Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-26-04_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, October 26, 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 ABSENT: Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Leslie E. Murad II, Assistant City Attorney Robert Dalquest, Principal Planner/Project Manager Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner Alicia Heideman, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Webber. All commissioners were present except Commissioners Osborne and Thompson. Chairman Webber advised members of the audience that parking permits are available from the secretary for those who are parked in the 30 minute parking zone. II. CONSENT ITEMS - NONE III. OLD BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 801 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to install a ninety (90) foot high monolyptus cellular tower for a wireless telecommunication facility located at 1402 Cajon Street (Prospect Park) in the O, Open Land District. Request Submitted by SPRINT PCS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the proposed project will be reviewed bythe City Council on November 16th relative to an appeal of the environmental finding. Mr. Jaquess stated staff is recommending a continuance until November 23rd Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Pagel MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit to November 23, 2004. IV. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Webber stated that item V-A would be heard at this time at the request of the applicant. A. LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 485 (REVISION NO. 2) - RAYMOND ARJMAND Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the revision will allow the planting of society garlic plants in planter islands, the use of crushed red rock instead of mulch to cover the soil, dead trees will be replaced with 24 inch box trees, and the red rock groundcoverwill be"topped up." Mr. Hartel stated staff recommends approval of the revision. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Sean Burch stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman Webber noted that most of the trees in the parking lot are deciduous, not evergreen. He asked Mr. Burch if the applicant would agree to plant seven (7) additional evergreen trees in between the liquid amber trees that are currently planted in the parking isles. Mr. Raymond Arjmand, shopping center owner, asked Chairman Webber if that was the only request of the Commission. Chairman Webber stated it was. Mr. Arjmand agreed to the request. Chairman Webber suggested the tree be taken from the Planning Commission List of Approved Shade Trees. Mr. Burch suggested the 24-inch box fern pine be planted, and Commissioner Webber concurred. Mr. Jeff Shaw noted that Condition of Approval 5 would be added to address this matter. MOTION It was moved by commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Revised Landscape Plan required by Condition of Approval No. 24 of Conditional Use Permit No.485, Revision No. 2 with the addition of Condition of Approval 5 to read: Add seven (7) 24-inch box fern pines in the parking isles. E. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO.770(REVISION NO.2)-HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a revision to Commission Review and Approval No. 770 to construct a 2,400 square foot building containing five (5) auto service bays that would partially replace those removed by the demolition of a portion of the existing Metro Nissan and Hyundai building located on approximately 4.68 acres at 1655 Industrial Park Avenue in the General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by DAVID A. MARVIN. (Project Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 2 Planner: Bob Dalquest) Commissioner Miller recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Dalquest stated Chairman Webber prefers the Afghan pine and red iron bark eucalyptus trees be planted in the new planter along the east property line instead of the Queen palms and African Sumac trees as conditioned. Mr. Dalquest stated staff is recommending the addition of Condition of Approval 9 (h) to read: The trees within the new planter along the east property shall contain a combination of 24- inch box Afghan pines and 15 gallon red iron bark eucalyptus trees planted at 20 foot intervals. Mr. Dalquest stated the applicant is requesting to replace a tree species in a new planter that abuts the west side of the proposed building. Mr. Dalquest stated the approved Landscape Plan depicts three (3)African Sumac trees and one (1)Queen palm along with shrubs. The applicant would like to replace the three (3)African Sumac trees with three (3)36-inch box Queen palms. Mr. Dalquest stated Condition of Approval 9 (i)would be added to address this issue. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Dalquest if there is a planter located at the west entrance. Mr. Dalquest stated he did not think so, and he suggested the applicant answer the questions. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Paul Eddy, Whitfield Architects, and Mr. Tony Wilcox, General Manager for Nissan Redlands were available to answer questions. Chairman Webber asked if it is possible to install a planter with queen palms at the west entrance. Mr. Wilcox stated the area is currently being used as a display area. Mr.Wilcox asked if another tree species could be used instead of the eucalyptus tree which drops a large amount of debris on the vehicles. Chairman Webber told Mr.Wilcox to pick another tree from the Planning Commission's List of Approved Shade Trees. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused)that Revision No. 2 to Commission Review and Approval No. 770 does not require further environmental processing pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines based on the following findings: 1. The proposed revision would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 3 the project will be undertaken; and 3. There is no new information of substantial importance with respect to this project's environmental consequences that was not known at the time the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused) that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 2 to Commissioner Review and Approval No. 770, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the site for the proposed use, as revised, is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use; 2. That the site properly relates to streets and highways designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development, as revised 3. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community and will not be detrimental to existing development or planned uses in the vicinity of the project site; 4. That the proposed development, as revised, is in compliance with the policies and standards as identified in the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan; 5. That the conditions of approval for Commission Review and Approval No. 770 (Revision No. 2) are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; 6. That Commission Review and Approval No. 770 (Revision No. 2), therefore, be approved subject to all departmental recommendations, including the addition of Condition of Approval 9 (h) to read: The trees within the new planter along the east property shall contain a combination of 24- inch box Afghan pines and 15 gallon red iron bark eucalyptus trees planted at 20 foot intervals. and Condition of Approval 9 (i)to read: The three (3) planters that abut the parking areas of the Nissan site shall contain trees selected from the Planning Commission's Fast Growing Shade Tree List. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 2:27 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 4 B. VARIANCE 687-Planning Commission Consideration of a Variance from Section 3 A.4.d.3 of Specific Plan No. 33 to allow an eleven (11)foot reduction from twenty- five (25) feet to fourteen (14) feet of the required building setback from Alabama Street for a trellis structure attached to a proposed drive through restaurant and for a Variance from Section 18.168.210 of the Municipal Code to allow for a three (3) foot reduction in width for a required five (5)foot wide perimeter landscape planter both within a proposed shopping center to be located on the west side of Alabama Street,the south side of Lugonia Avenue,and north side of Orange Tree Lane in the Commercial District of Specific Plan No. 33. Request submitted by RICK DEL CARLO, SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES. C. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 786 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and Planning Commission consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to develop a six building commercial center including two drive-through restaurants and a combined building area of 89,596 square feet of building area on a 7.4 acre property located on the west side of Alabama Street, the south side of Lugonia Avenue, and north side of Orange Tree Lane in the Commercial District of Specific Plan No.33. Request submitted by RICK DEL CARLO, SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) D. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO.275-Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration,a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Minor Subdivision (Parcel Map No. 16742) to subdivide a 7.4 acre property into seven (7)commercial parcels located on the west side of Alabama Street,the south side of Lugonia Avenue, and north side of Orange Tree Lane in the Commercial District of Specific Plan No. 33. Request submitted by RICK DEL CARLO, SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Mr. Shaw stated no action could be taken on the variance due to an issue with the public hearing notice and he noted that the proposed project will have to be continued because it requires a 6/7 vote of approval, and there are only five commissioners present. Mr. Shaw requested comments from the Commission that could be provided to the applicant. Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the applicant requested a continuance to look into the possibility of reducing City fees. Mr. Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Baeza stated staff is recommending the proposed project be continued to November 9th. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant, stated he welcomes comments from the Commission. Commissioner Macdonald asked Mr. Meyer why the site was not redesigned so that a variance would not be necessary. Mr. Meyer responded by saying the trellis structure was added at the request of staff. Mr. Meyer stated the applicant felt it would be an asset to cover up the drive aisle for the drive through restaurant rather than leave it exposed. Commissioner Miller stated he had recommended placing a canopy over the drive through window. Commissioner Miller noted the Landscape Plan shows ground cover adjacent to the southwest Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 5 driveway and he suggested shrubs be planted on the west side of the driveway to screen the loading dock. Commissioner Miller stated he felt the out buildings were very nicely designed. Commissioner Miller suggested the final awning color be approved by staff. Commissioner Miller requested pavers at all entries to the proposed project. Mr. Meyer stated staff could add a Condition of Approval requiring pavers at all entries. Commissioner Miller stated the Commission may want to review the City Ordinance that governs drive through windows; it currently calls for six (6)vehicles as measured from the service window. Mr. Shaw stated the applicant may want to relocate the ordering window so that they can maximize the stacking of vehicles. Commissioner Miller stated it would be wise to add a Condition of Approval to address this issue. Commissioner Miller complimented the applicant for responding to his concerns. Mr. Meyer stated there is a dramatic change in the building architecture. Chairman Webber requested the 15 gallon London Plane trees shown on the Landscape Plan be changed to 24 inch box, and the Mondale Pines trees be upgraded to 24 inch box. Chairman Webber stated since Alabama Street is a major corridor, he felt the proposed project site should conform with the street scape requirements of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Chairman Webber suggested the applicant try to mirror his landscaping with Citrus Plaza,which is located across the street. Chairman Webber stated he felt the first set of project plans were plain and generic, however Commissioners Laymon and Miller worked with the applicant, and the result was a very pleasing project. Chairman Webber stated if they can figure out away to comply with the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan street scape requirements on Lugonia Avenue and Alabama Street they should be fine. Commissioner Miller requested the screen wall for the delivery dock on the "Major 2" building be extended by ten (10) feet. Mr. Baeza stated a Condition of Approval would be added to the proposed project to address this issue. Commissioner Miller requested clarification on Condition of Approval 9 (Planning Division). Commissioner Miller noted for the record that there will be no exposed metal enclosures for electrical service panels. Mr. Meyer concurred. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 786 and Minor Subdivision No. 275 to November 9, 2004. E. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15757 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 6 approximately 4.73 gross acres into five(5)residential lots located on the southeast corner of Carob Street and Kincaid Street in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by NFC DIGITAL, INC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the applicant is conducting a slope analysis forthe project site and requested additional time. Mr. Baeza stated staff recommends the proposed project be continued to November 23, 2004. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commission Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Tentative Tract No. 15757 to November 23, 2004. F. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 276 - PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a HEARING for a Minor Subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No. 16739) to subdivide approximately 1.38 acres into two lots located 640 Texas Street in the C-4 General Commercial zone. Request submitted by TOM SIMPSON. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Assistant Director John Jaquess stated during preparation of the final staff report it was determined that there was a conflict with lot coverage on one of the lots. Mr. Jaquess stated that staff discussed alternatives with the applicant. Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant felt their current design was preferred and they will request a variance for lot coverage. Mr. Jaquess stated staff recommends the project be continued to November 9th. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Minor Subdivision No. 276 To November 9, 2004. G. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 787 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a HEARING for a Commission Review and Approval to construct a single-story dental/medical office building of 4,834 square feet on 0.43 acres located on the south side of Brookside Avenue at Tennessee Street in the A-P (Administrative and Professional Office) District. Request submitted by DR. SHARLYN ZIPRICK. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Project Planner Asher Hartel gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Commissioner Miller stated the site is located on two different parcels and he asked if the parcels would be merged. Mr. Hartel stated a concurrent application for a lot merger is being processed by the Planning Division. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 7 Chairman Webber stated the list of trees on the landscape plan specifies twelve(12)trumpet trees, although nine (9) trees are shown on the landscape plan. Chairman Webber requested clarification. Mr. Hartel stated the landscape plan was revised and he was unsure of the number of trees. Chairman Webber stated the list of trees should reflect what is shown on the plan. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Ziprick stated he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Laymon asked Mr.Ziprick if the pillars are clad in stone. Mr.Ziprick indicated he was unsure. Commissioner Miller stated the project has a nice design and fits nicely on Brookside Avenue. Commissioner Miller asked Mr.Ziprick for clarification on the color of the wood windows. Mr.Ziprick stated he believes earth colors will be used. Commissioner Miller stated it would be a good choice of colors. Commissioner Miller stated they make a wood window that is clad in aluminum or vinyl that weathers well and does not have to be painted. Commissioner Miller noted there is no parapet on the building,although there was a notation on the floor plan relative to a parapet. Mr. Ziprick stated it may have been a "stray" notation. He did not believe there would be a parapet. Commissioner Cook asked Mr.Ziprick if there will be a sign located on the northern elevation of the building to break up the wall of stone. Mr.Ziprick stated an application for a sign will be submitted at a later time. Commissioner Miller suggested adding a pre-cast stone frame as an accent. Commissioner Miller stated that Commissioner Cook raised a point that the front elevation is monolithic. Commissioner Miller stated an alternative would be to stop the wall below the roof line and allow the roof to extend out. Mr. Jaquess suggested a Condition of Approval be added to address this issue. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 787 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined 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 Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 5-0 Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 8 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 787 subject to the following findings: 1. The size and shape of the site is adequate for the proposed commercial buildings. 2. The site properly relates to Brookside Avenue, which has been designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed commercial building. 3. The conditions proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 787 shown on the site plan are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood and the City of Redlands. 4. When completed, the project will contribute to the overall development of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing A-P (Administrative and Professional Office District) with the addition of Condition of Approval 36 to read: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, provide revised elevations that show overhanging eaves on the front elevation (Brookside Avenue) with wood beam accent, including timber out lookers, to match the wood accent on the elevation subject to the Community Development Director for review and approval. H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 835 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the replacement of an existing sixty-foot cellular monopole,with an 88-foot 6-inch monopine and an associated pre-fabricated ten by sixteen foot equipment shelter located at 1740 West Redlands Boulevard in EV/CG District. Request submitted by CINGULAR WIRELESS. (Project Planner: Dave Jump) Project Planner Dave Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Laymon asked Chairman Webber for the maximum height of a Canary Island pine. Chairman Webber stated there are a significant number of eucalyptus citridoras in the area, and he would be comfortable replacing the canary island pines with 24 inch box eucalyptus citridoras. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr.Tom Hannah, Cingular Wireless, stated he has a concern with the eucalyptus trees because of the antenna showing past the branches. He requested six foot branches at the top of the tree with a five-foot crown. Mr. Shaw stated they want the tree to have a "peaked" look. Mr. Hannah stated because of its sap density,the eucalyptus tree absorbs the signal and can cause interference. Mr. Hannah requested another type of tree be used in place of a eucalyptus tree. Commissioner Macdonald stated that other cellular sites that have been approved in the city have surrounding trees and in many cases they are citridoras and palms. Mr. Hannah stated they would Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 9 like to limit the height of the trees to avoid "shadowing." Mr. Doug Kearney, Spectra Site, stated future co-location on their cellular tower might be impeded. Mr. Kearney stated if the project is conditioned to allow the carrier to trim the trees they would not have a problem. Mr. Kearney stated he has been told to stay away from eucalyptus trees, but it may due to the height of the tree. It was determined they would stay with the Canary Island pine. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 835 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined 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 Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.835 subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval: 1. The use applied for at this location is conditionally permitted in the EV/CG, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, General Commercial District under the provisions of Chapter 18.178 of the Municipal Code,which allows "public utility structures" in any zone subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. The proposed wireless communication facility at this location is necessary and desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan,and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in that the proposed tower is to have a monopine stealth treatment design which shall mitigate visual impacts upon the adjacent land uses. 3. The project site is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, meets all development standards and other features required in order to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood. The project provides the applicant with the optimum source of communication within the City and surrounding areas. The design and screening of the facility as illustrated on the submitted site plan will provide compatibility with the surrounding land uses. Also, the location meets Section 18.178.090 of the Redlands Municipal Code which requires that this type of facility be located a minimum of one hundred feet (100) from any offsite residential structure. The nearest residence is located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the site. 4. That the site for the cellular facility relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use. The site will be unmanned and will only require occasional servicing by field personnel. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 10 5. The conditions for the proposed use are reasonably related to the use to address potential effects of the proposed use, and are necessary to protect the public health, safety,and general welfare and the best interests of the neighborhood,with a revision to Condition of Approval 2 to read: This approval is for the installation of an eighty-five(85) foot high cellular tower eighty feet to the top of the tower and five feet to the top of the simulated branches for a wireless telecommunication facility at the northeastern corner of the existing Smart and Final retail establishment to be co-located with an existing carrier. and a revision to Condition of Approval 6 to read: Prior to issuance of final occupancy permits,the three new twenty-four-inch box canary island pines shall be planted and installed with automatic irrigation and trees shall not be topped at anytime in the future. 5. ADDENDA B. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION PERTAINING TO GOALS AND/OR REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE CITRUS WITHIN THE CITY OF REDLANDS Director Jeff Shaw stated a proposal was submitted by the Redlands Conservancy relative to an ordinance that would have required industrial property to be planted with at least two rows of citrus that would be maintained by the property owners. Mr. Shaw stated staff had several meetings with the Ad Hoc Zoning Committee, which felt the proposed ordinance was too strict. Mr. Shaw stated the Redlands Conservancy initiated the preparation of a guidebook for planting and maintaining of citrus. Mr. Shaw stated in January staff was asked by the Commission to give an overview of projects in the City where citrus has been or will be incorporated into the project. Mr. Shaw summarized the projects completed or planned with citrus. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Shaw what prompted the Ad Hoc Zoning Committee to refrain from an ordinance requiring the planting of citrus. Mr. Shaw stated the Ad Hoc Committee felt that a particular landscape pallet should not be dictated to developers within the City. Mr. Shaw stated another issue might be maintenance of citrus, which is more difficult to maintain than a standard landscape treatment. Commissioner Macdonald stated not all sites lend themselves to the appearance of a citrus grove, and it may not be the "look" that all commercial buildings should have. Commissioner Macdonald stated there may be a question as to whether a small grove could produce enough oranges that would make it economically viable for the property owner. Commissioner Macdonald stated the Ad Hoc Zoning Committee felt it should be a matter of choice. Commissioner Laymon stated she feels in particular areas with names such as Orange Tree Lane, it wouldn't hurt to mandate a minimum number of ornamental citrus in the landscaping.She continued by saying they may want to mandate citrus trees, such as Seville orange in portal areas of the City. Chairman Webber stated it may come down to having an advocate on the Commission who will remember to encourage the planting of orange trees. Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 11 Mr. Bob Clark. President of the Redlands Conservancy, suggested the booklet be given to all development applicants when they first approach the City. Mr. Clark stated his property has 125 orange trees on it and he makes approximately $1,500 annually. Mr. Clark stated initially his landscaping (which included grass, pansies and trees)was going to cost him $17k; he planted his 125 orange trees with an irrigation system for$5k. Mr. Clark stated as the larger groves shrink, the local market becomes more economically viable. Mr. Clark stated if there is not an ordinance in place to force developers to plant citrus, they will continue to find the least expensive option for landscaping. Commissioner Laymon stated Redlands has the reputation of having the best navel oranges in the country. Commissioner Laymon stated she would be happy to serve on the Commission as an advocate of citrus. Commissioner Laymon stated if there is no citrus ordinance, there will be no citrus in Redlands. Chairman Webber asked if it was possible for the Commission to take an action, in the form of a resolution, that orange trees be considered as accent trees, if at all possible. Mr. Shaw stated the Commission could take an action at the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Shaw stated a copy of the resolution could be introduced at Preliminary Review. Mr. Shaw stated the booklet prepared by the Redlands Conservancy is very helpful. Commissioner Macdonald stated he wanted to hear from the two Commissioners who have not had an opportunity to voice their opinions. Commissioner Cook stated she likes the use of citrus,and feels if should be encouraged at the time that plans are brought in. Commissioner Miller stated he feels citrus is part of the identity of Redlands. Commissioner Miller stated developers do what is comfortable, and he does not feel anything will change unless there is a citrus ordinance. Commissioner Miller stated he does not feel it makes sense to plant citrus in front of a retail center, where visibility is the lifeblood of retail. Commissioner Miller stated another example would be an industrial use, where generally the buildings are big, unornamented boxes. The Commissioners indicated their support of citrus. Mr. Shaw stated there are some alternatives; the first is to expand the goals, the second to establish a citrus buffer as a development standard within the commercial industrial and regional industrial district,which would require a thirty(30)foot citrus setback to be planted in a minimum of two (2) rows of citrus, and third, a suggestion that this type of treatment be on major arterials only, such as California Street or San Bernardino Avenue. Commissioner Macdonald stated he would support alternative 2 and he would like to see an ordinance written with an exclusion that would allow a developer to come before the Commission with valid reasons why they could not plant citrus. Mr. Shaw stated it was agreed that there would not be a mandate in commercial zones. Mr. Shaw stated an ordinance would impose a development standard that would have an impact on industrial projects that does not exist now. Chairman Webber stated he felt alternative 2 was too strict. Chairman Webber stated he would support two rows of citrus on major streets, but would not support two (2) rows on the building Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 12 frontage. Commissioner Macdonald suggested a "trade off'for developers who plant citrus trees. Mr. Shaw stated staff would return to the Commission in approximately 30 days with alternatives. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES B. October 12, 2004 The minutes of the November 9th Planning Commission meeting were tabled due to the lack of commissioners needed for approval. VII. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS A. City Council Report Mr. Shaw gave a brief synopsis of the City Council actions of October 19th VIII. ADJOURN TO NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to November 9, 2004, at 4:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patti Ortiz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of October 26, 2004 Page 13