Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-04_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, November 9, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: Ruth Cook, 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 Commissioner Cook. 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. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2004-3-D-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING on a General Plan Amendment to: a) change the land use designation from Agriculture to Very-Low-Density Residential on 41.22 gross acres located on the west side of Wabash Avenue (Assessors Parcel Number 168-132- 05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. B. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 106 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 41.22 gross acres located on the west side of Wabash Avenue (Assessors Parcel Number 168- 132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted byARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner:Alicia Heideman) Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Pagel C. ZONE CHANGE NO.406-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Zone Change from A-1,Agricultural District to R-E, Residential Estate District on one parcel totaling 41.22 gross acres located on the west side of Wabash Avenue (Assessors Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1,Agricultural District. Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 834 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development(PRD) on 41.22 gross acres into 93 residential lots and six(6)common lots located on the west side of Wabash Avenue(Assessor Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1, Agricultural District (Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) E. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16878 - 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 approximately 41.22 gross acres into 93 residential lots and six (6) common lots located on the west side of Wabash Avenue(Assessor Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1,Agricultural District (Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Project Planner Alicia Heideman stated the applicant requested the proposed project be continued to November 23rd to allow sufficient time for a redesign of the project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote to continued General Plan Amendment, Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 106, Zone Change No. 406, Conditional Use Permit No. 834, and Tentative Tract No. 16878 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 2004. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 792 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to construct a 259,572 square foot warehouse/distribution center located north of Palmetto Avenue and west of Marigold Avenue in Concept Plan 2 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by PROLOGIS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 2 Project Planner Alicia Heideman stated the applicant submitted conceptual landscape plans as part of the project submittal. Ms. Heideman stated the applicant would like to submit final landscape plans, and is therefore requesting a continuance of the proposed project 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 Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 6-0 vote to continue Commissioner Review and Approval No. 792 to November 23, 2004. B. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 793 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to construct a 485,600 square foot warehouse/distribution center located north of Palmetto Avenue and west of Marigold Avenue in Concept Plan 2 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by PROLOGIS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Project Planner Alicia Heideman stated the applicant requested the proposed project be continued to allow sufficient time to submit final landscape plans. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing.Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote to continue Commission Review and Approval No. 793 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 2004. C. VARIANCE NO.691 -PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Sections 18.196.160 of the Municipal Code to allow an increase in the requirement for maximum lot coverage from 50 percent to 55 percent lot coverage, in the C-4, Commercial Highway District, specifically located at 640 Texas Street. Request submitted by TOM SIMPSON. (Project Planner:Alicia Heideman) D. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 276- PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission Consideration of a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and 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) Project Planner Alicia Heideman gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Ms. Heideman stated the proposed project meets all development requirements except lot coverage and parking. Ms. Heideman stated the applicant will provide the required parking, and submitted the application for a variance to allow an increase of lot coverage from 50 percent to 55 percent. Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Miller asked Ms. Heideman if there are other properties in the area that exceed lot coverage. Ms. Heideman stated she was unable to located other properties that exceed lot coverage because the buildings are old. Commissioner Miller asked Ms. Heideman if she was aware of any long term plans by Cal Trans relative to Interstate 10 and 215 that might encroach on the applicant's property. Ms. Heideman stated she was not. Commissioner Miller noted that the project will have tandem parking and he asked Ms. Heideman if tandem parking is allowed. Ms. Heideman stated generally tandem parking is not allowed, however since it is an auto body business, the applicant would have keys to all the vehicles so that they could be moved if needed. Ms. Heideman stated the building houses two businesses, Redlands Auto Body and Covington Engineering Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Simpson, owner of Redlands Auto Body, stated the property use will remain the same. Mr. Simpson stated they are proposing to subdivide the property so that he can purchase, Redlands Auto Body and Mr. Drew can purchase Covington Engineering. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Simpson when the chain link fence that surrounds the property was installed. Mr. Simpson stated the chain link fence was installed before he moved into the building in April 1987. Mr. Dan Drew, Covington Engineering, stated the fence was built in the 1970's. Chairman Webber stated they generally do not approve chain link fences on street frontages and he questioned why it would be necessary to have the fence. Mr. Drew stated neither him nor Mr. Simpson is opposed to removing the chain link fence, however there is a concern about graffiti. Mr. Drew stated there was a problem with the wall being graffitied seven years prior and the current landlord does not want the chain link fence removed. Mr. Drew stated if he and Mr. Simpson become the property owners,they are willing to landscape the property with grass and trees. Chairman Webber requested a Final Landscape Plan be made part of the project approval. Chairman Webber suggested the frontage along Colton Avenue and Texas Street be landscaped with trees and vines. Mr. Simpson asked Chairman Webber for a recommendation on the types of trees to be planted. Chairman Webber suggested fast-growing trees such as sycamores. Mr.Shaw stated that planting of trees in the parkway would have to be coordinated with the Public Works Department. Mr. Shaw stated the Commission evaluates the trees and other landscaping to be planted in the area behind the sidewalk, up to the wall. Mr. Shaw suggested a Condition of Approval be added to the Minor Subdivision that would require the Final Landscape Plans to be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to the Final Map. Mr. Simpson indicated he would like to replace the chain link fence with brick pilasters and wrought Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 4 iron at some future date. Chairman Webber stated the Commission approves of wrought iron fences and Commissioner Osborne suggested Mr. Simpson speak with Ms. Heideman. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the parking. Ms. Heideman stated the auto body business has a high parking ratio and if the building were to be occupied by a future tenant,the high number of parking spaces would probably not be needed. Chairman Webber thanked Mr. Simpson and Mr. Drew for their cooperation. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Minor Subdivision No. 276 as it has been determined that this 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 Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 691 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions to this property because the land use and structures on it are existing, 2. That the Variance from maximum lot coverage of the C-4, Highway Commercial District is necessary for the enjoyment of the substantial property right to own the property of your existing business which other business owners in the C-4, Highway Commercial District have been granted; 3. The applicant's request to exceed lot coverage will not have a negative impact on the City, neighborhood, or any specific property owner. 4. The granting of the requested variance will not have any conflict with the City's General Plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Minor Subdivision No. 276 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 1. The design or improvement of Minor Subdivision No. 276 is consistent with Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 5 the applicable General Plan. 2. The site is located at 640 Texas Street and is physically suitable for the type of development. 3. The site is physically suitable for the development of a two-lot subdivision. 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public or at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; and 7. Pursuant to California Government code Section 66474.6, the discharge of waste from this subdivision will no result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Santa Ana Regional Water quality Control Board pursuant to Division of the California Water Code, with the addition of Condition of Approval 13 to read: Final landscape plan to include landscaping along Colton Avenue, Lawton Avenue, and Texas Street shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval priorto approval of the final map. Landscaping shall be installed or bonded prior to final map approval. and the addition of Condition of Approval 14: The chain link fence along Colton Avenue and Texas Street except the area to protect the rear parking area shall be removed prior to final map. E. ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 306 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration, and a PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance Text Amendment to modify Article III of Section 18.156 regarding Bed-and-Breakfast Inns. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. (Project Planner: Bob Dalquest) Project Planner Bob Dalquest stated minor modifications were made to the ordinance to correct provisions that were either antiquated or did not comply with state law. Mr. Dalquest stated the City Attorney reviewed the amendment and identified six (6) issues for staff's consideration and Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 6 five (5) of the six (6) issues were incorporated into the amendment. Mr. Dalquest reviewed the modifications that were made: (6) A small coffee/tea house,gift shop and/or restaurant is permitted in non residential zones as long as the serving and/or sales area does not occupy more than 10%of the gross floor area of the dwelling (7) Allows the owner of the B &B to set the check-in hours for guests (8) The B & B can be operated by a full-time manager who resides on the property in a residential zone (9) No limitation on meals served to the overnight guests instead of a breakfast only (10) Establishes a maximum 30 days length of stay for guests of a B&B in a nonresidential zone (11) The owner of the B&B shall keep and preserve for aperiod of three(3)years,all records of rents and guests and allow the City to inspect the records (12) B &B's in a nonresidential zone may have a sign that is a maximum of twenty(20) square feet instead of a maximum of four(4) square feet (13) Several minor administrative clean up items are incorporated that would comply with the State Planning and Zoning laws relative to a Conditional Use Permit running with the land and not the property owner,identifying the section of the code that pertains to the revocation process of a Conditional Use Permit,and specifying the length of time where discontinuance of a B & B will cause the Conditional Use Permit to be null and void Commissioner Laymon expressed concern about having a 4X 5 foot internally lit sign. Mr.Dalquest stated the sign will be externally lit. Commissioner Miller expressed concern on the proposal to allow a full-time manager to operate a B &B in a residential zone,stating he did not want to open the door for a 200%business operation in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Dalquest stated all requests for a Conditional Use Permit of a B&B in a residential neighborhood would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and staff felt that appropriate Conditions of Approval would be required for all projects. Commissioner Miller stated if three meals are served per day,the amount of refuse would be tripled. He continued by stating he felt there should be language to dictate how refuse will be managed. Commissioner Miller stated there should be a maximum square footage identified rather than 10%of the gross floor area. Commissioner Miller asked if alcohol would be served on the premises with Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 7 meals. Mr. Dalquest stated serving alcohol would be permitted in a non-residential zone and if the B & B is located within 300 feet of a residential zone, the serving of alcohol would be permitted only with a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms. Deborah Harmon, owner of Queen's Court Bed and Breakfast, stated her goal was to preserve the historic building and allow the public to use it. Ms. Harmon stated the license needed for a coffee/tea house is different from the license needed for a restaurant. Ms. Harmon stated she would like to provide more income to help pay for an employee who will be there during the day. Ms. Harmon stated her daughter and son-in-law reside on the site. Mr. Dalquest clarified that a coffee/tea house would be allowed in nonresidential zones,such as the Administrative Professional district, where the Queen's Court Bed and Breakfast is located. Mr.Dalquest noted that a commercial kitchen is required to have a restaurant that provides meals so it might not be cost effective for a bed and breakfast to have a restaurant.Ms.Harmon stated she was given specific guidelines as to what she would be allowed to do relative to operating a bed and breakfast. Ms. Suzanne Low, 1501 Crown Street, stated that she would like to see the B &B gift shops taken out of residential areas. Mr. Dalquest responded by saying ancillary uses such as coffee/tea houses or gift shops, would only be allowed in nonresidential zones. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller requested that the issues be identified as to whether they are allowed in residential or non residential zones, or both: (1) A small coffee/tea house,gift shop and/or restaurant is permitted in non residential zones as long as the serving and/or sales area does not occupy more than 10%of the gross floor area of the dwelling NON RESIDENTIAL ZONES ONLY (1) Allows the owner of the B &B to set the check-in hours for guests RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL ZONES (2) The B & B can be operated by a full-time manager who resides on the property in a Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 8 residential zone RESIDENTIAL ZONES (ALREADY APPLIES TO NON-RESIDENTIAL) (3) No limitation on meals served to the overnight guests instead of a breakfast only NON RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES (4) Establishes a maximum 30 days length of stay for guests of a B&B in a nonresidential zone NON RESIDENTIAL ZONES (5) The owner of the B&B shall keep and preserve for a period of three(3)years,all records of rents and guests and allow the City to inspect the records NON RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONES (6) B & Bs in a nonresidential zone may have a sign that is a maximum of twenty(20) square feet instead of a maximum of four(4) square feet NON RESIDENTIAL ZONES (7) Several minor administrative clean up items are incorporated that would comply with the State Planning and Zoning laws relative to a Conditional Use Permit running with the land and not the property owner,identifying the section of the code that pertains to the revocation process of a Conditional Use Permit,and specifying the length of time where discontinuance of a B & B will cause the Conditional Use Permit to be null and void. Commissioner Laymon stated having a non resident in a residential zone could pose a dilemma. Commissioner Laymon stated she concurred with Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Macdonald noted that type of use would require a Conditional Use Permit,which would have to be reviewed by the Commission and Conditions of Approval could be imposed. Commissioner Osborne stated he failed to see the difference between a paid manager and an owner manager and how the operation would be managed differently. Commissioner Miller stated generally speaking a rental property is not as well maintained as a property where the owner resides. Commissioner Osborne stated a manager would attempt to make a profit for the owner by maintaining the facility in spotless condition. Commissioner Miller stated someone who does not have a vested interest in the property would not have the same motivation as a person who does have an interest in the property. Chairman Webber stated parking and noise are major issues with this type of project. Commissioner Miller stated he did not believe an application for a Conditional Use Permit in a residential zone could be conditioned to require the property owner as the onsite manager. Mr. Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 9 Dalquest concurred with Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller suggested (c) be revised to a nonresidential zone only. Commissioner Macdonald stated Ms. Harmon's onsite manager is her daughter, who is not the property owner. Mr. Dalquest stated for those who concur with Commissioner Miller's recommendation, the text would be left as it currently stands. Chairman Webber stated he felt the stricken text, as currently written, may be unconstitutional. Mr. Dalquest reminded the Commission that Conditional Use Permits are subject to revocation if the property does not comply with Conditions of Approval or if they are intrusive to the neighborhood. Commissioner Miller stated he did feel it was unconstitutional to try to keep a business out of a residential neighborhood, and he believes it may open the door to introducing businesses into neighborhoods. Commissioner Miller stated it is difficult to revoke a Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Webber asked for discussion on the requirement that the sales area not occupy more than 10% of the gross floor area of the dwelling. Mr. Dalquest stated the requirement would not apply in a residential zone. Commissioner Laymon stated she was uncomfortable with (c) but did not want to hold up Ms. Harmon's application. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 5-1 vote(Commissioner Miller voting no) that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Negative Declaration for Ordinance Text Amendment No. 306 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 Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Miller voting no) that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commissioner Resolution No. 1049, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance Text Amendment No. 306. Mr. Shaw noted the next item is a Public Hearing and he asked that it be identified as such during its reading. F. VARIANCE NO. 687 - Planning Commission Consideration of a PUBLIC HEARING for 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 Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 10 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 centerto 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. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) G. 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) H. 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) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project,stating the project requires a 6/7 vote of approval. Mr. Baeza stated staff is requesting that revisions be made to the building elevations: 1. Give the west elevation the same treatment as the east elevation 2. Have the arch that is located at the south end of the building project out to cover a proposed sidewalk Mr. Baeza stated at the time of printing of the staff report, the Public Works Department had not revised their Conditions of Approval for a meandering sidewalk on Lugonia Avenue. Mr. Baeza stated the Conditions of Approval have been provided for the meeting. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, Urban Environs, stated he agreed with the staff report with the exception of Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 11 Condition of Approval 44 which provides for thirty (30) foot setbacks on Alabama Street and Lugonia Avenue for buildings found on Pads A, B, and C. Mr. Meyer stated staff requested the applicant dedicate additional land beyond what is required in Specific Plan 33, in anticipation of future widening of Alabama Street. Mr. Meyer noted the site is located outside of the East Valley Corridor Plan. Mr. Meyer stated the applicant lost approximately ten(10) feet along the Alabama Street frontage,which was not anticipated. Mr.Meyer stated their project provides more landscaping in front of the buildings on Alabama Street than the buildings that are located in Citrus Plaza. Mr. Meyer asked the Commission to consider leaving the buildings as proposed and he requested that Condition of Approval 44 be deleted. Mr. Meyer stated he did not concur with Condition of Approval 34. Mr. Meyer stated he worked with staff and Commissioners Laymon and Miller relative to the architecture on Majors 1 and 2 and substantial changes were made to the architectural treatments and the landscaping. Mr. Meyer stated he did not think the west side of Major 1 should be a repetition of the east side of Major 2. Mr. Shaw noted Condition of Approval 34 requires the proposed arch to project out approximately five (5)feet versus one (1)foot and the elevation for the west side of Major 1 be revised so that it is consistent with the east side of Major 2. Chairman Webber stated he supports the revisions proposed by staff. Chairman Webber stated he wants the extra five (5) foot setback on Alabama Street so that everything in the Alabama corridor is consistent. Mr. Meyer stated he felt his project is superior to what has been built at Citrus Plaza. Mr. Meyer stated they have the room to add the five (5)feet, however he feels it dramatically impacts the pedestrian friendly arcade that has been created on the west side of the building. Chairman Webber stated the space could be taken from the parking area. Mr. Meyer disagreed with Chairman Webber. Mr. Baeza stated a compact parking space could be eliminated to provide the five (5)feet because the project has 15 excess parking spaces. Mr. Meyer stated he would agree to the additional five (5)feet if he can be shown how it will be acquired. Mr. Shaw stated it appeared the applicant would lose seven (7) parking spaces to provide the additional five (5)feet. Mr. Meyer stated his architect calculated the parking area to have one (1) excess parking space. Mr. Baeza noted that staff's calculation was based on retail use, however Mr. Meyer stated restaurants will be part of the project, which requires a higher parking requirement. Mr. Meyer stated if the Commission requires him to push back Building C, it will come out of the hard scape. Mr. Jeff Rothpart, a partner in the project, stated the site is not located in the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (EVCSP)and they have given up ten (10)feet of the site to widen Alabama Street. Mr. Rothpart stated everyone wants a plaza area with outdoor seating, and yet he is being asked to eliminate the outdoor seating area to provide five (5) additional feet of landscaping. Mr. Rothpart stated he wanted it on record that they are trying to make the project better, and it is going to constantly be a problem. Chairman Webber stated it makes sense to make the corridor consistent. Chairman Webber stated Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 12 he is not requiring the applicant to meet all EVCSP requirements because other projects have been approved that are not consistent with the EVCSP. Mr. Meyer stated he wanted it noted for the record that he will not lose parking and the additional five (5)feet will be taken from the arcade area. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne stated he concurs with Mr. Meyer on Condition of Approval 44; the requirements for EVCSP do not apply to the site because it is located in Specific Plan 33, and he does not think it is fair to ask the applicant to comply with its requirements. Chairman Webber stated the development of Alabama Street is driven by the requirements of the EVCSP, and he feels it is reasonable to request that the project tie in with the EVCSP landscaping requirements. Commissioner Thompson concurred with Commissioner Osborne and stated if the additional five(5) feet was necessary for the travel way to be widened, he would not have a problem with the request. Commissioner Thompson stated he felt it was unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game. Commissioner Thompson stated he felt the landscaping plan is very nice. Commissioner Miller stated there is a nice interplay between the two buildings at the corner,where one building is set back further from Alabama Street than the other. Commissioner Miller stated he agrees with the fact that the proposed project complies with Specific Plan No. 33 and not the EVCSP. Commissioner Macdonald concurred with Commissioners Osborne,Thompson,and Miller,that the additional five (5) feet will not accomplish very much and the applicant does comply with the requirements of Specific Plan No. 33. Commissioner Laymon stated when speaking with the developer,they discussed Specific Plan No. 33, not EVCSP. Commissioner Laymon stated if there is confusion on this matter,she would tend to support the applicant. Chairman Webber stated he will go with the decision of the majority. Mr. Jaquess noted Commissioner Miller brought up a good point relative to setback of the corner building, stating the average setback for the project is more than thirty(30) feet. Chairman Webber requested discussion on Condition of Approval 34. Commissioner Miller stated he has no opinion on increasing the depth of the colonnade on the south side. Commissioner Miller stated the west side has a minimal amount of landscaping and he suggested introducing the middle element of the building onto the west side. Commissioners Osborne, Macdonald,Thompson,and Webber concurred. Mr. Baeza recapped that there would be no additional projection of the arches on the south side of Major 2 and the west side of Major 1will not have tower elements. Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 13 Chairman Webber reopened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Del Carlo, applicant, suggested having an 18 inch pop out on the west side. Commissioner Miller stated he is reluctant to impose his ideas on the applicant; he would prefer to allow the applicant some leeway. Commissioner Miller stated if the Commission would like to see a double arch above the parapets, it is an improvement over what is currently proposed for the west elevation. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 786 and Minor Subdivision No.275 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 Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 786 and Minor Subdivision No.275. It is recommended that this 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 Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve a reduced LOS at the intersection of Alabama Street/Redlands Boulevard during the peak hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b and 5.20 c. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No.687 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same vicinity and zone.There are conflicting street width requirements between Specific Plan No. 33 and the General Plan that do create an exceptional condition for this property. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone district, Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 14 but which is denied to the property in question. There are other property owners in the same vicinity and zone along Plum Lane that have less than the required building setback and have less landscaping at the perimeter of the parking areas. 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. The reduced setback and landscaping would be consistent with existing neighboring development located along Plum Lane. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. The granting of the variance will help implement objectives of the General Plan for the width of Alabama Street. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 786, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 2. That the site properly relates to adjoining street which are designed and improved to carry 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. 786 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 with a revision to Condition of Approval 34 to read: Elevations for the west side of Major 1 shall be revised to incorporate additional architectural features to include two(2)arches as proposed for the west side of Major 2. The Community Development Director shall have final approval over all architectural details for the project including but not limited to tile accent features, decorative lighting fixtures, trellis finish work, and column trim, and the Deletion of Condition of Approval 44. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Minor Subdivision No.275 subject to conditions of Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 15 approval, and based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map as amended is consistent with the City's General Plan,Municipal Code and Specific Plan No. 33. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial and is consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and Specific Plan No. 33; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into seven (7) commercial parcels; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a seven (7) unit commercial subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial and zoning of Specific Plan No. 33 both allow for commercial subdivisions; 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;The initial study prepared for the project includes mitigation measures addressing the project's potential to create health problems; 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. I. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 283- PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission Consideration of a Minor Subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No. 16686)to subdivide approximately14.39 acres into five (5) lots for an industrial park located south of Almond Avenue and north of Lugonia Avenue and west of Research Drive in Concept Plan No. 1 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by WESTERN REALCO. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing.Seeing no comments forthcoming,Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Mr. Baeza stated at the time of the original approval of the industrial park,the landscaping met Code Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 16 requirements for the minimum width of planters, however with the addition of property lines, there are specific requirements that state you cannot count curbing in the width of a planter. Mr. Baeza stated the planter can be shifted to meet Code requirements. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote that Minor Subdivision No. 283 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 project 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 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 Miller, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Minor Subdivision No. 283 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 2. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code and Concept Plan No. 1 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan; 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into five (5) commercial parcels; 4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a five (5) parcel subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial/Commercial and zoning of Concept Plan No. 1 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan both allow for commercial subdivisions; 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; Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 17 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. 5. ADDENDA F. Alcoholic Beverage Control License Transfer for Redlands Mini Mart located at 402 E. Redlands Boulevard Assistant Director John Jaquess stated there were no comments from the Police Department and staff supports the request for the license transfer. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson,seconded by Commissioner Osborne,and carried on 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Off-Sale General Alcoholic Beverage Control License person to person and location to location transfer for Redlands Mini Mart and no conditions are recommended as there are no problems associated with this site. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES B. October 12, 2004 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on 4-0 vote (Commissioners Laymon and Miller abstaining) that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 12, 2004. B. October 26, 2004 MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 18 It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on 4-0 vote(Commissioners Osborne and Thompson abstaining)that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of October 12, 2004. VII. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS A. City Council Report Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council actions of November 2nd B. Status of Major Projects Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the Status of Major Projects report. VIII. ADJOURN TO NOVEMBER 23, 2004 The meeting was adjourned to November 23, 2004, at 4:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patti Ortiz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of November 9, 2004 Page 19