK
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 1 of 10
November 1 , 1982
22077 Barton Road, south side of
Barton Road, west of Michigan
Avenue.
Virginia Farmer, Planning Director, presented the staff report. The appli-
cation is for Site Plan and Architectural Review for an auto parts retail
outlet. The site is between two service stations , the Mobil and the Texaco
on Barton Road. Staff met with the architect several times.
Vice Chairman Collins asked the Planning Commission if they had any questions
of the Planning Director.
Commissioner McDowell asked if the building is directly on the sidelines of
the lot or if it is inset. The building extends the width of the lot.
Vice Chairman Collins stated the plans show one block wall and it says existing
block wall . Commissioner Cole asked if the existing block wall was the property
line. Mrs. Farmer stated the existing block wall is not on the property line
and the proposed building is to the property line.
Commissioner Cole stated the skating rink that is behind has 91-, feet property
to the property line. Mrs. Farmer stated that is correct. Commissioner Cole
stated that actually the skating rink is responsible for the maintenance of
that 9 feet in there.
Commissioner DeBenedet asked about the drainage for the land. Mrs. Farmer
stated it would drain toward Barton Road.
Commissioner Cole asked if the grade changes at the block wall . Is that a
retaining wall . Mrs. Farmer stated yes. Commissioner Cole stated there is
actually a step 42 or 5 feet up to the level of this and then the block wall
steps down.
Commissioner McDowell stated what appears to be an air conditioner on the
roof would be unsightly. He requested it be screened.
Commissioner DeBenedet asked about the waved shake roof canopy. He requested
the canopy to be tile.
Vice Chairman Collins asked if there were any other questions for staff.
Commissioner Cole asked if there was a drive access onto the adjoining prop-
erty. Mrs. Farmer stated no there is not. We will have landscaping and paving.
If you notice the two service stations are one on each side. Curbing separates
the proposed structure from the service stations.
Vice Chairman Collins requested owner or builder to make any statements at
this time.
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 2 of 10
November 1, 1982
Roy Adcock, applicant, stated he tried to design the building where it would
look good on the lot and also not hinder the adjacent businesses by setting
it back. The roof we really don't care whether it is shake or tile.
Vice Chairman Collins asked if the Planning Commission had any questions of
the owner.
Commissioner DeBenedet asked the owner if he would put tile on the canopy.
Mr. Adcock stated yes.
Vice Chairman Collins asked Mr. Adcock if they planned on having some sign
other than what is on the front of the building. Mr. Adcock stated the
front of the building and we plan one right in the planter.
Vice Chairman Collins stated that the code provides for a top on the trash
container. The plans do not show a top on the container.
Commissioner Cole questioned turning the trash enclosure 90 degrees.
Discussion regarding the trash enclosure followed.
Mr. Adcock asked if the trash container could be put inside the building.
Mrs. Farmer stated that one of the conditions of approval can be that the
dumpster shall be kept inside except for collection.
Commissioner DeBenedet asked what about the roof. Do we need a motion?
Mrs. Farmer read the conditions added. 1. Screen air conditioning. 2. The
roof canopy shall be tile. 3. Dumpster shall be kept in building except for
pick-up time.
Vice Chairman Collins inquired if there were any other questions for the
builder. He opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor or opposition
to the project. The Vice Chairman closed the public hearing.
COMMISSION ACTION:
PCM 82-82 MOTION by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Cole and
passed by a 6-0 VOTE TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DELCARATION AND BASED
ON THE MATERIAL IN THE STAFF PRESENTATION, REPORT AND TESTIMONY
RECEIVED, MOVED TO APPROVE SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN SA 82-16, INCLUDING THE FINDINGS AS WRITTEN IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND
ADDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 3 of 10
November 1, 1982
ITEM #2
Z 0 Amendment 82-2
Vice Chairman Collins asked staff to give presentation.
Virginia Farmer, Planning Director, stated the City Council requested deletion
from the Commercial Planned Development, Chapter 9, the following: "Minimum
acceptable development site shall be thirty acres , however, actual development
may take place in lesser increments . "
Vice Chairman Collins inquired in deleting the thirty acre portion of the CPD
district what the difference between it and C-2 would be. Mrs. Farmer answered
very little except that the uses are spelled out. Also, there are prohibited
uses that are not in C-2 zone. Coordinated development plans and overall plans
in the area will be requested of developers.
Commissioner Cole stated it seems like this is defeating the purpose of the
overlay. The idea to get some planned development in there and by deleting
that 30 acre restriction we haven 't really accomplished anything by putting
the overlay on the zoning. Staff pointed out that there is sentiment in
opposition to a shopping center and development in 30 acre increments .
It is going to be hard to work with the ordinance, on the other hand we feel
that with the circulation study coming before us later on and the fact that
projects must have development plans over and above site plan and architectural
development plans the control on the uses and the uses permitted by use
permit that development plans can be required as projects come in and probably
parcels larger than single ownerships will be developed at one time.
Commissioner McDowell asked if the mircophone worked? Mrs. Farmer stated yes .
Commissioner McDowell asked if it was going to be recorded? Mrs. Farmer
stated yes .
Commissioner McDowell stated it is no surprise to anybody that we are planning
to put in a shopping center in that area and develop it with industry and other
commercial interests . In 1979, the Committee was directed to do two things.
We had done very little up to that time and the City Manager came into the
Committee meeting and gave us a directive that we shall do short term planning
and long term planning. The short term kind as we understood it and which was
accepted then was to clean up the City, put in ordinances that cities of
our character, such as solar heating, building standards , nuisance conditions,
car repair on front yards , garbage pick-ups , car and recreation vehicle
storage on front laws, property value protection. The long range we were told
to develop the area along the freeway from Main Street to Barton Road and along
Barton Road. We accepted that. Out of the Planning Commission developed the
Economic Development Committee. Not only was it organized but it was
completely ordered to come up with plans and specifications and things of that
kind that would bring in high grade retail establishments. We didn't want
says the order in effect we don't want to get another May Company, Broadway,
Penney's , that sort of thing in here. Alright you have to have something
better and the Economic Development Committee came in with that and they
brought it forward and they negotiated with the people who they wanted in
here. It was the most unusual development. Usually the developer comes in
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 4 of 10
November 1, 1982
and he says I want to put this here and everybody gets mad at him but he does
it anyway. We organized, we said who we wanted in there, we said we want
Bullocks and Robinsons , we never hid it under a basket anytime. Everybody
in this town if they read the paper or did anything else knew about it. By
the middle of November we had turned in our report which was three months
before we said we would. The City accepted it whole heartedly, that is the
City Fathers . There was no negative vote on it. It was a unanimous vote on
it that they accept that thing and with one exception they voted to creat a
marketing program to make it more acceptable to people who are going to spend
the money. It was sent out, we did bring back people, good ones, fortunately
for the Economic Development Committee and for the City. The findings of
this expensive organization, Gobar were almost identical to those of the
Economic Development Committee. They didn't go as far as the Economic
Development Committee. That program was accepted with one nay vote by the
City Council . Now all at once , everybody wants to go around and say I don't
think this is going to affect the shopping center. We are not sure we are
going to have a shopping center. I sat in on a meeting with a representative
of the person who would develop that. Two Council Members were there, the
City management was there. The man says we can go as much as $800,000 to
1 million dollars to start acquiring the land. Now all at once we get some
people in the City that don't want to have a shopping center and they are
ringing door bells and making lots of noise. So we suddenly find out that
maybe we have opposition here. We have provided for this City an income
of a minimum of one million dollars a year if this goes through. We don't
want to be bankrupt, we don't want to go bankrupt. If we go bankrupt and
disorganize or deactivate or whatever, it wouldn't be six months until we
would be in the arms of Colton again. Now I don't think anybody wants that
nor do I want this City to go busted. I think and frankly I cannot support
this business of takingthe 30 acres off of it. It was a product of the
Economic Development Committee and was needed as has been pointed out by
other members of this staff to put teeth in what we were trying to do down
there. I think it is about time that we stood up and got ourselves counted
and I am including the City Council . Either we want this or we don't and
lets for God sake quit fooling with it.
Vice Chairman Collins asked if there was any other discussion on this.
Commissioner DeBenedet stated that he feels that he does not want to be a
rubber stamp for the Council . I am going to vote against it myself but
because I don't think it is proper for us to do that.
Commissioner Smith stated she would like to have a little more background
on why they where in opposition? Mrs . Farmer stated they didn't go into
that. Commissioner Smith asked if 20 acres would make any difference one
way or the other? Mrs. Farmer stated we weren't directed to not find
another acreage, we were directed to delete 30 acres . It was unanimous with
one abstention. The use permit process allows us quite a little bit of
leverage in terms of uses . The 30 acre requirement was permissive. It
wasn't mandatory. When you look at the ownerships and I did have occasion
to look at ownerships , there are a lot of small ownerships in the area.
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 5 of 10
November 1, 1982
It might be diffucult to put together a 30 acre development. Other acreage
can be considered by the Planning Commission and sent as a recommendation to
the Council if agreed by the Planning Commission.
Vice Chairman Collins asked if the Planning Commission were directed to delete
the 30 acre development standard by the City Council . Mrs. Farmer answered
yes.
Commissioner Smith stated that in her experience that when developers come in
they will put together a package for their purpose. I feel we could do without
the 30 acres and still obtain want we want. Mrs. Farmer stated we can take
a development that comes in and request they pencil in streets that go through,
not dead end streets or cul-de-sacs . We can request a development plan to
consider adjacent properties .
Commissioner Smith stated she felt this personally rather than have so much
opposition from the people that we should give a little bit and consider the
fears of the people in that area. What we want is good overall planning.
Commissioner DeBenedet said let the Council decide. We already originally
decided and let the Council change it. That to me I don 't see.
PCM 82-83 MOTION by Commissioner Smith , seconded by Commissioner Munson
and failed by a 2 to 4 VOTE TO DELETE THE THIRTY ACRES.
Commissioners Collins , DeBenedet, McDowell and Cole voting in
opposition to the motion .
Commissioner Andress arrived at 7:45 p.m.
Vice Chairman Collins announced that the motion is the amendment to the
Commercial Planned Development section of the code which requires 30 acres
minimum development plan. The City Council requested us to consider deleting
that thirty acres. The motion has just been made and failed to delete that
thirty acres.
PCM 82-84 MOTION by Commissioner McDowell , seconded by Commissioner DeBenedet
and failed by a 2 to 5 VOTE THAT BECAUSE THERE IS AMBIGUITY IN THE
STATEMENT AS IT WAS FRAMED AND VOTED AND SENT TO THE COUNCIL THAT
THE CITY ATTORNEY BE DIRECTED TO REMOVE THE AMBIGUITY FROM THE
STATEMENT.
Commissioners Munson, Cole , Smith , Andress and Collins voting in
opposition to this motion.
Vice Chairman Collins suggested the minutes state that Commissioner McDowell
wants the ambiguity removed but the thirty acre requirement be retained.
Commissioner Smith asked wasn't the ambiguity when we said or lesser increments.
Vice Chairman Collins stated he thought that iswhe,re the ambiguity came in.
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 6 of 10
November 1, 1982
Commissioner Smith asked if there is anyway that the small property owner
can be protected? Can he apply for a variance?
Mrs. Farmer stated the problem is that the Planning Commission must deal with
an amendment, not the City Attorney. He does not have the authority to deal
with it.
Commissioner Cole stated he disagreed with that. He feels that the Commission
all understand the way to interpret that particular statement. The attorney
is telling us that it is permissive. I think maybe then instead of a motion
to have him reword that section he needs to come to a meeting and explain
to us what the problem with it is . The Commission did not agree that the
statement is ambiguous.
Vice Chairman Collins stated that if the City Attorney says the statement is
ambiguous the Planning Commission better straighten it out rather than
referring the question to him.
Commissioner Cole stated I think it gets back to asking him to explain his
interpretation to us . I think we should be thinking along the same lines
and if he feels there is a problem then maybe he needs to explain it to us
so that then we can correct the wording or whatever.
Mrs. Farmer stated it was the Council that felt there was a problem not the
City Attorney.
Commissioner Andress asked who said it was ambiguous. Mrs. Farmer stated
she did and that the City Attorney said it could be read permissively.
Commissioner McDowell stated he would make another motion to strike the words
after the 30 acres.
Vice Chairman Collins stated he felt we should define what we mean by less
than.
Commissioner Cole stated he felt the City Attorney should come and explain
the City Council 's position.
Vice Chairman Collins stated he felt Commissioner Cole had the right idea
because he is not sure about the interpretation by the City Attorney.
Commissioner McDowell asked if the City Attorney could attend the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Vice Chairman Collins asked if that was satisfactory to everyone. He further
stated Mrs. Farmer could explain what the Planning Commission 's feelings are
and let the City Attorney tell uswhere it is wrong and what the interpretation
should be. We can get his advise on how we should recommend the City Council
to change the code.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 7 of 10
November 1, 1982
ADD ON ITEM:
Commissioner Smith stated she would like to bring up the matter of Wilden
Pump and Engineering Company. I have explained before that I feel we have
placed an undue burden on Wilden Pump that they were not aware of.
PCM 82-85 MOTION by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Munson
and failed by a 2 to 5 VOTE TO PLACE WILDEN PUMP AND ENGINEERING
COMPANY IN THE M-R ZONE, FILE NO. ZC 82-4.
Commissioners Cole, Andress , DeBenedet, McDowell and Collins
voted in opposition to this motion.
Commissioner Smith stated she agreed with Vice Chairman Collins generally
speaking on people requesting a zone change but I feel this is a very
special consideration because this was done without their knowledge and
it is an existing business. I asked Mrs. Farmer about why their lawyer
did not speak again when we were acting on this matter at the last meeting
and part of it was because we had a very emotional situation here and he
felt maybe he better just stay out of it. He had made his presentation
at the previous meeting and I believe that Mrs. Farmer indicated that having
made his presentation he really couldn't do it again. There really wasn't
any more he could say. I don't know the legalities. I just felt that he
kind of got lost in the shuffle last meeting.
Commissioner McDowell stated he could not support it because you just cut the
heart out of the shopping center.
Commissioner Munson stated that our own individual purpose such as having a
shopping center is great but I don't think it is the duty of this Commission
to say that we would rather take that area simply for a mall . I think we
are trying to get it resolved and maybe we will see development. I don't
think this Commission should publicly state we are for a shopping mall . I
don't think we should direct our efforts to prevent any other type of
business that wants to come in here.
Commissioner Cole stated we have already removed them from the overlay is
that correct? It we did not rezone them to the M-R and left them as C-2
and they want to expand there is nothing that precludes them from asking
for a zone change at that time.
Commissioner Smith stated that I think when Gail Carr did the General Plan
we let this slip by. I really feel this was an oversight on our part. I
feel it is our responsibility to be on top of these general plan changes.
As far as this specific situation is concerned I believe we were not. I
think this slipped by us.
Commissioner Cole stated he just cannot see what the advantage at this point
is other than perhaps making it easier for them sometime in the future when
they wish to expand. I certainly am not in favor of turning them down if
they wanted to come in and make application for a zone change. I just don 't
know what the advantage is to changing the zone at this time. We have taken
them out of the overlay and all it entails really is making an application
for a zone change if and when they ever decide to expand.
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 8 of 10
November 1, 1982
Vice Chairman Collins asked if there was any other comments .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADD ON ITEM:
Commissioner Smith stated she must tender her resignation to the Planning
Commission and City Council with great regret. There is illness in my
home and I am just not able to give the job the attention it deserves. I
want to tell you all I have enjoyed working with you very much and I regret
very much having to resign.
Vice Chairman Collins stated he was very sorry to hear about her family's
illness.
Commissioner Smith left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM #3
BEAUTIFICATION - BLOCK WALLS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY MT. VERNON AVENUE
AND MICHIGAN AVENUE
Virginia Farmer, Planning Director, stated we have been studing beautification
for the City and we haven't really come to grips with anything. The walls
along Mt. Vernon Avenue and Michigan Avenue where the right-of-way isn't
planted and isn't kept up need attention. The Planning Commission could take
that area this evening and set a policy for City Council approval .
Vice Chairman Collins stated he suggest that maybe the City staff should give
the Planning Commission maybe six months notice as to when the City could
afford to put in sprinkler systems in all those parkways. That at that time
we will have plenty of time to decide what we ought to do with it.
Vice Chairman Collins stated he would like to see a study session on roofs ,
study session on retaining walls , study session on usable land uses and lots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chairman Collins adjourned the meeting to November 4, 1982 at 7:30 p.m.
with a Joint Meeting with City Council . He also , adjourned the meeting to
an Adjourned Meeting of the Planning Commission on November 15 , 1982 at
7:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 9 of 10
November 1, 1982
Respectfully submitted by,
Virg' is Farmer
Planning Director
APPROVED:
DOUGLAS E Y, CHAIRMAN
Grand Terrace Planning Commission Page 10 of 10
November 1, 1982