Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: Commissioner Laymon (evening session only) ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Dan Mc Hugh, City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner David Jump, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Webber opened the public hearing at 2:00 p.m. All Commissioners were present except Commissioner Miller. Chairman Webber advised members of the audience that parking passes are available from the Planning Commission Secretary for those who are parked in the Civic Center parking lot. II. CONSENT ITEM(S)- NONE III. OLD BUSINESS A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Development Agreement to lock-in the existing use of the site and future expansion under the land use policies and regulations of General Plan Amendment No. 98, Zone Change No.401,and Street Vacation No. 127 on 27.94 acres located on both sides of New York Street, north of State Street,and east of Tennessee Street. Request submitted by ESRI. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were approved by the City Council on April 19t";and May 17th was set as the date for the public hearing on the Street Vacation. Chairman Webber asked for clarification on paragraph 1C of the Development Agreement (Exceptions to Applicable Regulations). City Attorney Dan McHugh read the paragraph,explaining each clause as he read. Commissioner Miller arrived at 2:06 p.m. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing ESRI, stated that staff's concerns have been addressed and he requested the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Pagel Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Development Agreement for ESRI. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 310 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration,and a PUBLIC HEARING on an Ordinance Text Amendment to Chapter 18.164.240 of the Redlands Municipal Code pertaining to off-street parking requirements for specific uses. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. (Project Planner: Bob Dalquest) Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave a brief summary on the proposed project. Mr. Dalquest stated the City researched the parking ordinances of 15 cities,as well as utilizing the American Planning Association's publication on parking standards,while formulating the Ordinance Text Amendment. Mr. Dalquest stated the City's East Valley Corridor Specific Plan is well organized and easy to find, with the uses arranged by category. Mr. Dalquest stated that staff wanted to incorporate a blended standard for shopping centers that would generate enough parking to accommodate the long term needs of the center. Mr. Dalquest noted that a 100k square foot threshold that was utilized by other cities was also incorporated by staff. Mr. Dalquest reviewed some of the changes that were made by staff. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Dalquest which criteria was used for the Krikorian Theater. Mr.Dalquest stated the Code requires one(1)space for five(5)fixed seats, however staff found that due to the fact that the Krikorian Theater is a multiplex and is located in the downtown area, one (1) space for six (6) seats was appropriate. Commissioner Thompson suggested one(1)space per four(4)seats because the theater is 70- 80% full, half the time. Mr. Dalquest stated that staff could research what is being done in other cities and come back to the Planning Commission with a report. Chairman Webber noted that the main theater parking lot is usually full, but he was unsure about the west parking lot. Commissioner Osborne stated he was there only one time where quite a few cars were parked on Oriental Street. Commissioner Laymon noted on Market Night or when there is a special event in town,the cars seem to park in the theater parking lot. Commissioner Miller stated he has always been able to find a parking place in the west parking lot,although the lot directly in front or immediately to the north of the theater is often congested and full. Commissioner Miller stated on a multi-screen theater complex, a drop off zone should be required. Commissioner Miller stated a major contributor to the congestion is people stopping in the drive aisle. Commissioner Macdonald stated he felt the Krikorian Theater represents an exception to the norm,based on the amount of business it does. Commissioner Macdonald stated he felt the standard is sufficient for the average theater. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Osborne asked for clarification on the parking standards for an automated car wash. Mr. Dalquest explained how this parking requirement was established. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Negative Declaration for Ordinance Text Amendment No.310 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 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1061, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance Text Amendment No. 310. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 805- Planning Commission consideration a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to install a sixty- five (65)foot high cellular tower for a wireless telecommunication facility within the Hillside Memorial Park Cemetery located at 1540 Alessandro Road in the R-E (Residential Estate) District. Request submitted by VERIZON WIRELESS. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated a lease agreement and a Mitigated Negative Declaration were approved by the City Council on April 5,2005. Mr. Baeza stated the project will be reviewed by the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission (Certificated of Appropriateness No. 245), if it is approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Baeza stated the motion for Conditional Use Permit No. 805 was expanded, upon advisement from the City Attorney. Mr.Jeff Shaw stated that a simulated branch was submitted to staff and he asked how long the mono-cypress branches would be. Mr. Steve Warner, Infranext, stated the tower is constructed of three primary elements; the steel tower, the foliage, and a steel wire cage. Mr. Warner stated that the foliage is layered on the steel cage, much like shingles. Mr. Warner stated that the antennas will not be visible. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller commented that he has not seen a stealth treatment that is as effective as the example given for this project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 70 vote that the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 805 subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 3 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City; The cellular facility is allowed in any zone with a Conditional Use Permit; 2. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; Conditions of Approval are included to insure the preservation of public health, safety and welfare; 3. The proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, and applicable zoning district and the City's development standards;The project does not effect the General Plan and the project meets development standards of the R-E, Residential Estate District. 4. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location.The cellular facility is to be located in the maintenance yard of the cemetery and the tower will have a stealth treatment resembling Italian Cypress trees found on site. C. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 284 - 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. 17010) to subdivide a 2.613 acre property into a single lot multiple unit condominium development located on the north side of Plum Lane west of Alabama Street and east of Idaho Street in the Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan No.33. Request submitted by PLUM LANE PARTNERS,LLC.(Project Planner:Manuel Baeza) D. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 798- 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 develop a twelve (12) building office condominium development with a combined building area of 36,539 square feet on a 2.6 acre property located on the north side of Plum Lane west of Alabama Street and east of Idaho Street in the Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan No. 33. Request submitted by PLUM LANE PARTNERS, LLC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief summary on the proposed project. Commissioner Miller stated he thought the parking ratio (one space per 225 feet of net rentable area)was based on gross building area. Mr. Baeza stated that Specific Plan No. 33 falls back on the City Code which uses net rentable area. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Baeza if the slate tile will be multi-colored. Mr. Baeza circulated a materials board for the Commission's review. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. David Clark, Plum Lane Partners, stated the slate is multi-colored. Commissioner Miller stated the net rentable area is 20% less than the gross square footage; he asked Mr. Clark how he arrived at his calculation. Mr. Clark stated the calculated figures include the sizes of the electrical rooms, bathrooms, and soffit hangs. Commissioner Miller stated there are no stairways or bathrooms and he felt the rentable gross ratio was high. Mr. Clark stated that most of the buildings would have two bathrooms. Commissioner Miller stated that he did not agree with Mr.Clark's comment that most buildings would have two Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 4 bathrooms. Commissioner Miller stated that plans do not show two bathrooms and the Code says if there are less than five (5)employees, you may only have one (1) restroom. Mr. Sohrab Charna, architect, stated in calculating the net, the exterior thickness of the wall was taken out, and a layout was done indicating the placement of the bathrooms that would be required per each building. Mr. Charna stated the electrical rooms were included in the calculation. Mr. Shaw stated staff has been having difficulty with the signage for industrial and office buildings in multiple complexes such as this. Mr.Shaw asked Mr.Charna if he would have a problem if staff adds a Conditions of Approval that requires a Uniform Sign Program for the center. Mr. Baeza noted that some of the Conditions of Approval for the proposed project were omitted from the staff report. Chairman Webber suggested a ten minute recess to allow staff to provide the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Webber recessed the meeting at 2:48 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 3:05 p.m. Mr.Shaw stated there was difficulty in providing the correct Conditions of Approval, therefore he suggested the next agenda item be heard at this time. Items Iv-C and IV-D were tabled. E. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 105 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration,and a PUBLIC HEARING for a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Commercial to Commercial/Industrial on approximately 9.5 acres located on the east side of Nevada Street, immediately south of the Atchison,Topeka, and Santa Fe railway and 122 feet north of Redlands Boulevard. Request submitted by MKJ-MCCALLA INVESTMENTS, LLC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) F. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 40 (AMENDMENT NO. 30) - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration,and a PUBLIC HEARING for an amendment to the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan changing the zoning on approximately 9.5 acres located on the east side of Nevada Street, immediately south of the Atchison,Topeka, and Santa Fe railway and 122 feet north of Redlands Boulevard from the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan to EV/IC, Industrial Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by MKJ-MCCALLA INVESTMENTS, LLC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) G. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 796 - 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 Consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to develop an eight (8) building business park development with a combined building area of 135,570 square feet on approximately 9.5 acres located on the east side of Nevada Street, immediately south of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railway and 122 feet north of Redlands Boulevard in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (proposed EV/IC, Industrial Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan). Request submitted by MKJ-MCCALLA INVESTMENTS, LLC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated that the applicant request the proposed project be continued to the May 10th Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 5 Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue General Plan Amendment No. 105,Specific Plan No.40(Amendment No. 30)and Commission Review and Approval No. 796 to the Planning Commission meeting May 10, 20005. H. VARIANCE NO. 699 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Variance from Section 18.44.130 of the Municipal Code to reduce the front yard setback from twenty-five (25) feet to seven (7) feet for parking, a Variance from Section 18.44.150 of the Municipal Code to reduce the rear yard setback for a building from twenty-five (25) feet to eight (8) feet and a Variance from Section 18.164.340 to waive the requirement for a loading space for a proposed religious institution to be located on the north side of Lugonia Avenue, approximately one hundred (100) feet east of Texas Street in the R-1, Single Family Residential District. Request submitted by LA HACIENDA ADORADORES CHURCH, PASTOR CHUCK EASON. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 847 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 3,650 square foot religious institution on a 0.56 acre property located on the north side of Lugonia Avenue,approximately one hundred(100) feet east of Texas Street in the R-1,Single Family Residential District. Request submitted by LA HACIENDA ADORADORES CHURCH, PASTOR CHUCK EASON. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Baeza reviewed the four findings that are required in order for the Planning Commission to approve the variance. Mr.Baeza stated that staff recommended denial for 3 of the 4 findings. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Pastor Chuck Eason, Hacienda Adoradores Church,stated the church will be a Spanish-speaking church for the community, particularly for the young people. Mr. Eason stated they do not share a property line with the adjacent neighbor, due to an alley. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. David Jorgenson, 1314 Texas Street,distributed a letter to the Commission. Mr.Jorgenson stated he felt the lot was too small and in the wrong area to support its intended use. Mr.Jorgenson stated there are many traffic problems along Lugonia Avenue and Texas Street with a great deal of fast, heavy traffic. Mr.Jorgenson stated the church cannot meet its onsite parking requirements,and if it intends to be a growing community church, it will have a negative impact on the community. Mr. Jorgenson stated he feels that Redlands needs more homes, and he felt it would be a better use of the property if homes were put on it. Mr.Jorgenson stated he strongly objects to the church relying on the use of the alley as a main entrance/exit to the site as it is used by three adjacent houses. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Jorgenson if he had any contact with the neighbor who lives adjacent to the Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 6 area where one would exit the alley. Mr. Jorgenson stated the neighbor, Mr. Schumacher, is seated in the audience and is opposed to the project. Mr. Kevin Schumacher, 1312 Texas Street, stated he is the resident who is most directly affected by the proposed project. Mr. Schumacher stated that access to his home is provided by the alley. Mr. Schumacher stated he is a Christian,and believes the impact of a Christian church on a neighborhood,for the most part is good. Mr.Schumacher stated he is opposed to the project as proposed. Mr.Schumacher stated that most of the alley is limited to a maximum width of 12 feet. Mr.Schumacher stated the proposed 25 space parking lot is accessed through the alley. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Baeza how the project can be redesigned so that it meets the requirements of the Code. Mr. Baeza stated the assembly area would have to be reduced and the site plan revised. Mr. Baeza stated he discussed the possibility of having two driveways on opposite ends of the site with the Public Works Department, but they did not concur with his suggestion. Commissioner Macdonald asked if it was a waste of the applicant's time and money to try to shoehorn the building and parking into a lot that is too small. Commissioner Cook concurred with Commissioner Macdonald stating it is tiny lot on a busy corner next to a park. Pastor Eason stated they were required to redo the alley because it is in a poor state of condition. Pastor Eason stated we are living in a time where there is a concept to abolish anything that has to do with God. Pastor Eason stated the first man who spoke let it be known in the community that he was going to do everything in his power to block the building of the church. Chairman Webber advised Pastor Eason to keep his comments to the issues at hand. Pastor Eason stated that it was not a waste of time as was suggested by Commissioner Macdonald. (Commissioner Macdonald interjected that he said it was a waste of the applicant's time). Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber stated it sounded like it was possible to reduce the size of the assembly area, thereby reducing the parking requirements. Commissioner Macdonald noted that there was the issue of the variance to reduce the rear yard setback from twenty-five (25) to eight(8)feet that has not yet been discussed. Commissioner Miller stated he felt it would be good to have the concerns of the Commission and staff on the table. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Baeza if the applicant was advised that he was short by ten(10)parking stalls. Mr. Baeza stated the applicant was advised. Commissioner Miller stated there is a substandard alleywith a significant amount of parking directed onto the alley. Commissioner Miller concurred with staff and stated he did not see justification for a variance. Commissioner Miler stated that staff had done a good job on the staff report.Commissioner Miller stated it is a huge impact on the residents to direct that amount of traffic onto a substandard alley. Commissioner Miller stated if a redesign is considered, he would suggest the church be placed on the east side of the propertywith the parking closer to the street as it would encumber the neighboring residents behind less. Commissioner Miller stated the parking is a matter of abiding by the law, and that is a very strong Christian value. Commissioner Miller stated one of the guidelines in parking design, is that you don't want to exit the property to get from one part of the parking lot to another. Commissioner Miller stated he worries about introducing this amount of traffic in the alley and the parking has to circulate; they cannot be two independent lots. Commissioner Osborne concurred with Commissioner Miller,and stated he hopes the applicant heard staff's comments relative to the four findings of the variance. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 7 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 847 and Variance No. 699 to May 24, 2005. Commissioner Webber stated that items IV-C and IV-D which were tabled earlier, would be heard at this time. C. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 284 - 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. 17010) to subdivide a 2.613 acre property into a single lot multiple unit condominium development located on the north side of Plum Lane west of Alabama Street and east of Idaho Street in the Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan No.33. Request submitted by PLUM LANE PARTNERS,LLC.(Project Planner:Manuel Baeza) D. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 798- 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 develop a twelve (12) building office condominium development with a combined building area of 36,539 square feet on a 2.6 acre property located on the north side of Plum Lane west of Alabama Street and east of Idaho Street in the Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan No. 33. Request submitted by PLUM LANE PARTNERS, LLC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Chairman Webber stated the earlier discussion involved questions by Commissioner Miller relative to the proposed parking for the project. Commissioner Miller stated he felt the 20% ratio between rentable and gross square footage is a lot, and he feels the proposed project is under parked. Commissioner Miller suggested that as projects come forward with their tenant improvements,they should be evaluated based on the 20%ratio and if it proves that there is not 20% of common area, the use be changed to light industrial. Chairman Webber questioned if staff has the discretion to evaluate renters coming in and whether they will have a high personnel use. Mr. Shaw stated it would be very difficult. Commissioner Miller suggested it's a matter of doing the math once the floor plan is provided; if it's less than 155 square feet, then it violates the conditions under which it was approved. Mr. Shaw questioned how the matter would then be resolved by staff. Commissioner Miller stated the common area would have to be consistent with what is being approved today or it would have to be changed to a non-office use. Mr. Shaw stated he understood what Commissioner Miller is trying to accomplish, however from an administrative standpoint he is concerned that they would having difficulty ensuring that each subsequent owner and tenant would comply with that criteria. Commissioner Miller calculated the numbers using two restrooms (single accommodation handicap restrooms),a hallway running all the way to the back,and sharing an electrical room with two buildings,and he came up with 16%. Commissioner Osborne questioned how the size of the restrooms is determined. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Clark stated the calculations were based on the California Plumbing Code,and he gave examples of the requirements based on the building square footage. Mr.Clark stated that Commissioner Miller's math is right; the disparity between the net and gross is 16.7%. Commissioner Miller stated he believes the requirement is one water closet per 50 people. Mr. Clark stated he believes the requirement is more stringent than that. Mr.Sohrab stated, under the California Planning Plumbing Code,between 1-15 persons require one(1)water closet. Mr. Sohrab stated their calculations were based on the building be 100% office, less the soffits, the restrooms, the thickness of the walls and the electrical rooms. Mr. Sohrab stated this information was provided to the City as part of their working drawings. Discussion was held on Buildings 4 and 5. Commissioner Miller stated he was uncomfortable with the calculations given by Mr. Sohrab. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Miller voting no) that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 798 and Minor Subdivision No. 284 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 Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Miller voting no) that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No.798 and Minor Subdivision No.284. 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 Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 7-0 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 5.20c. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Miller voting no) the Planning Commission approve Minor Subdivision No. 284 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 10. The proposed map 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; 11. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 9 large enough to subdivide into a twelve (12) unit office condominium development; 12. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a twelve(12) unit office park. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial and zoning of Specific Plan No. 33 both allow for commercial subdivisions; 13. 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; 14. 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 projects potential to create health problems; 15. 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; buildings will not be located over existing easements. 16. 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. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Miller voting no) the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 798, 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. The project meets all development standards of Specific Plan No. 33 2. That the site properly relates to Plum Lane which is 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.798 are necessary to protect the public health,safety and general welfare. The Mitigation Measures included in the Conditions of Approval will address the environmental impacts generated by the project. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. The project will provide offices for new and existing businesses in the City. 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Commercial Designation of the General Plan. Offices are allowed on land with a General Plan Land Use Designation of Commercial. V. ADDENDA- None Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 10 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. April 12, 2005 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Cook abstaining) that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 12, 2005. VII. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL LAND USE ACTIONS OF APRIL 19, 2005 Mr. Shaw reviewed the City Council land use actions of April 19tH Assistant Director John Jaquess congratulated Project Planer Manuel Baeza for the extra time he put into complete numerous staff reports for this meeting. VIII. ADJOURN TO EVENING SESSION Commissioner Laymon advised that she would be absent from the evening session. Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to the evening session at 4:03 p.m. 7:00 P.M. IX. RECONVENE EVENING SESSION Chairman Webber reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present except Commissioner Laymon. A. ZONE CHANGE NO.412- Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Zone Change from R-S, Suburban Residential District to a proposed zoning of R-2, Multiple Family Residential District for property with an area of 2.6 acres located on the south side of Highland Avenue,west side of Ford Street, and immediately east of the 1-10 Freeway. Request submitted by BUCKEYES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) B. VARIANCE NO. 694-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Socio-Economic Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 11 Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Variance from Section 18.168.220 of the Municipal Code to allow a five (5) foot setback in lieu of the required twenty-five (25) foot freeway setback from for parking structures for a proposed apartment complex to be located on the south side of Highland Avenue, west side of Ford Street, and immediately east of the 1-10 Freeway in the R-S,Suburban Residential District(Proposed R-2,Multiple Family Residential District). Request submitted by BUCKEYES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 841 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a thirty-seven (37) unit apartment complex on a 2.6 acre property located on the south side of Highland Avenue, west side of Ford Street, and immediately east of the 1-10 Freeway in the R-S, Suburban Residential District(Proposed R-2, Multiple Family Residential District). Request submitted by BUCKEYES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald asked if the site is going to be graded to the level of the church. Mr.Baeza stated for the most part, the topography will remain the same. Referring to Finding 2, Commissioner Macdonald asked Mr. Baeza if he could identify suburban residential locations in the City with setbacks less than 25 feet. Mr. Baeza stated he believed there are houses that were built in the 1970's with setbacks less than 25 feet from the freeway. Commissioner Macdonald asked Mr. Baeza if he was aware of anything that had been approved recently. Mr. Baeza stated nothing that he was aware of. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing.Chairman Webber advised members of the audience that they would be limited to 3 minutes. Mr. Marwan Alabasi,applicant,advised the Commission that he is a local resident.Mr.Alabasi stated he owns a business in the City of Highland and he intends to operate this project as a family business. Mr. Marwan stated that due to the odd shape of the parcel, he would be limited to two(2)single family residences because a cul-de-sac is required by the Fire Department. Mr. Marwan stated that a sound study required a noise barrier for the site. Mr. Marwan stated that construction for the 10 Freeway sound wall will begin in September. Ms. Erin Vander Muelen, Project Designer,stated the applicant wants to beautify the property to the best of his ability, and build something that will increases the property values of the surrounding area. Ms. Vander Muelen stated the project will provide two and 3 bedroom units with open floor plans in hopes of attracting young families and professionals. Commissioner Osborne stated that many people have a preconceived notion about apartment residents;they are transients who bring more litter,crime and noise. Commissioner Osborne asked if the applicant has done anything to let the neighbors know that they will have an upscale project for working families. Mr. Marwan stated he failed to meet with the neighbors, but he would be willing to assure the neighbors that the apartments would be would be a nice,gated community with a play area and pool. Mr. Marwan stated the rent would be a minimum of$2k per month. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Marwan stated he intends to bring a good element to the neighborhood. Mr. Marwan stated he included eight letters from community members to show his past participation in the community.Mr.Marwan stated that some of the units will have attached garages so they are very similar to house-type parking. Commissioner Miller stated the engineering plan calls for a bio swale along the existing church site, however the landscape plan has materials that would not serve as bio swale. Ms. Vander Muelen stated the civil engineer intended to have plants that are compatible with the bio swale, therefore the plant materials may need to be looked at further. Commissioner Miller noted that the driveway that serves the unit closest to Highland Avenue slopes down from 73.5 to 72.5 feet, and he did not see any means to get the water out and away from the building. Ms. Vander Muelen stated that she would have the engineer look into that matter. Pastor Glenn Hoskins, First United Methodist Church in Highland, stated that his church is adjacent to the Shell Station in Highland that is owned by Mr. Alabasi. Pastor Hoskins stated the architecture and landscaping of the Shell Station is beautiful. Pastor Hoskins stated that they always wanted a retaining wall, and Mr. Alabasi built a wall with landscaping that is maintained by Mr. Alabasi. Pastor Hoskins stated that they had a problem with traffic and Mr.Alabasi volunteered to help by paving a road for the church out to the alley. Mr. David E. Raley, 1350 E. Highland Avenue,stated he has lived in the area since 1975. Mr. Raley stated he was surprised to learn that the General Plan had changed. Mr. Raley stated he is adamantly opposed to the change in zoning. Mr. Raley stated once the development goes in,there will be a domino effect,with some of the vacant land being turned into apartments. Mr. Raley stated one of the findings for the variance states that "there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or the intended use that do not generally apply to other properties or uses in the same vicinity." Mr. Raley stated he did not see anything extraordinary or exceptional that is consistent with Finding 1. Mr. Raley stated that he would actively campaign to prevent the change in zone. Ms.Sally Beck,The Redlands Association, read a letter from the Redlands Association stating its opposition to the proposed project. Issues with noise, inconsistency with the General Plan,traffic,and violating the trust of neighborhood residents were cited. Mr. Steve Parker, 215 Ford Street, stated he is opposed to the project. Mr. Parker stated that apartments bring crime and traffic. Mr. David Vilt, 235 Ford Street, stated he has seen traffic increase in 18 years. Mr. Vilt stated he does not believe the area can accommodate 37 units. Mr.Vilt stated he has seen an increase in crime, he has had a vehicle stolen out of his driveway,a lawn mower stolen,three bicycles stolen and his windshield knocked out. Mr. Vilt stated a traffic signal will be needed at the corner of Ford Street and Highland Avenue due to the increased traffic. Mr. Vilt stated he feels that the local people are being railroaded and were not honestly contacted about the project. Mr.Vilt stated he is not convinced that the project will beautify the neighborhood or that his property values will not be lowered. Mr. Dean Meech, 1065 S. Grove Street, stated the zone change is not wanted by the neighborhood. Mr. Meech stated that"spot zoning" is an unnecessary, irresponsible action against the citizens. Mr. Brandon Wilmoth, 1517 Cambridge, (Youth Pastor at Hope Center United Gospel Church),stated he has no doubt that the applicant is a tremendous man and businessman and he wants to see the community grow and be successful, however the area is not consistent for this type of density; it is located adjacent to a church on either side. Mr.Wilmoth concurred with other neighbors relative to the traffic issue.Mr.Wilmoth stated that you have to start with the"end" in mind: and he questioned how many apartments start and finish the same. Mr.Wilmoth stated there is an issue with parking for the site and they want the church parking to be used for the occupants of the church. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 13 Mr. Bill Brown, 815 W. Cypress, owns property that is located in the lower portion where the water drains off the proposed site. Mr. Brown stated that Cal Trans does not maintain the bank. Mr.Brown stated the setback should remain at 25 feet. Mr. Brown stated he is opposed to the project. Mr.Joseph Krejci, 1403 Farview Lane,stated his property looks out over the proposed site. Mr. Krejci stated the proposed project is so dense, solid, and high that it would obstruct his view. Mr. Krejci stated there has been approximately 15 feet of fill dirt put along the area. Mr. Krejci stated he is concerned with carbon monoxide fumes that come from the freeway. Mr. Krejci questioned the effectiveness of the sound wall against freeway noise and exhaust fumes. Mr. Krejci stated any plan that has to have that many exceptions to the rule is not a good plan. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Baeza to clarify the General Plan designation for the"half moon"shaped area. Mr. James Green, 1215 Ford Street, stated he is opposed to the 37 unit complex. Mr. Green stated that 37units will increase the traffic, noise,smog,the trash thrown on the street, street parking, sale of used cars on the street and the crime. Mr.Green stated the proposed wall will stop some of the noise. Mr.Green stated that the whole neighborhood will have to put up gates and fences to keep people out;the church will have to put up gates to keep the overflow of people out of their parking lot. Mr. Green stated he has lived across the street from the proposed project for 15 years and he has had a problem with vandalism and theft. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. Green why single family homeowners would want to live next to the freeway if Mr. Green believes that renters would not want to live next to the freeway. Mr.Green responded by saying that single family owners would have money invested in their homes and they would stay there, while renters would move out due to the noise. Mr. Green stated the applicant will rent the apartments for$2k per month until he can longer find renters; then he will accept whoever he can, turn the complex into Section 8 housing or sell the property. Ms. Cindy Oana, 245 Ford Street, stated once the zone is changed it will have a domino effect. Ms. Oana stated she would like to keep the neighborhood the way it is. Mr. James Oana, 245 Ford Street, stated he does not believe it is necessary to change the zone. Mr. Oana stated he purchased his property under the assumption that the zone would remain the same. Mr. Oana stated $2k per month rent will not"fly" in that area; people will not live next to the freeway for that amount of money. Mr.Oana asked what would stop the applicant from developing the project,selling it,and moving out. Mr. Oana stated he was not notified about the proposed project; he had to find out by word of mouth. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Baeza if notices were mailed out to residents within the 300'radius to advise them of the public hearing. Mr. Baeza stated they were. Mr.Albasei,stated he is complying with the General Plan; he is not requesting an amendment to the General Plan. Mr. Alabasi stated the General Plan allows for 37 units to be built on the property. Mr. Alabasi stated he has hired a consultant to do a noise study. Mr. Alabasi stated he is a registered Civil Engineer who has worked for Cal Trans for 15 years. Mr. Alabasi stated the sound wall proposed by Cal Trans will help with the noise and he doesn't understand the difference between single family housing or apartments;someone is going to live there. Mr.Alabasi stated it would make more sense to have apartments, and typically you see more commercial, industrial, or multi family uses located next to freeways. Mr. Alabasi stated the city has more stringent requirements for single family houses than apartments. Mr. Alabasi stated if he was to put in single family housing, his setbacks would "eat" up half the property. Mr. Alabasi stated he was not around when the General Plan was revised in 1995. Mr. Alabasi stated they are going to widen the streets, construct sidewalks, add street lights, and add street landscaping. Mr. Alabasi stated he has been working with staff for one year; they wanted to ensure that he had a good project. Mr. Alabasi stated he was told that the General Plan allows for multi family dwellings with a zone Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 14 change. Mr. Alabasi stated he has exceeded the parking requirements. Mr.Alabasi stated they are going to gate the apartments so that the tenants with children will have a sense of security; it is not a prison. Mr.Alabasi stated they will not block any views other than the freeway. Mr.Alabasi stated his project is not a high density project, it is medium density. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms. Mary Burgee, 1308 Farview Lane,stated they have lost many beautiful orange groves to people who want to build homes. Ms. Burgee stated a number of years ago she fought for a stop sign at Ford Street and Marion Road, however it ended up at Dearborn Street. Ms. Burgee stated the traffic is horrendous and students from Moore Middle School have difficulty trying to cross the street to go to school. Ms. Burgee stated executives buy homes, they do not live in apartments. Ms. Burgee stated they want to keep the price of their homes where they are. Mr.J. K. Baker, P.O. Box 830, Redlands,stated it boils down to is quality of life. Mr. Baker stated the traffic is incredible in that area. Mr. Baker stated that sound walls don't work. Mr. Baker stated in cities such as Denver, it is illegal for truckers to use their"Jacob's brakes." Mr. Baker stated until there are signs on the freeway that fines the truckers for illegal use of brakes,or a guarantee of sound walls that do work, he did not see why the City would continue to increase the population in these marginal areas. Mr. Baker stated the traffic on Ford Street and 5t"Avenue is very difficult during rush hour. Mr. Baker stated most of the residents endured a long, construction history due to the building of the church and they are not in the mood to go through another construction process. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber reopened the public hearing. Mr. Alabasi stated he keeps hearing about noise from the truckers although it is not associated with the proposed project. Mr. Alabasi stated the Cal Trans sound wall will help and his buildings will act as an additional barrier to noise. Mr. Alabasi stated his project is conditioned upon the building of the sound wall. Chairman Webber close the public hearing. Chairman Webber indicated that he thought there is a"half-moon"shaped area on the map that is designated as medium density. Mr. Shaw stated the area is west of Ford Street, south of Highland Avenue up to the freeway. Mr. Shaw stated the two churches are included in that area and also designated medium density. Commissioner Macdonald asked if the noise regulations for houses are more stringent than for apartments. Mr. Shaw stated single family is measured in terms of a rear yard area,whereas with apartments, it pertains to the balcony area. Mr. Shaw stated the noise level, 60 CNEL, is the same. Commissioner Osborne asked if the 25 foot setback will remain in place after the sound wall is built. Mr.Shaw stated if variances are regularly granted for a certain criteria, it may be time to re-look at the zoning with regard to these issues. Mr. Shaw stated one of the issues with regard to the landscaping was to create an aesthetic appearance from the freeway. Mr. Shaw stated if the sound wall blocks landscaping, it does eliminate some of the justification for the landscaping requirement. Chairman Webber asked if the sound wall would be above the balconies in order to divert the noise. Mr. Shaw stated he believes the units are oriented away from the freeway, into the common area. Mr. Shaw stated he believes the balconies face away from the freeway,therefore the building itself acts as a secondary Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 15 barrier to the sound. Commissioner Macdonald asked if a noise study was conducted for the project. Mr. Shaw stated it was one of the Environmental Review Committee requirements with one of the conditions being modified to require the sound wall to be installed prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman Webber asked for the height of the sound wall. Mr. Shaw stated the noise evaluation was used to determine what needed to be done on site. Commissioner Miller stated he cannot support the project in its present form and is unsure if he could support a zone change. Commissioner Miller stated there is a lot of comment on traffic. Commissioner Miller stated that traffic engineers have a way of rating streets for their Level of Service(LOS),with"A"being the best, and he remembers reading that the LOS for Ford Street is "A." Commissioner Miller stated there were some comments made that he did not feel were quite accurate and he wanted to have it on record. Commissioner Miller stated the letter from the Redlands Association states that the site is zoned consistent with the goals of the City General Plan, however the General Plan has the area designated as medium density residential. Mr.Shaw stated the General Plan allows 0-15 units per acres and the RS zone is within the parameters of the General Plan. Mr.Shaw stated to go to a higher density you would need to change the zone. Mr.Shaw stated the current zoning is consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Shaw to clarify the statement"the Redlands General Plan calls for a ratio of 75%single family homes to 25%multiple family homes at build-out;the City has not met that goal." Mr.Shaw stated development is constantly changing and has to be re-evaluated on a regular basis. Mr. Shaw stated the City is getting closer to meeting the 75/25 ratio. Mr. Shaw stated they did not find the approval of this project to be in conflict with the ratio. Commissioner Miller stated he does not think the design rises to the level of a luxury apartment. Commissioner Miller stated the some of the bedrooms are small, if the 9k square feet of open area were to be taken away, it would meet just over the minimum of required open space. Commissioner Miller stated the density is at the maximum allowable. Commissioner Miller stated there are quite a few items that are not labeled on the exterior elevations. Commissioner Miller stated he would not be comfortable approving the plans because of the inconsistencies. Commissioner Miller concurred with Mr.Green's comment that people take more interest in where they live if they have ownership. Commissioner Miller stated he believes the only way he could support the project is if it is an ownership (condominium) project rather than a rental project. Commissioner Osborne stated he lives next to three(3)apartment buildings. Commissioner Osborne stated there are four new homes being built on his street that start at$750k and he does not believe his property values have decreased as a result of being in close proximity to the apartments. Commissioner Osborne stated he does not believe the site is an ideal location for single family housing.Commissioner Osborne stated the proposed site is blocked by two churches,and there is heavy landscape proposed,therefore what is visible to the neighbors will be limited. Commissioner Osborne stated he likes the fact that by having the parking structures up against the freeway, it enables the residential buildings to be farther from the freeway. Commissioner Osborne stated he could support the project. Commissioner Cook stated she appreciates the fact that he mentioned his other project (Shell Station) because she believes it is the nicest Shell Station she has seen. Commissioner Cook stated she does not think single family homes are appropriate next to the freeway. Commissioner Cook stated she believes multi family is appropriate next to the freeway. Commissioner Cook stated the property owner has a right to develop the property and she does not believe the neighbors would be any happier with a proposed office use. Commissioner Cook stated she might be able to support the project with some modifications. Commissioner Macdonald stated again the Commission is faced with another difficult decision.Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 16 Macdonald stated he does not believe 3 of the 4 findings have been met on the variance. Commissioner Macdonald stated although the 25 foot setback reduction has been applied to other recent construction,it has been primarily commercial locations. Commissioner Macdonald stated without the 25 foot setback, it places the homes that much closer to the freeway. Commissioner Macdonald stated nothing has been approved recently that would allow a reduction in the setback with regard to a residence or an apartment. Commissioner Macdonald stated based on the number of comments from the residents, it is difficult to support Finding 4 that there would not be a detrimental effect to the public welfare. Commissioner Macdonald stated possibly a redesign would allow the 25 foot setback without having to apply for a variance, but you would still be left with the issue of noise. Commissioner Macdonald stated that he has read that the constant noise does effect the well being of people who are exposed to it. Commissioner Macdonald stated he does not believe single family housing would be appropriate because of the noise. Commissioner Macdonald stated he cannot support the proposed project. Commissioner Thompson stated he concurred with Commissioner Miller's thoughts regarding ownership,as he believes it would relieve a lot of the existing neighbor's fears. Commissioner Thompson stated he cannot support the project as proposed, but he could support a condominium project. Chairman Webber stated he sees an apartment complex as an invasion into an area of only singles homes even though the General Plan seems to support it. Chairman Webber stated he has a problem with the project design, insufficient open space, setbacks, and the variance. Chairman Webber stated generally variances are allowed on commercial projects. Chairman Webber stated he is against the proposed apartments, however condominiums might be a way to bridge to the single family homes that are in the area. Commissioner Cook stated she would be much more favorable to a condominium project and she suggested the applicant meet with the neighbors. Chairman Webber stated he likes the architecture because it stands out. Commissioner Osborne stated if the applicant were to go with a condominium project, he will probably still need a variance because of the project site. Chairman Webber reopened the public hearing. Mr.Alabasi stated he appreciates the Planning Commission's comments. Mr.Alabasi questioned why install landscaping between a 28 foot sound wall and a fully enclosed garage structure. Mr.Alabasi stated he would entertain the possibility of condominiums and he asked that the proposed project be continued. Mr.Alabasi stated the proposed project is not a final design. Mr.Alabasi stated he is willing to meet with the neighbors. Commissioner Miller stated the architecture is good but it is too dense to be called "luxury." Commissioner Miller stated the neighbors have serious issues that will weigh heavily on his decision. Commissioner Miller suggested the project be continued and he stated he would be happy to meet with the applicant at his office. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Baeza to provide information on the Fire Department's requirements relative to the cul-de-sac. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber suggested the proposed project be continued for 1 month. Mr.Shaw responded by saying more time is needed to evaluate a potential redesign of a condominium project and allow the applicant sufficient time to meet with neighbors. It was determined that the proposed project would come back in 2 months. Mr. Shaw suggested the project be continued to June 28tH Commissioner Miller stated he felt the site may make sense as a Planned Residential Development(PRD) and he suggested the applicant look at all options as a gesture to the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 17 Mr. Baeza stated the applicant will have to submit a map for the condominiums. Mr. Shaw stated if the project is changed significantly, a new application will have to be filed. Mr. Alabasi stated he does not intend to do major changes. Commissioner Miller stated that minor changes will not get his vote. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Zone Change No.412,Variance No.694,and Conditional Use Permit No. 841 to the evening session on June 28, 2005. X. ADJOURN TO MAY 10, 2005 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to May 10th, at 9:15 p.m. Patti Ortiz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of April 26, 2005 Page 18