Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, February 8, 2005, 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 Asher Hartel, Senior Planner Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner David Jump, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Webber called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.All commissioners were present except Commissioners Cook and Miller. Chairman Webber read a letter he received from Mr. Dwight and Linda Yeoman accompanied by a letter from Mr. Ken King, expressing concern that the grading plan for a home on Arroyo Crest is deficient. Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the grading plan is currently under review. Mr. Jaquess stated that he would report back to the Commission. Ms. Teresa Kwappenberg expressed concern relative to drainage for items IIIF and IIG. Ms. Kwappenberg stated that detention basins have not been successful and it is important that drainage provisions be placed on development. II. CONSENT ITEMS - NONE III. NEW BUSINESS A. SPECIFIC PLAN NO.25(AMENDMENT NO. 10)-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING on amendment to Section 3(A)(4)(d)(2) of Specific Plan 25 to allow an encroachment into the front yard setback a maximum of five feet for buildings whose frontage is not parallel to the street, and to amend Section 3(A)2,which defines the permitted uses of the Specific Plan to add Dance Studios as item W. in the Urban Services Commercial District of Specific Plan 25. Request submitted by DAN CARLONE. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Pagel B. VARIANCE NO.688-PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Variance from the required fifteen foot landscape setback to ten feet along the Interstate 10 Highway, and to allow a covered walkway to encroach ten feet into the required twenty-five foot front yard setback for a parcel located on Orange Tree Lane west of Nevada Street in the Urban Services Commercial District of Specific Plan 25. Request submitted by DAN CARLONE. C. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 795 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study,and a HEARING for a Commission Review and Approval to construct a 6,960 square foot dance studio located on Orange Tree Lane west of Nevada Street. Request submitted by DAN CARLONE. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald complimented Mr. Baeza on the concise presentation of his staff report. Director Jeff Shaw stated a formal traffic study was not completed for the proposed project. Mr. Shaw stated the traffic determination was based on projects in the area, and the fact that those projects tended to have one or more vehicle trips going through the intersection (Alabama Street and Redlands Boulevard). Mr. Shaw stated the project could be continued until a traffic study has been completed. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Glenn Follett, Project Manager, GMID,stated since this is the relocation of an existing business they had hoped some type of consideration would be given. Mr. Follett stated the use of the dance studio is typically after peak business hours. Mr. Shaw stated it may determined through a traffic analysis that there are no vehicle trips going through the intersection during peak hours. Mr. Follett requested that Condition of Approval 27 be revised to allow the landscape plan, and specifically the location of the shrubs, to be reviewed by staff after approval by the Planning Commission. Chairman Webber stated that the landscape plan will have to return to the Commission for review and final approval because the location of the shrubs was omitted on the landscape plan. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber noted that Commissioner Miller had a conflict of interest with the proposed project, and therefore recused himself. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Laymon,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a reduced LOS at the intersection of Alabama Street/Redlands Boulevard during the peak hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b and 5.20c. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Shaw stated the applicant will be asked to conduct a traffic analysis if it is determined that there are no vehicle trips through the intersection and a finding will not have to be made by the City Council. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Laymon,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Amendment No. 10 to Specific Plan No. 25, Commission Review and Approval No. 795 and Variance 688, 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 Laymon,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Socio- Economic Cost Benefit Study for Amendment No. 10 to Specific Plan No. 25, Commission Review and Approval No. 795 and Variance No. 688. 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 Laymon,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution . No. 1055 and recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 10 to Specific Plan No. 25. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Laymon,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Variance No. 688 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. The project site has an irregular shape. 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, but which is denied to the property in question. There are other property owners in the same vicinity and zone that have been allowed to install and maintain landscape setback area similar to the request of the applicant. 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 Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 3 setback would be consistent with existing neighboring development. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Laymon,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on Commission Review and Approval No. 795, 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 Orange Tree Lane 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. 795 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. Commissioner Miller arrived at 2:24 p.m. D. VARIANCE NO.697-PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Section 18.40.120 regarding the front yard setback to reduce the required 25-foot front yard setback to 16 feet along the northern property boundary adjacent to Hastings Street for property located at 502 San Jacinto Street in the R-S, Suburban Residential District. Request submitted by MARY ELLEN KIRKLEY. Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing.Seeing no comments forthcoming,Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 697 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval: 3. 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 because the original setback forthe Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 4 referenced property is located at the requested 16-foot distance and the desired improvements could not be constructed at other locations on-site. 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to the property in question as identified in the staff report. 5. 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 as there is sufficient distance to ensure aesthetic and safety issues are minimized. 6. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. E. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 799 - PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study,and a HEARING for a Commission Review and Approval to construct a second floor of approximately 2,000 square feet within an existing building for office use at 24 East Vine Street in the C-3 (General Commercial) District. Request submitted by CALVIN MCLEAN. Project Planner Asher Hartel gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Hartel stated the second floor that is proposed for offices indicates an exterior stair access and an interior stairway that would go up to a third floor. Mr. Hartel stated staff is concerned because there is no third floor shown on the plans. Mr. Hartel stated that Condition of Approval 5 was included that requires the interior stairway be deleted or a third floor would have to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to obtaining a Building Permit. Mr. Hartel stated that Building and Safety Condition of Approval 2 requires two (2) exits from the second floor. Mr. Hartel stated if a change is made to the exterior of the building to satisfy this condition,the project will have to return to the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission. Mr. Hartel stated there a number of unfinished items that will need to be completed such as unfinished stucco, holes in the walls, concealment of bolts and metal plates, and finishing and painting of a wood beam (Condition of Approval 13). Mr. Hartel stated a second story window was added to the building. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. McLean where he proposes to locate the second exit on the second floor. Mr. McLean stated only one exit is required if there is less than 1,000 square feet. Chairman Webber stated the Fire Department requires two accesses, in case the first exit should be blocked. Mr. McLean stated he was told by Chief Building Official. Richard Pepper that a second access is required only if the occupancy is more than ten (10) people. Commissioner Osborne noted that the requirement for the access is based on the square footage Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 5 not occupancy. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. McLean if he would consider adding a skylight on the second floor to allow for natural light. Mr. McLean stated he is planning to build an apartment on the third floor to live there in the near future, therefore the skylight would work. Commissioner concurred with Richard Pepper stating whenever there are ten or more occupants you must have two (2) accesses; less than 10 occupants require one (1) access, however the number of occupants is established by the square footage divided by 100. Commissioner Osborne noted that the square footage on the building could accommodate more than 10 occupants,therefore a second access is required. Mr. Shaw noted that Building and Safety Condition of Approval 2 requires two accesses. Mr. Jaquess that a third story will have to come back to the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Miller stated if a second staircase is required, he would be support a staircase inside the building envelope. Mr. Shaw stated that exterior modifications would be reviewed by the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission. Chairman Webber asked for comments on the second-story window. Mr. McLean stated the Mona (Mrs. McLean)found a picture from 1950 that showed a window in that location. Mr. McLean stated later the window was replaced by an air conditioner. Mr. McLean stated he was asked to remove the air conditioner by the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission. Mr. McLean stated he installed the window because of the 1950 picture that depicted a window at that location. Mr. Shaw noted that the Historic and Scenic Preservation has not reviewed the window. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 799 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 Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 799 subject to the following findings: 1. The size and shape of the site is adequate for the proposed office uses at second floor level and at the rear of the ground Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 6 floor. 2. The site properly relates to East Vine Street,which has been designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed office uses. 3. The conditions proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 799 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. F. ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 308 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration, and a PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance Text Amendment to reintroduce and modify Chapter 18.138 of the Redlands Municipal Code pertaining to the establishment of a Hillside Development Overlay District and hillside grading standards. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. Project Planner Bob Dalquest stated the Ordinance Text Amendment would re-adopt and modifythe City's existing regulations that pertain to development within the hillside area. Mr. Shaw stated the amendment requires a more detailed slope analysis requirement when plans are submitted. Commissioner Miller suggested that minimum spacing of cross sections be given. Chairman Webber stated that item J states "other information or application materials as may be deemed necessary by the Community Development Director." Mr. Shaw stated a three dimensional model of the project (item G), was added as a requirement. Relative to the three dimensional mode, Commissioner Miller suggested the wording"that can be viewed from multiple viewing points" be added to 18.183.070(G). Chairman Webber suggested the wording on 18.138.070 (D) be changed to read: A building site slope analysis and a slope plan which also depicts pad areas called out in square feet and elevations and cut and fill areas, similarly certified. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms. Sherli Leonard, Redlands Conservancy, expressed concern that the Trails Map included in the General Plan is sketchy and she asked if there is a more accurate depiction of the trails. Mr. Shaw stated the official trails map is what is included in the General Plan. Mr. Shaw stated the work that has been done has helped staff to define where the existing trails are in relation to individual parcels. Mr. Shaw stated there is an amendment pending that could add additional trails. Ms. Leonard asked if the grading ordinance will ensure protection against landslides. Chairman Webber stated you would be surprised at what heavy amounts of rain can do to engineered slopes. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Jim Ferguson,420 Edgemont,asked for clarification on slopes and a negative declaration. Mr. Ferguson stated there is nothing in the ordinance that takes the existing homeowners viewpoint into consideration. Discussion was held on the 15% threshold for slopes. Mr. Ferguson stated he would want the language to not allow too many exceptions. Commissioner Thompson noted that calculating slopes is objective, not subjective. Mr. Shaw stated there are a number of development standards that are evaluated by the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Shaw stated, because of the variation in hillside areas in particular, you cannot develop a set of regulations that can take care of all aspects. Mr. Ferguson stated he saw nothing in the ordinance that takes the existing homeowner's views into consideration. Mr. Dalquest stated that the design of the subdivision does take into consideration the impact on the existing views of the homeowner. Mr. Dalquest stated it is a part of the environmental review. Mr. Shaw noted that the environmental evaluation normally deals with public views, not private views. Commissioner Osborne stated that staff encourages developers to consider the views of the surrounding developed area, and developers will make adjustments not to impact neighboring developments. Ms. Teresa Kwappenberg, 31265 Freya Drive, asked if the individual cross slope categories will be looked at. Mr. Shaw responded by saying item 18.138.70C goes into detail of slope analysis of all the slopes. Mr. Dalquest stated that 18.138.70D relates to Slope Density Analysis. Ms. Kwappenberg asked the Commission to drive down Live Oak Canyon to look at the erosion of the Van Weren site. Ms. Kwappenberg stated the hydrology studies that are used are incorrect. Ms. Kwappenberg stated she appreciates the fuel modification maps. Mr. Bill Cunningham, stated that slope analysis should be done by registered engineers from a list compiled by the City with a standard technique of calculating. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber asked if there was a consensus to rely on the Development Director to require more cross sections after the initial review. Mr. Dalquest stated if more information is needed it can be requested. Chairman Webber asked if there is a consensus on the additional language as requested by Commissioner Miller for 18.136.070 G to read: A three-dimensional model of the project in electronic formal for presentation to the Planning Commission that can be viewed from multiple viewing points. Mr. Dalquest indicated the change would be made. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 8 Chairman Webber suggested the wording on 18.138.070E be changed to read: A building site slope analysis and a slope plan which also depicts pad areas called out in square footage and elevations and cut and fill areas, similarly certified. Commissioner Miller asked if the wording would be changed on 18.138.070 to reflect a uniform method of slope analysis. Mr. Shaw stated a licensed, qualified, registered engineer or land surveyor is required. Mr. Shaw stated there is currently a list of environmental consultants,and a list of registered engineers could be prepared. Assistant City Attorney Murad suggested the wording, "approved by the City" be included. Chairman Webber stated 18.138.070C would be changed to read; The average cross slope of the project site shall be certified by a registered civil engineer, or land surveyor from a City approved list. Assistant City Attorney Murad stated there are issues that may need to be worked out. Mr. Shaw stated there is a City list G. ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 309 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration, and a PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance Text Amendment to add Chapter 18.23, RL (Rural Living) District to the Redlands Municipal Code. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. IV. ADDENDA A. APPLICATION FOR A PERSON TO PERSON TRANSFER ON AN OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 619-21 WEST STATE STREET. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the person to person transfer of the Off-Sale General License for State Street Liquor, no conditions are recommended to be added as there are no problems associated with this facility. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NONE VI. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Osborne stated that Mr. Eric Ferguson extended the offer of a helicopter ride to show how close constructions is to the helicopter flight pattern. Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Shaw stated that staff is working with the Municipal Utilities Department on a policy to address the concerns expressed by A. City Council Report B. Status of Major Projects VII. ADJOURN TO FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to February 22nd at 4:47 p.m. Patti Ortiz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of February 8, 2005 Page 10