Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-04_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: James Macdonald, Acting-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner ABSENT: George Webber, Chair Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Leslie E. Murad II, Assistant City Attorney Richard Malacoff, Associate Planner Alicia Heideman, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Acting Chair Jim Macdonald called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. All commissioners were present except Webber, Laymon, and Thompson. II. CONSENT ITEMS - NONE III. OLD BUSINESS - NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 773 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration,Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a Commission Review and Approval for the construction of an 11,132 square foot commercial center on approximately 0.82 acre located on the southeast corner of Pearl Avenue and Eureka Street in the Town Center District of Downtown Specific Plan No. 45. Request submitted by INVESTWEST GROUP, LLC. Mr. Bob Dalquest gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Miller requested a color board for the proposed project. Commissioner Miller expressed concern on the use of a Eureka Street/Oriental Avenue property for a parking lot and requested a site plan that shows detailed information on the corner parking lot. Mr. Dalquest stated the applicant intends to use the southerly parcel on Eureka Street on a short term basis for parlking. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Donati, Investwest Group, stated they designed a project that blends in with the long-term Planning Commission Minutes of March 9, 2004 Pagel goals of the City. Mr. Donati stated parking is an issue;they purchased property in the area, but the width of the properties does not allow for two rows of parking. Mr. Donati stated they would like to develop more buildings, as they acquire more land. He continued by saying he has a meeting with property owners in the area to discuss future acquisitions. Mr. Donati continued by saying they are trying to complete a short term (3-4 year)lease with the City on the City owned property, during which time they can acquire two more parcels of land for permanent parking. Mr. Donati stated he intends to place gravel or asphalt in the parking lot,with minimal landscaping, so that it will not be utilized for permanent parking. Mr. Donati stated he has had discussions with Ralph Megna and Jeff Shaw relative to parking garages. Mr. Donati stated that the long term plan is to having parking garages, and in the interim, surface parking will be utilized. Mr. Donati stated there will be a 5-10 foot (approx.) separation between his building and the adjacent property building to the south. Commissioner Miller stated he felt the architecture was well done, with nice detail on all sides. Commissioner Miller asked if there is a plan to introduce more color into the project. Mr. Donati stated the building will have a yellow tone, and multi-colored tile roof along with color accents. Acting Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Chairman Macdonald stated that George Webber recommended trees be placed between the center parking stalls. Mr. Dalquest stated he did not think it could be accomplished,since it is a very tight fit. Chairman Macdonald stated Mr.Webber recommended trees be planted along the parking behind the building, to the east and in the patio area. Chairman Macdonald stated he and Mr. Webber expressed concern on the temporary parking lot. Chairman Macdonald stated the parking area should have landscaping and trees if it is going to be utilized for the next 2-4 years. Mr. Dalquest responded by saying staff was going to require minimum improvements because it is short term parking. Chairman Macdonald stated he felt 2-3 years was a long time to have bare asphalt, since it is located at an entrance to the City. Mr. Shaw stated it is a policy issue that will be encountered a number of times as other projects in the city are developed. Mr. Shaw stated it will require action by the City Council; currently there is nothing in the Code to accommodate an interim parking situation. Mr. Shaw stated that they do not want to install significant improvements to a parking area, which will be removed in a short time frame. Commissioner Miller stated the developer has proposed to install full improvements along Eureka Street, which creates a good gateway to the City. Commissioner Miller stated he would be comfortable with the temporary improvements, but he felt there should be more trees. Commissioner Osborne stated he felt the improvements should appear to be temporary. Commissioner Osborne stated currently there is not a 50-50 mix of evergreen and deciduous trees. Chairman Macdonald stated he felt the area along Eureka Street should be planted with permanent trees, because the area has looked temporary for the past 15 years and should be upgraded. Planning Commission Minutes of March 9, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Dalquest stated trees planted on site will be removed, as future building continues on the property. Commissioner Miller stated he would not support planting trees in the parking lot itself, but he would support planting four(4)street trees at the gateway to the City,to enhance the area for the next 3-4 years. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 773 to April 13, 2004. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 35 (REVISION NO. 2) - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit for a 2,408 square foot addition to an existing building for a proposed multipurpose room and offices on the grounds of the existing church located at 459 E. Highland Avenue in the R-S, Suburban Residential District. Request submitted by RIVER CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH. Mr. Manuel Baeza gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.35 Revision No.2,subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the use applied for at this location as set forth in the application is a proper one for which a conditional use permit is authorized; 2. That the proposed use is necessary and desirable for the community and is in harmony with the goals and policies of the General Plan and will not be detrimental to the existing uses or uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located; 3. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use in order to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood; 4. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use; 5. That the conditions set forth in the permit and shown on the approved plans are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Planning Commission Minutes of March 9, 2004 Page 3 C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16488 - Public Hearing for Planning Commission consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 10.6 gross acres into seven (7) residential lots and three (3) common lots located north of Sunset Drive, approximately 200 feet west of Helen Drive in the R-A, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by WILLIAM BUSTER. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 816 - Public Hearing for Planning Commission consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development(PRD) on 10.6 acres consisting of seven (7) residential lots and three (3) common lots located north of Sunset Drive, approximately 200 feet west of Helen Drive in the R-A, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by WILLIAM BUSTER. E. VARIANCE NO. 670 - Public Hearing for Planning Commission consideration of a Variance from Section 18.144.200 (B) of the Redlands Municipal Code to permit recreational open space within private rear yards in lieu of the requirement for recreational open space in the proposed common area of Tract No. 16488 located north of Sunset Drive, approximately 200 feet west of Helen Drive in the R-A, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by WILLIAM BUSTER. Mr. Asher Hartel gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Osborne asked Assistant City Attorney Les Murad if the Planning Commission has the discretion to require a height restriction on a proposed project. Mr. Shaw stated that a PRD (Planned Residential Development)could be conditioned by the Planning Commission to include a height restriction. Mr. Meyer stated the proposed seven (7) homes will be single-story. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant,stated the project was designed to be located mid-hill,so as not to block the view of the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Meyer expressed mild concern on the twenty-four(24)foot width for the entry drive. Mr. Meyer stated he concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. The Commission briefly discussed the pros and cons of determining the appropriate width of the driveway and decided 24 feet should be adequate. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 16488, Conditional Use Permit No. 816, and Variance No. 670,and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination"in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 4-0 vote Planning Commission Minutes of March 9, 2004 Page 4 that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Tentative Tract No. 16488, Conditional Use Permit No. 816, and Variance No. 670. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or over burden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 670 based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The request for the variance has exceptional or extraordinary circumstances because of the unique and unusual steep terrain of the site which makes strict compliance with the requirements of providing common, landscaped, recreational open space difficult to achieve and not practical in a hillside development; 2. That the variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right in which other Planned Residential Developments in hillside areas have not been required under the same or similar zoning; 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity; 4. That the proposed Planned Residential Development is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the Redlands General Plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 816, based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City; 2. That the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; 3. That the proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the R-A zoning district, and the City's PRD development standards; 4. That the proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location; 5. That Conditional Use Permit No. 816 therefore be APPROVED subject to all departmental recommendations and the addition of a revision to Condition of Approval 14 to read: Planning Commission Minutes of March 9, 2004 Page 5 14. Prior to final map approval or issuance of a grading permit, submit street improvement plans for the private streets for Public Works Department review and approval. Street'A'shall be a minimum paved width of twenty-four (24) feet from curb to curb and Public Works Department standards. Provide a pedestrian sidewalk five(5)feet in width along one side of Street'A"from Sunset Drive to the intersection with Street'B' ; in lieu of a sidewalk,a four(4) foot wide pedestrian path that meet City Development Standards for Rural Areas may be provide. Streetlights shall be provided on the private streets within the project to provide adequate lighting for safe pedestrian and vehicle circulation per City Standards for Rural Areas. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract No. 16488, based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 2. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Very-Low Density Residential and zoning of R-A, Residential Estate District, and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code including the Planned Residential Development Ordinance; 3. The site, which is located on the north side of Sunset Drive, is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is in a hillside location and is large enough to subdivide into seven(7) lots; 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a seven(7)lot subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Very-Low Density Residential allows for seven (7) dwelling units; 5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resources or within a wildlife corridor; 6. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems,aside from temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in the project's Mitigation Measures; 7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision;public streets and pedestrian access will be provided throughout the project site; 8. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4, of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into Planning Commission Minutes of March 9, 2004 Page 6 pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The property is not under Williamson Act Contract, and the addition of a revision to Condition of Approval 14 to read: 14. Prior to final map approval or issuance of a grading permit, submit street improvement plans for the private streets for Public Works Department review and approval. Street'A'shall be a minimum paved width of twenty-four (24) feet from curb to curb and Public Works Department standards. Provide a pedestrian sidewalk five(5)feet in width along one side of Street'A"from Sunset Drive to the intersection with Street'B' ; in lieu of a sidewalk,a four(4) foot wide pedestrian path that meet City Development Standards for Rural Areas may be provide. Streetlights shall be provided on the private streets within the project to provide adequate lighting for safe pedestrian and vehicle circulation per City Standards for Rural Areas. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 598 (REVISION 1)- PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a revision to an approved Conditional Use Permit for a 1,365 square foot expansion to the Redlands Community Center located at 111 West Lugonia Avenue in the O, Open Land District. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. Mr. Malacoff gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Dave Higginson, Higginson Cartozian Architects, stated they attempted to compliment the architecture of the adjacent Senior Center. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision Number One to Conditional Use Permit No. 598 based on the following findings: 1. The addition to the Community Center applied for at 111 West Lugonia Avenue noted is proper for a Conditional Use Permit. 2. The addition to the Community Center as proposed is a project that is necessary, essential, and desirable for the public welfare as well as the development of the community; 3. The addition to the Community Center is not detrimental to existing or permitted uses in the O, Open Land District where it would be located; 4. The size and shape of the site are adequate for the proposed addition to the Community Center, 5. The site properly relates to Lugonia Avenue, Washington Street, and Clay Planning Commission Minutes of March 9, 2004 Page 7 Street which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the addition to the Community Center; 6. The conditions set forth on this Conditional Use Permit are deemed necessary and reasonable to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, the best interests of the neighborhood; 7. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Public Institutional designation of the General Plan. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. February 24 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of February 24, 2004. VI. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS - None A. City Council Report Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council actions of March 2nd B. STATUS OF MAJOR PROJECTS VII. ADJOURNMENT TO MARCH 23, 2004 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting to March 23rd at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Ortiz, Senior Admin. Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of March 9, 2004 Page 8