Loading...
01/06/1986 12-8.1048 GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 1986 The adjourned regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center, 22795 Barton Road, Grand Terrace, CA 92324 on January 6, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Caouette. PRESENT: Norman Caouette, Chairman Jerry Hawkinson, Vice-Chairman Gerald Cole, Commissioner Vern Andress, Commissioner Ray Munson, Commissioner Sandy Collins, Commissioner John McDowell, Commissioner Alex Estrada, Planning Director Ivan Hopkins, City Attorney Lynn Halligan, Planning Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: Led by Commissioner Munson. I. MINUTES A. Minutes of December 16, 1985 PCM 86-01 Motion by Commissioner Munson and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to approve the minutes of December 16, 1985, as submitted. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS IIa. Tentative Parcel Map 9666 and Site & Architectural Review SA 85-15. Chairman Caouette moved to Item IIA, Tentative Parcel Map 9666 and Site & Architectural Review 85-15, and asked Staff to make the presentation. Mr. Alex Estrada, Planning Director, presented the Staff Report. Mr. Estrada indicated that the Planning Commission had two items to approve in regards to the Pacific Bell Remote Telephone Switching Station. One of them is Tentative Parcel Map 9666 and Site and Architectural Review 85-15. The applicant Pacific Bell was approved for a Conditional Use Permit, in order to construct this remote switching station within a C-2, CPD District. There are a few items under Staff Analysis, Page 3, that the applicant would like to have modified and I would like the Commission to take those items individually under separate motion to either approve or deny the Number 1 modification of the landscaping and number 2, hopefully, approve the parking requirement as specified in our Title 18 Ordinance. Once that is accomplished, the Commission could go ahead and approve the Site and Architectural Review plans and the Parcel Map under two separate motions. Chairman Caouette - The request indicates that they would like a variance from the requirement for a block wall around the entire property. As I understand it at this point, they are asking to have a block wall on some portion of the property and chain link fence on the remainder is that correct? Mr. Estrada, Planning Director - Yes, as your recall, one of the original conditions of approval for the Conditional Use Permit was that the applicant install or plant landscaping around the perimeter of the project area. The applicant is requesting that it be modified to not include landscaping on the north and west side of the project area. But, only include landscaping around the western portion of the project area with the block wall. However, meeting with the architect last week, he is thinking of requesting the Planning Commission to waive the block wall in favor of the chain link for the whole project. When I say chain link fence, I mean chain link for the western portion that would still have the landscaping, but chain link that would be on the north and west portion without any landscaping except for the hydroseeding. At this tiem, I would like the architect to make his presentation on this and explain to you what they are asking for as far as the waiver of modifications of that condition. John Starner, C.G. Engineering - We are representing Pacific Bell on this issue. With reference to the Planning Director's comments, we do propose to use the block wall on this site. And the block wall would be along the resident's property which would be along the drive entrance and the east side. There would be a 6' wide buffer landscaped area on that drive. We propose to turn the block wall and go easterly along this south boundary on the site and carry the 6' landscaping strip along that area. Over to the east boundary of the project and run northerly to the north property line at this point. Along this region, we would have a 10' wide strip of landscaping. Now, the chain link fence is proposed to run from this termination of the block wall around the north side of the site and then along the west boundary P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 2 out towards the street, to a point where they could have security for their locked gate. The proposal for the landscaping, as I outlined, is for the 6' wide strip and 10' wide strip, then we are proposing to hydroseed all the slopes that would exist as a result of grading the site. We think this will allow the blending of the slopes back into the natural grasses and give it a natural approach. The slopes are proposed to be relatively flat, so there won't be sharp and angular finish configuration of the site. With respect to the parking that was mentioned, there is a requirement that a handicapped parking space be provided. Mr. Ward Helman, the Architect, has indicated that there are no laws that truly require that they establish a handicapped parking for that site. Chairman Caouette - I note on the Site Plan that we have for the Parcel Map indicates that there is fill that is to extend onto the adjacent property and I was curious as to the necessity for that? John Starner - We propose to handle the drainage by constructing the fill and raising the pad of the building. This would make the building flood free, for one thing, the other, would allow us to accommodate future development of this site. With respect to how the grading would be handled, we would ask for a letter of permission to grade onto the adjacent site and then for Parcel 1, we would also get a letter of permission from the owner, Mr. Harber, for that grading. We would propose no grading easements or grading slope easements of any type, just a letter of permission. Commissioner Collins - Mr. Starner, I realize that you are trying to comply with the codes, but do you find it quite logically that we have 6' block wall behind which we hide the landscaping and don't put any where you can see through chain link fences. John Starner -It was Pacific Bells' decision to go with block wall for several reasons. Commissioner Munson - You use the term hydroseed, what type of seeding? John Starner - There are specifications for hydroseeding that would put native grasses back on the slopes. Hydroseeding, if you are familiar with that, is just simply a method by which they hydraulically shoot the slopes with the material that will enhance growth or grasses on natural terrain. Chairman Caouette - Relative to the issue of landscaping and the block wall, have you given consideration to putting some actual screening landscaping along the area that is proposed for the chain link fence? P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 3 John Starner - No, we did not, the future use of that property to the west of that site is unknown at this time. We think that under a commercial site like this that it could be a parking area, it could be buildings built adjacent to this site. We don't know what is going to happen there. We think the proposal that we have is quite satisfactory for the area. Chairman Caouette - Being no further questions of the applicant, he opened the public hearing. Anyone who would like to address the Commission in favor of this project, please state your name and address for the record. G. Swertgeger, 12438 Michigan Street. I live 155 feet adjacent to this project on the east side of the property where the wall would be. I am in favor of the wall. The landscaping does not make much difference to me. B. Hillman, 21996 Van Buren - I have no objections to the project and I am in favor of a block wall. Chairman Caouette - Asked if there was anyone who wanted to speak in favor of the project or speak against this project. Being no one, he closed the public hearing. He noted that the applicant wished to discuss the conditions. John Starner - We have reviewed the conditions of approval as prepared by staff. We are in agreement with all the conditions, with exception of Item 8 for the Tentative Map. Item 8 presently states curb and gutter, sidewalks and 1/2 width road improvement shall be construction for Parcel 2. Parcel 2 is a flag lot 36' along Van Buren. What we would request that the Commission approve is a modification of that condition to read something like this: curb and gutter, sidewalks and 1/2 width road improvement shall be constructed for Parcel 2 or an acceptable financial arrangement with the City to allow deferring until the adjacent lot is developed. I think part of our justification for that is of course related to the very short strip that would be required. Secondly, I believe the project of the residences Mr. and Mrs. Hellmans' property, there exists some type of financial security for curb and gutter for that. Should the Hellman's go ahead and develope Parcel 1, which is larger than the parent parcel, it would seem appropriate to make curb and gutter all at one time. Condition for Site and Architectural 85-15, Item A. Off-street parking shall be delineated, there is no statement for handicapped on the conditions of approval of the site and architectural. Chairman Caouette - If consideration were given to conditions of approval Item 8, would you put in some interim curb or something. John Starner - Yes. We proposed some type of a driveway. P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 4 Chairman Caouette - Asked Staff what would seem a reasonable approach? Planning Director Estrada - Mr. Chairman, Item 8 as far as the acceptable financial agreements are concerned, we would have no problem. A bond could be posted for the off-site improvements. As far as the handicapped requirements, I would like to do some research on that, but I would like to have the Commission approve the number of spaces with a condition, that if in fact handicapped parking is not required then they do not have to indicate handicapped parking in their parking area. But, I would still like to check that out. As I mentioned to the Architect, I've never heard of that law, but I would like to discuss it with the City Attorney before deleting that requirement. I know it's not specified on the conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map, it states that the above referenced application of approved applicant and/or property owner shall comply with the standard development requirements of the City. And definitely, this would fall under that requirement. As far as the other issues or concerns, in reviewing the opaque screening, keep in mind that at this time there is no development on the north or east side of the project area. However, you must keep in mind that the area is a C-2 CPD District area and if in sometime in the future that area is developed I would think that the Commission would like to have that screened with some kind of landscaped area. Of course, that is not my decision to make because I don't have the power to waive those requirements. But, the Commission does have that privilege to do so, and I think the Commission should take that as a separate motion for that issue alone. Commissioner Hawkinson - Mr. Estrada, you obviously feel strongly about landscaping and chain link fence. Mr. Estrada - If it was a C-2 district that would be a different issue, but it is a C-2 CPD District, prime commercial and the applicant did have to apply for a conditional use permit just to develope in that area. These are just some of the requirements under the C-2 CPD District development requirements. I think some kind of landscaping along with the chain link on the north and west portions of the project area would be in compliance with the zoning requirements of that area. Chairman Caouette opened Public Hearing for further testimony. Mr. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way- Suggested planting 20 to 30 gallon trees inside the wall area. Chairman Caouette - Decided to take up the Parcel Map and Site and Architectual Review plans as seperate items. In reference P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 5 to Tentative Parcel Map 9666, the applicant has requested a modification to Conditions of Approval No. 8. The following motion was then made by Commissioner Collins. PCM 86-02 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to modify Conditions of Approval No. 8 for Tentative Parcel Map 9666. Condition of Approval shall now read "Curb and gutter, sidewalk and half-width road improvements shall be constructed for Parcel No. 2 or acceptable financial agreement with the City shall be made for a bond until Parcel #2 developes." PCM 86-03 Motion by Commissioner Cole and seconded by Commissioner Munson and passed by a 7-0 vote to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 9666, to City Council, including the findings as written in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions recommended by Staff and revised Condition No. 8. PCM 86-04 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to determine that 5 parking spaces would be necessary for SA 85-15 and allow Staff to make the determination on whether one space should be a handi- capped space. PCM 86-05 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 7-0 vote to approve a six (6') foot block wall on the east and southeasterly portion of the property and a six (6') foot chain link fence on the north and west boundaries. Mr. Ward Helman, the Architect for Pacific Bell, made a brief presentation to the Planning Commission. After some discussion on the landscaping issue, Commissioner McDowell made the following motion. PCM 86-06 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 6-1 vote to deny the request by the applicant to waive the landscaping requirement and abide P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 6 by Condition of Approval No. 3 for CUP 85-13, which states "That the developer shall landscape the perimeter of the Site, including any slopes that may be subject to erosion." Commissioner Collins voted against the motion. PCM 86-07 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and passed by a 6-1 vote to have the applicant provide adequate landscaped screening along the chain link perimeter of the property. Commissioner Collins voted against the motion. Chairman Caouette entertained a motion for action on the project. PCM 86-08 Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Munson and approved by a 7-0 vote to approve Site and Architectural Plan 85-15, including the findings as written in the Staff Report and the Conditions recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission. IIb. Revised Tentative Parcel Map 9448. The applicant is Mr. and Mrs. David Pearson. Chairman Caouette asked staff to make the presentation. Mr. Estrada - Mr. Chairman, we have here an application for a revised Parcel Map 9448. Basically the applicant had originally submitted the parcel map for approval back in September 16, 1985. However, before the Tentative Tract Map was recorded the applicant wished to revise or amend the Tentative Tract Map to reflect what you had on the staff report. The only change is basically in Parcel No. 1, which is the Pearson property to be separated from Parcel No. 2. As originally proposed, Parcel 2 not only included the parcel that you see there now, but the remainder of the Mt. Vernon Villas project area, which was going to be the entire Parcel #2. Staff feels that subject to conditions of approval, the Planning Commission can go ahead and approve this Tentative Parcel Map. Mr. Estrada indicated that Mr. Robert Berndt, representing the applicant, was available to answer any questions. Mr. Robert Berndt, L.A. Wainscott and Associates, indicated he P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 7 would answer any questions the Planning Commission would have on the project. Chairman Caouette - I don't understand the reasoning for the revised Parcel Map. Mr. Berndt - Each one of those parcels has it's own trust deed on it at the moment. To combine all those parcels into one map prior to the developer's obtaining a construction loan, you have to decide who gets what if there is a default on the loan. So, at this time, the Pearsons' , who have been involved in this land split basically for about a year now, would like to finalize their lot split, so they can go on with their life. And so, the parcels that we are trying to include here is just their ownership. After this is split, the yellow, I think it's yellow on everybody's copy, could be purchased by this development along with the other parcels they own. And then, the individual lines would be eliminated and become one large parcel at that time. Chairman Caouette - So if I understand you correctly, the purpose of this is to establish a legal parcel necesary to obtain a loan. This is temporary until the loan is finalized. Mr. Berndt - Yes, that's correct, as soon as the construction loan is bought for the entire project, then the individual lines will be eliminated, except Parcel 1, which will remain with the Pearson's. But, all the property to be developed will become one parcel. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - On the parcel there was a 20 ft. easement, this easement is a safety valve given to the City that this property would have exits to City Streets. Mr. Berndt - This easement is a safety valve given to the City, in the event that the development did not take place, to guarantee the City that the property would have access to it, but will most likely be eliminated when the parcels are merged together. Commissioner Collins - Mr. Berndt, who is the owner of the parcel right now? Mr. Berndt - Parcel 1 and 2 are both owned by the Pearsons at the moment. They have found that in their retirement that they don't need quite that much land. Commissioner McDowell - As I understand it, Parcel 1 will remain under their ownership after all this is done. Mr. Berndt - Yes that's correct. P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 8 Chairman Caouette - Is there another alternative to provide access to Parcel #2. Mr. Berndt - We discussed this with the City Engineer, we both felt that this was acceptable to the City at this time, as a stop gap measure to guarantee access. McMillin who owns the property immediately above, has already agreed to give easement to the Pearson's. The Pearson's will own both parcels until such time as this map is recorded. On Item #8 of conditions of approval, we want to make clear that McMillin will be dedicating an easement to the Pearsons project, therefore they cannot dedicate an easement on property they don't own. They would also like to have curb and gutter, sidewalks and capital improvements on their property and they will post their bonds for it, so it can start along with Mt. Vernon Villas and be built at one time. We just wanted to make sure that the Commission had no problems with the bonds. Also, on Conditions of Approval #9, we want to let the Commission know that McMillin will be posting that bond for construction along with the rest of Mt. Vernon Villas. City Attorney Hopkins - I think that you need to put in a qualifier statement "acceptable to the city" that there be a bond. Commissioner Munson - I have one question, what would happen if we were to refuse to grant the split. Mr. Berndt - Well, I guess it would have an impact on the ability to complete the project, because part of the improvement is to incorporate Parcel #2 of this lot split. Commissioner Collins - If I may comment Mr. Chairman, I just need to say a few words, it's absolutely amazing to me that we've got a Specific Plan, we've got a Site and Architectural review through the Planning Commission, we've had City Council approvals and appeals and this is the first time that we realize that the guy has got 252 units and didn't even own part of the property. They can't do things on property you don't own, it's absolutely amazing to me that something like this could go right through. Mr. Berndt - I believe that the McMillin Co. has had an option on this property during the entire time the project has been under consideration by the Commission. I believe that quite a few projects come through the City where people are getting parcels approved prior to putting down the money purchase the property. I don't think everybody owns the property before they come in and get finalization. If you will remember the original map that came through it noted McMillin Development and the Pearsons' as owners of the property. They were doing it jointly which took in all the owners of the property. P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 9 Mr. Jerold Walsh - Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, I am the attorney that has been working with McMillin Development on this project. I wanted to respond also to the question of what would happen if this was not approved. What we want to do is close escrow with the Pearsons so they can get paid for the property, but the problem is that otherwise we have to wait for the close of escrow. Commissioner Munson - Are we doing this as a favor to the Pearsons' and McMillin. Mr. Jerold Walsh- No sir, I don't think it's being done as a favor. I think it's a better way of doing it, I think the Pearsons' are entitled to subdivide their land. My responsibi- lity to that project as it's conceived is tied to the assembly land map. And, the assembly land map is consistent with every- thing we are talking about. It picks up Parcel #2 and the easement disappears at that time by merger, at the time that assembly map is recorded. So, I don't think what we are doing is inconsistent with that, we are saying that at the time that the land is assembled and the project can be built, that it can be exactly as presented to the City. It's just that mechanically because of the trust deeds on the other parcels, we can't go forward that way, we can't close escrow and finish the acquisition of the land. In going this way, there is just no argument at all, we are perfectly in agreement that the curb and gutter and street improvements in front of Parcel 1 should be part of this map and McMillin is willing to bond for that. So, in a sense, I suppose that avoids what could have been an argument in going the other direction. There is no agrument on that and I think it is compatible with the project as it's being proposed to the City. Chairman Caouette - Opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the proposed revised Tentative Map. Barney Karger, 11668 Bernardo Way - The Pearsons' are not asking for a favor, they are asking for their legal rights. I cannot find any fault whatsoever with the lot split or with the lot alignment or anything else that they are doing. Chairman Caouette - Being no one else to speak in favor of or against the project, Chairman Caouette closed the public hearing and returned to the Commission for discussion. Mr. Hopkins, my problem it's one of the findings as I stated previously was that the proposed map was consistent and applicable to the General and Specific Plan. And, of course, the easement goes over I believe it's three (3) of the previously approved apartment buildings as part of the Specific Plan, that I felt was a contradiction in the findings. Do you concur with that? P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 10 Mr. Hopkins, City Attorney - I concur with what you indicate and I also concur with Mr. Walsh's comments regarding them. Although they appear at first to be somewhat inconsistent, the granting of the access easement over that portion of the previously approved specific plan would certainly be inconsis- tent with that specific plan. However, until such time as the land is assembled, that specific plan could not be put together in any event. At the time as the land is assembled, the doctrine of merger would automatically apply and the access easement would disappear by law. Once the property under the same ownership can merge would in fact occur as Mr. Walsh indicated to you. Chairman Caouette- Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff or comments? There was some reference made to Condition #8, I believe we indicated that they preferred Condition to read something to the order that "The applicant and/or property shall obtain an access easement acceptable to the City as part of the final map." At this point I would like to make that a motion. After some clarification on the access easement, the Planning Commission made the following motion: PCM 86-09 Motion by Chairman Caouette and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to amend Condition of Approval No. 8 to read as follows: "The applicant and/or owner shall obtain an access easement acceptable to the City as part of the final map." PCM 86-10 Motion by Commissioner McDowell and seconded by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and passed by a 7-0 vote to amend Condition of Approval No. 9 to read as follows: "The curb and gutter, sidewalks and half-width road improvements shall be constructed for Parcel No. 1 or post a bond acceptable to the City, for their construction." PCM 86-11 Motion by Vice-Chairman Hawkinson and seconded by Commissioner McDowell and approved by a 6-1 vote, to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 9448 to City Council, including the findings as written in the Staff Report and subject to the conditions recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission. P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 11 Commissioner Munson voted against the motion. Chairman Caouette asked if the Commissioners had any other items they wanted to bring up prior to adjournment. Vice-Chairman Hawkinson - One question, is the 25th of January still all go? Mr. Hopkins - Yes sir, at 8:00 a.m. in the morning, the matter will be devoted to financing and we will probably not go far into the afternoon, the City Council and the Economic Development Committee will also be a part of that. Mr. Estrada - Once the Agenda is finalized, the Planning Commission, City Council and Economic Development Committee will get a copy of the agenda. Chairman Caouette adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. on January 20, 1986. Respectfully submitted: ALEX E TRADA, PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVED: NO AN CAOU TTE Planning Chairman P.C. Meeting Minutes 1-6-86 Page 12