Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-04_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Robert Dalquest, Principal Planner/Project Manager Richard Malacoff, Associate Planner Alicia Heideman, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Chairman Webber called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. All commissioners were present. II. CONSENT ITEMS A. APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP NO. 15827 (MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 264)- Minor Subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No. 15827) to subdivide approximately 6.45 acres into three (3) residential lots located on Marion Road approximately 450 feet south of Fifth Avenue and east of the eastern terminus of Pleasantview Drive in the A-2 Estate Agricultural District. Request submitted by Larry Jacinto. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission grant final approval for Parcel Map No. 15827 (Minor Subdivision No. 264) as submitted by the applicant. B. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO.261 -A request for Planning Commission consideration of one (1) monument sign with a total area of thirty-two (32) square feet located at 840 W. Brockton Ave. in the M-1, Light Industrial District. Request submitted by TELEDYNE BATTERY. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Pagel It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Sign Review No. 261 subject to the Conditions of Approval. III. OLD 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 a 11,132 square foot commercial center on approximately 0.82 acres 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. Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Dalquest stated the applicant decided to forego use of City owned property for an offsite parking lot and is currently in escrow on two properties located on the southeast corner of Pearl Avenue and Ruiz Street. Mr. Dalquest stated a Condition of Approval was added which requires the applicant to have the offsite location in his possession, either by deed or long term lease, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Dalquest stated the Municipal Code requires that double row parking be separated by a five (5) foot planter, but it is not required for single row parking. Mr. Dalquest stated the Planning Commission may want to consider replacing one parking space with a landscape finger. Mr. Dalquest stated the project is over parked. Therefore, the loss of one parking space would not be adverse. Mr. Dalquest stated that landscape issues have been resolved. Mr. Dalquest stated that the applicant suggested placement of a wood fence to separate the parking area from an adjacent single family home. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Joe Donati, Investwest Group, gave a brief detailed summary on the landscape plan and project design. Mr. Donati stated they would like to use pots instead of trees, to give the project some height and greenery. Commissioner Macdonald asked Mr. Donati if the larger trees could be placed on the street, with the smaller trees in the parking lot. Chairman Webber noted that the Municipal Code requires a specific distribution of trees for the project. Commissioner Macdonald stated it is an attractive project and having larger sized trees around the buildings would be excellent. Mr. Dalquest suggested placing 36 inch box London Plane trees along Eureka Street. Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 2 Mr. Donati concurred with Mr. Dalquest's suggestion to increase the size of the tree and suggested selecting the trees ahead of time. Mr. Donati stated that London Plane trees are not readily available. Commissioner Laymon stated the site could use softening because it is located at the premier entrance into the downtown area. Commissioner Laymon suggested adding tree wells and colored awnings. Mr. Donati stated he looked into the use of awnings and received a negative response. Mr. Donati stated he received mixed reaction from the Public Works Department relative to tree wells. Mr. Donati stated that tree wells that are at grade level work better, because raised tree wells may become a liability issue for the City. Discussion was held on raised tree wells. Mr. Donati stated he would look into proposals for raised tree wells, with color added to the base of the trees. Commissioner Miller stated he could appreciate a reluctance to use awnings because of the issue of ongoing maintenance. Commissioner Miller stated it was his personal preference to add awnings to selected locations, which would add brightness to the building. Referring to the building elevations, Commissioner Miller suggested adding awnings: 1. Over the arch on the far right end of the building, under the word TENANT 2. Over the center window in the gable end 3. The lower arched windows on the rotunda area on the far left Mr. Donati asked Mr. Miller if he would prefer striped or solid awnings. Commissioner Miller suggested a solid colored awning, possibly hunter green or blue. Mr. Donati stated he would return with a proposal and discuss it with Mr. Dalquest, but his architect is not in favor of awnings. Commissioner Laymon suggested adding a Condition of Approval that would require a specific number of awnings. Commissioner Osborne stated the best location for an awning would be in the archways around the rotunda. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. Donati if the alleyway between the patio and the parking to the east would have asphalt. Mr. Donati stated the alley would be bordered with landscaping. Commissioner Laymon suggested a paver entry. Commissioner Osborne concurred. Mr. Donati stated, from an ownership standpoint, the paver entry would become a Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 3 maintenance headache. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber asked the Commission for a consensus on a wall separating the parking lot from the residential area. Mr. Dalquest stated if a wall is constructed, it would have to be removed at a later time, if the applicant acquires the adjacent residential property. Commissioner Cook stated she would support a wood fence. Commissioner Macdonald supported replacing a parking space with a landscaping finger planted with an evergreen elm tree. Chairman Webber stated the applicant supported adding 36 inch box London Plane trees along the Eureka Street frontage. Mr. Jeff Shaw stated he would work with the Public Works Department on the issue of tree wells, but he cautioned against adding a Condition of Approval that would require tree wells. Mr. Shaw stated that staff will need to ensure that adequate ADA access is available. Mr. Shaw stated he would report back to the Commission. Commissioner Laymon commended the applicant on the project, and suggested going the "extra step" because the project is located at a portal to the City. Mr. Shaw suggested adding the statement, "The applicant will work with staff in trying to incorporate additional enhancements into the tree well areas, that might include benches, flowering plants areas, and/or grates." Chairman Webber asked for a consensus on the use of awnings for the project. Commissioner Osborne stated that awnings are usually added to a project to conceal defects. Commissioner Osborne stated he felt awnings should be added to the first floor on the circular part of the building. Commissioner Miller stated that it is a beautiful building in and of itself, but he felt the awnings would help to make the downtown area a more festive, celebratory environment. Commissioner Miller suggested tucking the awning underneath the arch, and he stated he would defer to the applicant and his architect, as he feels they have done a good job. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant's opinion on the placement of the awnings. Mr. Donati stated he was not sure about adding an awning under the center balcony, but he concurred with the other two locations suggested. Mr. Donati suggested meeting with two Commissioners to discuss the placement of the awnings. Commissioner Cook suggested he meet with Commissioners Osborne and Miller. Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 4 Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber stated that Mr. Dalquest would add a Condition of Approval requiring awnings on the six (6) windows on the circular portion of the building, and possibly (after consultation with the applicant and Commissioner Miller) in other areas. Commissioner Osborne suggested some type of treatment be added to the alleyway on the east side of the project site. Commissioners Macdonald and Cook concurred, stating pavers would compliment the building. Mr. Shaw stated he believes the area in question is a public alley which falls under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department. Commissioner Osborne suggested requesting some type of decorative paving (stamped or colored concrete) for the alley. Commissioner Macdonald noted the stamped concrete might create a problem for women walking with heels. Mr. Shaw stated that the Public Works Department did not allow stamped concrete in the Third Street crossing area because of the possibility of tripping. Mr. Shaw recommended changing the wording to"decorative paving"and referring it to the Public Works Department for approval. Commissioner Miller suggested specifying the area to paved, such as a set square footage. Commissioners Laymon and Cook concurred. Commissioner Osborne suggested adding the wording "Consider the use of decorative pavement at the obvious pedestrian crosswalk(s) connecting the building area to the parking lots." Mr. Dalquest requested input on the five (5) foot area of landscaping along the south property lines. Commissioner Dalquest noted there was mention about trees being planted in triangular planters along the east side of site. Mr. Dalquest stated a Condition of Approval would have to be added to address this issue. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 773, and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined 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 Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 773. It has been determined that this Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 5 project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 773, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and all of the required yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the area; 2. That the site properly relates to streets and highways which are properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development; 3. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community, is consistent with the policies, programs, and objectives of the Redlands General Plan; 4. That the conditions set forth in the approval and those shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, with the addition of Conditions of Approval 31 - 39 to read: 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the substitute lot shall be in the same possession of the use by either a deed or long-term lease. 32. Provide a six (6) foot redwood fence along the south property line of the substitute lot, except that within the twenty-five (25) foot street setback from Ruiz Street the fence shall be three (3) feet in height. 33. Replace one of the center single row parking spaces within the on-site parking lot with a five (5)foot landscape island and planted with a 36-inch box Evergreen Elm tree and ground cover. 34. The London Plane trees within the tree wells along Eureka Street and Pearl Avenue shall be 36-inch box in size with a minimum caliper size of 2-1/2" 35. Explore with the Public Works Director the use of raised planters with seating around the street trees along Eureka Street and Pearl Avenue and planted with color at the base, or if not practical to meet regulatory requirements relative to handicap accessibility, provide grates within each tree well along Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 6 the site's frontage. 36. Provide a five (5) foot full width planter along the south property line of both parking lots. 37. Provide decorative pavement at the pedestrian crosswalk between the building and the parking lot. 38. Provide potted trees at the rear or east elevation of the building and show on the landscape plans. 39. Provide solid awnings within the six(6) arches around the rotunda portion of the building and at other locations per the Community Development Director and 5. That Commission Review and Approval No. 773, therefore, be approved subject to all departmental recommendations. Chairman Webber excused himself from the meeting for a short time. B. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 774- PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration on a Commission Review and Approval for the construction of an 3,872 square foot medical office on a 14,980 square foot lot located at 317 Brookside Avenue (between Grant Street and Parkwood Drive) in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District. Request submitted by DR. GREG GROCHOWSKI. C. VARIANCE NO. 674 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Sections 18.168.030 (C) (4), 18.164.270 (A), and 18.64.090 to allow vehicles to back into an alley, to waive the requirement for a block wall between the A-P, Administrative Professional and Office District and the adjoining R-2, Multiple Family Residential District, and to allow a two (2) foot encroachment of parking within the required front yard setback on Parkwood Avenue for a proposed medical office located at 317 Brookside Avenue (between Grant Street and Parkwood Drive) in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District. Request submitted by DR. GREG GROCHOWSKI. Mr. Richard Malacoff gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Dr. Greg Grochowski, applicant, stated he appreciated Mr. Malacoffs work on the project Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 7 and he concurred with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Miller asked where the air conditioning system would be located. Mr. Jay Nelson, Redlands Archimetrics, stated the air conditioning units would be attic mounted. Commissioner Miller asked for specific information on the floor plan. Dr. Grochowski gave a detailed summary of the offices and their uses. Commissioner Miller questioned the width of the sidewalk on Parkwood which leads east to the rotunda. Mr. Malacoff stated that Chief Building Official Richard Pepperconfirmed that the sidewalk width meets ADA requirements. Commissioner Miller stated the parking stall length is 18 feet deep, when it should be 19 feet deep. Commissioner Thompson asked Dr. Grochowski how many patients he sees per day. Dr. Grochowski replied the he could see 90 -100 patients during a busy day. Dr. Grochoski stated he currently has one other doctor working with him. Ms. Margo Napoles, 71/2 Parkwood, stated that she is a former patient of Dr. Grochowski, who is a very good doctor, but she is concerned about parking for the project. Ms. Jennifer Duge, 7 Parkwood, expressed her concern on parking, noise, and people driving in and out of the alley. Chairman Webber advised Ms. Field that she is limited to 3 minutes to speak, however, he would allow her an additional minute to speak. Chairman Webber excused himself from the meeting for a brief time. Ms. Sheila Field, 981 Ardmore Circle, referred to a letter from Mr. Russ Huston, President of the Redlands Board of Realtors, expressing his concern on the impact of the proposed project. Ms. Field submitted several letters expressing opposition to the proposed project. Ms. Field stated there is a six (6) foot wall at 222 Brookside Avenue, which separates an R-2 (residential) use from Administrative Professional (AP). Ms. Field stated that she wants a wall on the property site to reduce noise impacts and lighting that will shine onto her property. Commissioner Osborne asked Ms. Field, why it would not be acceptable to her if the applicant offers to build a wall on her property. Ms. Field stated if the wall was built on her property, the noise level would be higher, with vehicles coming into and exiting the alley. Ms. Field stated there are a number of businesses that have six foot walls along their perimeters. Ms. Field stated that she does not see a compelling need for the applicant to Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 8 have a 4,000 square foot building. Commissioner Osborne noted there are a number of businesses to the west of her property that do not have walls. Mr. Jerry Linkhart, 14 Parkwood, asked the Commission to deny the variance stating that it would set a precedent. Mr. Linkhart stated that employees at a nearby dental office park on the street in front of his house and he believes Dr. Grochowski's employees would do the same. Mr. Brett Weiss, P. O. Box 7190, distributed documentation to the Commission, stating he felt the staff report withheld or omitted information that was relevant to the project. Mr. Weiss stated that a successful chiropractic business can see up to 100 patients per day per doctor. Mr. Bill Solberg, 401 Brookside Avenue, stated he requested a variance for a wall previously and it was not granted. Mr. Solberg stated he likes the project but it is too big for the lot. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing for a rebuttal from Dr. Grochowski. Dr. Grochowski, stated he has seen 100 patients twice in his eight year career, and the numbers he quoted, relative to the number of patients he will see, are correct. Dr. Grochowski stated he felt 16 parking spaces are adequate for his business. Commissioner Cook asked Dr. Grochowski for the number of employees he will have. Dr. Grochowski stated he has two (2) full time and two (2) part time employees. Dr. Grochowski stated he met with Ms. Field on January 12th and offered to build a wall on her property. Ms. Field went before the Environmental Review Committee on February 17th and stated she would be happy if the wall was built. Dr. Grochowski stated on February 19th, after meeting with his architect, Ms. Field requested that the wall be removed, the gate be changed, landscaping be added, and the sprinklers be changed, which resulted in the cost increasing from $1500 to $15,000. Dr. Grochowski stated he received a letter from Ms. Field approximately 2 weeks later stating she was opposed to the project. Discussion was held relative to containing the parking onsite, rather than having access to the alley. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Macdonald stated he felt the project was overbuilt for the area, and too "commercial" for the property site and felt the parking would be a serious problem. Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Thompson stated he observed Dr. Grochowski's office on a daily basis, and he has never seen more than 2-3 patients. Commissioner Thompson stated he felt the patient numbers that were being bantered about were sorely exaggerated. Chairman Webber suggested a study to analyze the parking situation. He cautioned the Commission that they have to be careful about not exasperating the parking situation in that area. Mr. Malacoff stated that the most stringent Code requirements were used to come up with the 16 parking spaces. Chairman Webber stated he has a concern relative to the ingress/egress onto the alley and he does not support building a wall on Ms. Field's property. Commissioner Laymon stated she is a firm believer that"good walls make good neighbors" and she would have a problem with a wall not being there. Commissioner Cook stated if the entryway was shifted a camphor tree that is currently on the property could remain. Commissioner Cook stated the Commission should listen to the neighborhood if it does not want the variance approved. Commissioner Miller stated it appears there will be inadequate parking for the project, however the current Code, as it stands today, allows five stalls per doctor. Commissioner Miller continued by stating a landowners buys property and makes decisions based on the current Code and he is reluctant to bend the law on a brand new building. Commissioner Miller stated there have been some underlying implications that staff is biased in favor of the project. He continued by saying that staff is very fair, very unbiased, and supportive of the community and he would defend them strongly if the issue is ever raised. Commissioner Miller took exception to the part of the staff report that stated AP differs from Commercial relative to the requirement for a wall stating he associates AP uses more closely with commercial uses. Commissioner Miller sketched an alternative site plan that would not require a variance. Chairman Webber asked for a consensus on the wall. Commissioner Macdonald expressed his preference for a wall. Commissioner Thompson stated he would like to evaluate Commissioner Miller's plan before deciding. Mr. Shaw indicated that it would be fairly easy to evaluate Commissioner Miller's redesign of the project, and he asked for input from the applicant. Mr. Shaw suggested continuing the project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 10 Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Dr. Grochowski stated a continuance is the only option he has because he needs the parking. Dr. Grochowski stated that asking him to install a wall would be a breaking point for him. Chairman Webber closed the hearing. Mr. Ray Alexander, speaking on behalf of the applicant, asked if the applicant can leave with the understanding that the parking issue on his project will be resolved, and that he should not be concerned that the parking problems in the area will be an issue. Mr. Bill Cunningham, stated he owns property across the street from the Pure Gold building. Mr. Cunningham stated that inadequate parking on this project and every project in the area will have a cumulative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Cunningham stated if the project does not fit, it needs to be modified. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 7-0 vote to continue Commission Review and Approval No. 774 and Variance No. 674 to May 11, 2004. Commissioner Laymon suggested the Commission look into parking in the AP areas, specifically those that are adjacent to historic sites. Chairman Webber requested a short recess at 4:40 p.m.. Commissioners Miller and Thompson left the meeting at 4:40 p.m. due to previous commitements. D. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO.259-A request for Planning Commission consideration of one (1) pedestal sign with a total face area of twenty-four (24) square feet located at 1680 W. Redlands Blvd. in the EV/CG, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan General Commercial District. Request submitted by GLOBAL SIGN SYSTEMS. Chairman Webber reconvened the meeting at 4:46 p.m. The Commissioners returned to the meeting except Commissioner Macdonald. Ms. Alicia Heideman stated the applicant requested the project be continued to May 11th however Ms. Heideman requested it be continued to April 27th, so that staff can evaluate the project and determine that all requirements have been met for a ninety (90) day extension. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 11 Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Sign Review No. 259 to the Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 2004. Commissioner Macdonald returned to the meeting at 4:49 p.m. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 668 REVISION 1 — A request to allow the placement of a 44,866 square foot outdoor activity area located adjacent to 1751 Plum Lane in Specific Plan 25. Request submitted by THE GIRL SCOUT OF SAN GORGONIO COUNCIL. Ms. Heideman gave a brief presentation and stated the project meets all Code requirements except for the trees proposed for the parking lot. Ms. Heideman stated that staff has conditioned the project to replace the three (3) Chines Flame trees in the parking lot with a species that is on the Planning Commission List of Approved Trees. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Commissaris, Girl Scouts of San Gorgonio Council, stated the outdoor area would be used during the week. Chairman Webber commented that it was a very nice project and the landscaping was quite appealing. Mr. Sean Burch, landscape architect, stated the site is very unique and he disagreed with changing the plant palette. Mr. Burch noted that there is a total of five (5) Chinese Flame trees; three (3) in the parking lot and two (2) onsite. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 668 Revision 1 subject to the following findings: 1. The size and shape of the site are adequate for the proposed activity area. 2. That the site properly relates to Plum Lane which is designed and improved to carry Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 12 the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 668 Revision 1 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Commercial Designation of the General Plan. Chairman Webber left the meeting for short time. B. VARIANCE NO. 678 - Public Hearing for the Planning Commission to consider a Variance from maximum lot coverage requirements for a residential lot in the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District located at 921 Pennsylvania. Request submitted by BEAZER HOMES. Ms. Heideman gave a brief presentation on the proposed project, and stated that Beazer Homes originally planned to place a two story home on the lot, but felt a single story home would be more compatible with the area. Ms. Shaw noted that a neighbor from an adjacent subdivision approached staff and requested a single story home on the site. Beazer Homes evaluated the request, but determined that a single story home would exceed the allowed lot coverage. Beazer Homes proceeded with the request for a variance to accommodate the neighbor. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Jason Lee, Beazer Homes, stated the variance was necssary because of a request from an adjacent homeowner who requested a single story home be built on the site. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 678 based on the following findings, and subject to the attached conditions of approval: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to this property in that allowing a single story home at 921 Pennsylvania will improve the appearance of the neighborhood it will better coexist with the existing adjacent subdivision; 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 13 substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone district, but which is denied to the property in question; 3. That the granting of the variance from the lot coverage of the R-1 District will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity; and, 4. That the property in question would remain consistent with the intent and guidelines of the General Plan of the City of Redlands. C. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 25 (AMENDMENT NO. 9)- PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for an amendment to the sign criteria for Specific Plan No. 25 Section 3. C. 8. to allow building signs to face vehicle and pedestrian circulation areas. Request Submitted by RICK LAZAR. Mr. Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms. Nancy Snell, Quiel Bros. Sign Co., requested the Commission approve the amendment as submitted. Mr. Shaw noted that staff will be bringing the Specific Plans forward to the Commission at a later date. Mr. Shaw noted that Specific Plans all have their own unique set of sign criteria, which need to be amended. Mr. Shaw stated that the new Sign Code that has been adopted will provide uniformity. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt R.P.C. No. 1026 and recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 9 to Specific Plan No. 25. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. D. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16276 - Public Hearing for Planning Commission consideration of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 2.19 acres into five (5) residential lots located on the southwest corner of Bellevue Avenue and Olive Avenue in the R-S, Suburban Residential District. Request submitted by MASSARO AND WELCH. Mr. Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 14 Mr. Paul Welch, applicant, stated when he went before the Commission in August, he was under the impression that they had a two year extension for his project, however he was incorrect. Mr. Welch stated that his plans have been approved by the Public Works Department and M.U.D. and he is ready to begin construction. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that no subsequent negative declaration shall be prepared for the project on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record and based on the following: 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 2. No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances underwhich the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous negative declaration was adopted. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract No.16276 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and a zoning of R-S, Suburban Residential and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 15 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into five (5) lots; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a five (5) unit subdivision; 4. 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; 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and will only cause temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in Mitigation Measures two (2) and four (4); 6. 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; 7. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4, of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The property is not in an agricultural preserve. V. ADDENDA A. FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 58-ABCO REALTY AND INVESTMENTS Mr. Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Al Mozayeni, applicant, stated his landscape architect met with Chairman Webber and he believes the Landscape Plan is in compliance. Chairman Webber stated that he would like to ensure that staff visits the site prior to final occupancy. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 16 It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Final Landscape Plan for Tentative Tract Map No. 16548. B. PROPOSED SCHOOL SITE FOR THIRD COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOL Mr. John Jaquess stated that Redlands Unified School District notified the City of its intent to build a third comprehensive high school in the City. Mr. Jaquess stated the School District is buying approximately 60 acres of land for the construction of a single story high school with outdoor facilities and a 5,000 seat bleacher stadium. Mr. Jaquess stated the District expects to serve 2,500 students and is scheduled to open in Fall 2008. Mr. Jaquess gave a brief presentation on the current land use and surrounding properties. Mr. Jaquess stated the General Plan would have to be amended to reflect Public Institutional zoning if the high school is to be constructed on the site. Mr. Jaquess stated that staff feels the site is suitable for a school, however it is not necessarily compatible with the surrounding planned commercial and light industrial uses and it is not consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Cook asked why not build a high school in Highland, rather than in an area located in the middle of an industrial area. Mr. Shaw noted that the Office of the County Superintendent of Schools felt that there were fewer available sites in Highland and/or Loma Linda that meet their criteria. Chairman Webber stated he does not like the site for the proposed use as it is too close to the freeway and there is too much noise. Chairman Webber stated he believes the high school site should be located further north toward the river. Commissioner Laymon stated that she is uncomfortable with the proposed site, especially if the zoning designation cannot be replaced in another part in the City. Commissioner Cook stated the high school would change the direction of development in that area. Discussion was held and it was determined the wording for the Planning Commission recommendation would be revised to reflect the Commission's position. Mr. Jaquess suggested the Commission add a fourth sentence in its recommendation that encourages that the site be located further north, adjacent to the wash. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 17 It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt staff's recommendation and make the following report to the Redlands Unified School District: 1. The sixty acre site is physically suitable for a comprehensive high school to be developed by the Redlands Unified School District. 2. It will not be compatible with the planned surrounding land uses which will include commercial and industrial uses. 3. The site is not currently consistent with the City General Plan and a General Plan Amendment to Public/Institutional will be required. 4. Encourage the site be located further to the north, adjacent to the wash. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 23, 2004 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of March 23, 2004. VII. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS A. City Council Report Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council actions of April 6, 2004. B. Status of Major Projects Mr. Shaw reviewed the Status of Major Projects list that was included in the Planning Commission packet. Commissioner Laymon requested that the medical parking issue be agendized. Mr. Shaw suggested it be referred to the Ad Hoc Zoning Committee. VIII. ADJOURNMENT TO APRIL 27, 2004 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting at 5:51 p.m. to April 27, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 18 Patricia Ortiz, Senior Admin. Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2004 Page 19