Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, May 24, 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: Paul Thompson ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Dan Mc Hugh, City Attorney Robert Dalquest, Principal Planner/Project Manager Asher Hartel, Senior Planner 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 Commissioners Thompson and Cook. 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) A. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 282 - A request for Planning Commission consideration of a Commission Sign Review for a freestanding sign four(4)feet in height with an area of fifteen (15)square feet located at 454 Cajon Street in Historic District No. 3, which is designated Historic Resource No. 24 (Washburn House), in the A-P (Administrative and Professional Office District. Request submitted by JAMES AND DONNA CHURCH. (Project Planner: Joshua Altopp) It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Sign Review No. 282 subject to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Cook arrived at 2:03 p.m. III. OLD BUSINESS A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO.801 -Consideration bythe Planning Commission on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Pagel Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and Planning Commission consideration of a Commission Review and Approval for the construction of a 699,350 square foot concrete tilt-up building for a regional distribution center on approximately 31.59 acres located on the west side of Marigold Avenue at the terminus of Palmetto Avenue in Concept Plan No. 2 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by AMB PROPERTY CORPORATION. (Project Planner: Bob Dalquest) Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave an overview of the proposed project. He stated that the project is the second of two buildings proposed by the applicant. Mr. Dalquest requested the proposed project to be continued to June 14, 2005 to address the following issues: 1. Revise the grading/site plan to provide a three (3)foot high turf berm, as measured above the sidewalk grade, within the landscape planter along Marigold Avenue. 2. Revise the building elevations addressing the recommended aesthetic enhancements to the north, south and east elevations. In addition, the elevations should more clearly depict the building's color scheme; 3. Revise the landscape plans addressing the recommended issues in a larger scale. Mr. Osborne asked for clarification relative to the location of the offices in the proposed building. Mr. Dalquest indicated that there are two office areas, both on the T-corners on the east elevation. The office areas would be along Marigold Avenue. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Pat Meyer, representing AMB Property Corporation, concurs with the staff requirements and conditions. He will come back with a revised grading plan showing the berm along Marigold Avenue with the fencing. He stated that he will probably move the wrought iron fencing out so that it will be more effective. Mr. Meyer mentioned that people maintaining all of these projects are more aggressive in their hedging. He stated that they are keeping the Photinia down at a height of two to three feet as opposed to just letting it grow up to the full height of the wrought iron fencing. He will take a chance in getting the maintenance crews to start letting the Photinia grow and hedge it up higher. If the landscapers feel that would threaten the hedge,then he will go with the vines growing into the wrought iron fences. The north and south elevations,which are essentially the side yards, will be adequately treated. Commissioner Miller had questions relative to the two to one slope immediately inside the right-a- way line and asked if the fencing was being moved out in front of the visitors parking area. Mr. Meyer stated that he was unsure until they do the grading but thinks there is the ability to move the parking along Marigold and put it elsewhere in the park. It would free up eighteen or twenty feet where a berm can be created, which should eliminate that two to one slope immediately coming down off of the street. Mr. Meyer stated that if he can free that up, a berm can be built and a slope started down. The wrought iron fence can be moved back closer to Marigold and put at the peak of the berm. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Miller asked if the landscape swale, mentioned in the landscape report for WQMP, was along the east side of the property. Mr. Meyer stated that he has it running throughout the property toward the Edison easement. The landscape swales are run into the planters and around the building and eventually into the storm drain system. Commissioner Miller commented that the tree shown on the plans appears to be a Crepe Myrtle which is not on the approved tree list. Mr. Dalquest stated that the parking lot tree is a Brisbane Box. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Laymon and carried on a 6- 0 vote that the Planning Commission continue, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and Commission Review and Approval No. 801 to the June 14,2004 meeting, and direct the applicant to address the issues recommended by the Planning Commission. B. 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) C. 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) D. 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 Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 3 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 gave a brief summary of the proposed project. The applicant is proposing an industrial park located on the east side of Nevada Street composed of eight buildings. Staff is recommending denial of the project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mike Mueller, representing the applicant, stated they focused on a small, multi-tenant park composed of office and warehouse businesses. It would provide opportunities for approximately sixty (60) businesses and 300 employees in an area that is not an ideal retail use area. Chairman Webber stated that the applicant is asking to change an area that is totally retail commercial, and asked how the applicant can reconcile putting in a nice development in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Mr. Mueller explained that the owner has tried to market the property for retail use with no success. Looking at the site characteristics of the parcel, he did not see a retail site at the location. Mr. Mueller sees something other than retail which has been demonstrated by trying to market the site to retail use. Chairman Webber asked if the applicant would change their position relative to retail use if the Thai restaurant on the corner of Redlands Boulevard was in their control and allowed to be developed as retail. Mr. Mueller stated it would not change their position since the site is not primarily directed toward Redlands Boulevard. He added that there is not enough acreage to warrant a large anchor store with or without the corner lot on Redlands Boulevard. The back part of the property is not a good location and does not have the site characteristics necessary for a successful retail project. Commissioner Macdonald asked staff if the property would be appropriate for an office complex relative to the current zoning. Mr. Baeza stated that an office complex would be acceptable. Commissioner Macdonald asked the applicant if offices would be agreeable without a zone change and a General Plan Amendment. Mr. Mueller stated that they tried to keep an office component which would be approximately sixty (60)percent, including the 35,000 square foot free standing,two story office building. There would be difficulty getting pure office use at this location financed since the back part of the property is oriented against the train tracks and the Post Office. The reason the applicant has focused on office and multi-tenant industrial is due to its blend of uses. Some of the small businesses would need some form of storage and light assembly area. The blend of uses makes more sense economically and from a financing perspective, than trying to do a complete office campus at this location. Commissioner Macdonald stated that he did not see why this is different from the office complexes successfully going in across the freeway. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Mueller stated that one of the issues was contending with the train tracks. Commissioner Macdonald stated that the train tracks are used infrequently. Mr. Mueller stated that a corporate office user would hesitate to have an office near railroad tracks and that some offices would be overlooking the loading docks of the Post Office. It would not be a good quality environment for straight office use, especially the back part of the site. Commissioner Laymon asked how the industrial change on the back side of the property would influence the future uses of the properties to the east. She questioned the definitions of industrial and light industrial and revenues that would be generated. Commissioner Osborne agreed with the applicant that the site would be difficult for commercial with or without the frontage on Redlands Boulevard. He stated that without Redlands Boulevard access or having property abutting that area, no commercial entity would be successful. Herrick Johnson, Lee and Associates, stated that the proposed location has been marketed by his firm and others since 1994 in trying to lure a retail tenant to the site. He added that most retailers would rather locate in the"doughnut hole"rather than on Redlands Boulevard. The hindrances that the site faces and the lack of control of other properties, do not make it viable for retail use. Commissioner Macdonald asked about anticipated tenants for the project. Mr.Johnson stated that there were no anticipated tenants. Commissioner Macdonald asked the type of businesses that were envisioned for the project. Mr. Herrick stated electronic assembly, mail order, engineers, soils companies, and trade and design industries would be some of the business types. There would be a small warehouse component required for these types of businesses where the tenant would want to be close to the product they are producing. Commissioner Laymon questioned the parameters of the industrial zoning and what would be allowed if the Specific Plan Amendment were approved. Mr. Baeza stated that whatever the East Valley Corridor industrial commercial plan allows would be a permitted use. Commissioner Webber stated that he sees the corner of Redlands Boulevard and Nevada Street as a future site for commercial retail if that location were to become available. Mr. Johnson stated that as long as there are viable, large scale developments planned on the north side of the freeway, the majority of the future activity coming in from a retail perspective will go to that area or downtown. He added that Alabama Street, moving out toward Loma Linda, will eventually become more of a commercial industrial site. Commissioner Miller questioned if Walmart or K-Mart were to relocate, how the retailer's located in those centers now would interpret the Planning Commissions decision to change a commercial designation to industrial. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Johnson stated that if Walmart or K-Mart were to leave, there would be a strong migration moving to the north side of the freeway or downtown. Commissioner Miller had concerns relative to approving the zone change and starting a trend. Commissioner Laymon asked about using a Science Research Park designation as an option. Dan McCalla, property owner, stated that he has had the property listed for years and has never had a viable offer. He stated that the proposed project could be a very good situation for Redlands. He added that he was upset that planning staff would not support the project. Chairman Webber closed the hearing. Chairman Webber asked that the commission focus on the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and not spend time on the Commission Review and Approval until there is support for the General and Specific Plans. Commissioner Osborne indicated concern over giving up future goals relative to a zone change. Commissioner Miller stated that this is a unique dilemma and is being influenced by changing the General Plan. He added that there is a lot of land available for this type of product. He stated that he is not ready to give up on this area and that we would send the wrong signal by making a change. Commissioner Macdonald stated that he does not believe that the sale has been made on the pure need for the light industrial re-zoning. He believes that it can be used as an office complex and fully rented with the demand that we have in the City. He does not feel the railroad tracks or the Post Office are a detriment. He cannot support what was achieved last year in changing the zoning along Redlands Boulevard. Commissioner Laymon stated that she has seen a huge difference about what is proposed and what is actually allowed. She wishes that there could be a compromise but stated that we have not given the current zoning much of a chance. Commissioner Cook stated that she is sympathetic with the property owners. She added that the proposed amendment would effectively stop a chance of any large commercial type of business coming in at the whole, big block. Ms. Cook stated that she needs to hold on to the current commercial zoning of the property. Commissioner Webber concurs with the other commissioners. He stated that we need to protect the limited areas in the city that are commercial and that could have a future to generate sales tax revenues for the City. This is a nice project and would be supported if it were in the right territory. Mr. Webber does not believe that the site is nonviable for retail commercial and that the key is getting control of the corner of Redlands Boulevard and Nevada to open the whole site for a future, viable retail venture. He added that he does not want to start a trend and therefore will not support the project now or in the near future. In the long term, it will be a very profitable property if patience Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 6 is taken. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 105, Amendment No. 30 to Specific Plan No. 40 and Commission Review and Approval No. 796 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 Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for General Plan Amendment No. 105,Amendment No. 30 to Specific Plan No. 40 and Commission Review and Approval No. 796. 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 Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend denial 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. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny General Plan Amendment No. 105. There is other available land in the City that can accommodate industrial development and this area along Redlands Boulevard is being developed as a commercial corridor and in the past few years have seen the development of major retailers such as the Lowe's Home Improvement Center. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Amendment No. 30 to Specific Plan No. 40. There is other available land in the City that can accommodate industrial development and this area near Redlands Boulevard has been identified as an important commercial corridor by the City Council. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 7 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Commission Review and Approval No. 796, subject to the following findings: 1. The use is not desirable for the overall development of the community. The project proposes to develop the property into an industrial use which is inappropriate in a general commercial area. 2. The proposed project is not consistent with the Commercial Designation of the General Plan. The project will contain light industrial uses which are not allowed by the "Commercial' General Plan Land Use Designation. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 852 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the co-location of AT&T wireless on an existing sixty-five foot cellular monopalm, and the addition of an approximate 289 square foot equipment shelter at the International Church and Four Square Gospel located at 1330 East Lugonia Avenue within the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by A T & T WIRELESS SERVICE. (Project Planner: David Jump) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation of the proposed project. The applicant proposed the co-location of a new wireless telecommunication facility at the site of an existing telecommunication facility. Mr. Miller asked for clarification relative to the location of the antenna on the monopalm. Mr. Jump stated that the antenna is on the lower portion of the monopalm. Then antenna panels will be painted to match the pole. Mr. Miller asked if each antenna group was a group of three. Mr. Jump answered yes. He added that the antennas are mounted at equal distance around the pole and will extend out approximately five to seven inches. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ramon Salazar, representing AT&T, stated that the antenna width is anywhere between five and eight inches depending on the antenna model used on the facility. Mr. Osborne asked if AT&T was putting in an equipment building. Mr. Salazar stated that they were not putting in a typical equipment shelter. The equipment cabinets will be exposed to the elements behind a concrete, masonry unit (CMU) wall. Mr. Jaquess stated that it was not staffs intent to approve an open cabinet type facility and that it should be in a shelter. Mr. Jump stated that the existing shelters at the site are currently both open with no roof. The equipment is behind the walls. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Salazar stated that their equipment is small and would not be seen beyond the walls. Mr. Jaquess stated that staff has transitioned awayfrom open cabinet facilities, however, itwould be acceptable to staff if the equipment was not visible over the wall. Commissioner Laymon asked for clarification relative to access of the equipment shelter. Mr. Salazar stated that access to the inside of the shelter would be through a wrought iron gate that would be screened. Mr. Miller asked if the conduits would be seen on the surface of the palm. Mr. Salazar replied that the conduits would run inside the interior of the monopalm. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne asked if an additional Condition of Approval should be added relative to the equipment not exceeding the height of the wall of the shelter. Mr. Jaquess stated that it was clear from the applicant's statement that it was their intent not to exceed the height of the wall of the shelter. Mr. Shaw stated that Condition of Approval number ten (10)addresses that"all equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent roadways." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Cook and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.852 subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached Conditions of Approval. Conditional Use Permit Findings: 1. The use applied for at this location is conditionally permitted in the A-1, Agricultural District under the provisions of Chapter 18.178.090 and 18.192.020 of the Municipal Code, which allows the placement of public utility structures and service facilities in any zone when such uses are determined by the City to be essential or desirable for the public health, safety, and welfare subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. The proposed co-location of the wireless facility at this location is necessary and desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan,and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone. 3. The project site is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, meets all development standards and other features required in order to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 9 4. That the site for the co-location of the wireless service provider relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use.The site to be utilized by the wireless carrier was originally designed to handle all traffic generated by the conditionally permitted use allowed at the site. 5. The conditions for the proposed use are reasonably related to the use to address potential effects of the proposed use, and are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and the best interests of the neighborhood." B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 810, REVISION NO. 1 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Revision to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit to allow serving of tea, coffee, and treats, and a small gift shoppe in an existing Bed and Breakfast Facility located at 256 Cajon Street in the A-P, Administrative and Professional District. Request submitted by DEBORAH HARMON. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) C. PARKING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 19-PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider Parking Modification Permit fora Historic House approved for bed and breakfast use with a proposal to add a tea, coffee, and gift shoppe at 256 Cajon Street in Historic District No. 8 (Smiley Park Neighborhood Historic and Scenic District) in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District. Request submitted by DEBORAH HARMON. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Mr. Hartel gave a brief presentation of the proposed project. The revision consists of a gift shop for serving tea and coffee to nonresidents and a parking modification to enable the applicant to count on-street parking toward the required parking. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Deborah Harmon, applicant, stated that her request to the commission was brought upon by the guests staying at the inn. The Health Department of San Bernardino County has been specific that approval is needed from the City of Redlands due to a recent change in the ordinance relative to serving coffee to non-guests of the inn. Ms. Harmon stated that she would like to serve coffee to non-guests at 8:00 a.m. The gift shop will offer small items such as pictures and mementos. Commissioner Osborne asked if the applicant is asking for the hours to be changed to 8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m. Ms. Harmon stated yes. Commissioner Miller questioned if there was a way where the one table would not have to be taken away. Mr. Shaw stated that there is no other provision within our code that accommodates keeping the additional table. The parking modification is allowed in a historic area, allows the street parking in terms of the calculations, which otherwise would not be available. Staff saw this as a way to deal with this code issue by eliminating one table. Commissioner Cook asked if there was a problem in extending the hour to 8:00 a.m. Mr. Hartel Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 10 stated that he did not believe that there would be a problem. Commissioner Osborne stated that condition number five (5) needs to be amended to show the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Parking Modification Permit No. 19 subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed parking modification and use of the historic structure at 256 Cajon Street is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General plan, and is not detrimental to the surrounding area which consists of offices, apartments, and single family homes or to any other permitted use in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District; 2. Approving the proposed parking modification and use will significantly improve the possibility that the structure will be preserved and maintained as a historic structure because the applicant has committed to make the necessary improvements to maintain the historic structure; 3. The required parking cannot be provided without the approval of the requested modification because this 0.25 acre property has no space to provide any additional parking on-site; 4. All on-site parking will function safely because the existing parking at the rear provides adequate parking space for six cars; 5. That approval of the parking modification will not harm the integrity of the historic structure or the surrounding neighborhood because there is adequate space on Cajon Street and Clark Street for the provision of five off-site parallel parking spaces on these public streets." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.810, Revision No. 1 subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City, because 256 Cajon Street is approved as a Bed and Breakfast Facility,and the proposed gift shop and tea/coffee serving area are allowed in conjunction with the Bed and Breakfast use and are proper for a Conditional Use Permit; 2. The proposed use of the Bed and Breakfast Facility to include a gift shop and tea/coffee serving area will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, because conditions of approval will limit the hours or operation; Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 11 3. The proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards because current standards have been applied to the project conditions of approval; 4. That the proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location because both the General Plan and Zoning District provide for the Bed and Breakfast Facility to include a gift shop and tea/coffee serving area at 256 Cajon Street. Condition of Approval number five (5) has been modified to read: The hours of operation for the coffee/tea house and gift shop shall be limited to the hours between tern eight o'clock (10:00) (8:00)A.M. and eight o'clock (8:00) P.M. D. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15757 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 4.73 gross acres into six(6)residential lots located on the southeast corner of Carob Street and Kincaid Street in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by NFC DIGITAL, INC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation of the project. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 4.73 gross acres into six (6) residential lots. Commissioner Macdonald asked if this project was previously presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Baeza stated that it was continued and then withdrawn due to an incomplete slope analysis. The slope analysis did not show that the site was terraced. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Jamey Dye,Associated Engineers representing NFC Digital, stated they concurwith the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Miller stated that there is quite a bit of two to one slope for lot three (3)on the corner of Carob and Kincaid. He asked if there was any opportunity to diminish the amount of two to one slope at that corner, particularly facing Carob. Mr. Dye stated that it could be considered but would prefer to re-engineerthe lot once a building has been established. Mr. Jaquess asked Mr. Dye if NFC Digital was going to build the houses on the project or just sell the lots. Mr. Dye stated that it was his understanding that the applicant is intending to develop the houses and then sell them. Faiz Chowdhury, President of NFC Digital, stated that they will be developing the houses. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Jaquess stated that if NFC Digital is going to build all six (6) lots, the applicant will need to go through the Residential Development Allocation (RDA) process. It will give the Planning Commission a chance to look at the proposed grading of the property as it relates to the specific house design. Mr. Chowdhury stated that he would like to recognize the wonderful job that staff has done in guiding them through the City requirements. Commissioner Miller asked about the retaining walls being used to create the split pads. Mr. Dye stated that they were internal to the building only. Mr. Miller asked the applicant if the retaining wall and grading will not be done until the house design is proposed. Mr. Dye stated that he was correct. Mr. Baez asked if the two to one slope located on lot three (3)was to be reduced. Commissioner Miller suggested that it should be contoured or reduced. Commissioner Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Dye stated that if they rotated it left, they could get rid of the two to one slope. Commissioner Miller suggested that the condition state that"grading plans and house plans shall be submitted concurrently other than as necessary for public utility and street improvements." Mr. Shaw stated that the City Attorney pointed out the Building and Safety Conditions of Approval should reflect six (6) residential lots versus five (5) residential lots. Mr. Baeza stated that condition numbers twenty-four(24),twenty-five(25)and twenty-six(26)are as follows: 24. The two to one slopes facing Carob Street on lot three (3) shall be reduced and/or contoured. 25. Grading plans and house plans shall be submitted concurrently. 26. Grading for the tract shall not exceed the limits as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. Commissioner Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 15757, and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 13 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 6- 0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Tentative Tract No. 15757 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 Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve tentative Tract No. 15757 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following finding: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Very-Low Density Residential and a zoning of R-E, Residential Estate and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into six (6) lots; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a six (6) unit subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Very-Low Density Residential and Zoning allow for up to six (6) dwelling units; 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish orwildlife or their habitat. The subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resources or within a wildlife corridor; 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems, aside from temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in the project's Mitigation Measures. 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." This includes the addition of Conditions 24, 25 and 26 and the change to the Building and Safety Conditions, changing the number of residential lots from five to six. E. VARIANCE NO.705-PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and for a Variance from Section 18.88.190 of the Municipal Code to allow a Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 14 twenty-five (25) foot reduction from the required fifty (50) foot building setback to twenty-five (25) feet for a canopy structure for a drive through pharmacy for a proposed drug store to be located on the southeast corner of Lugonia Avenue and Church Street in the C-2, Neighborhood Convenience Center District. Request submitted by REALTY BANCORP EQUITIES/DENNIS D. JACOBSEN FAMILY HOLDINGS II, LLC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 825 - PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study and for a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a 13,650 square foot drug store with drive through pharmacy on a 0.85 acre property located on the southeast corner of Lugonia Avenue and Church Street in the C-2, Neighborhood Convenience Center District. Request submitted by REALTY BANCORP EQUITIES/DENNIS D. JACOBSEN FAMILY HOLDINGS II, LLC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation of the proposed project. Commissioner Laymon asked if the shopping carts would be stored inside the store. Commissioner Osborne replied that the carts would be kept inside the store. Commissioner Miller asked if the metal roof of the building is designed to match the roofs on the existing shopping center. Mr. Baeza responded yes. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Len Kristensen, representing Realty Bancorp, stated that there are two (2) landscape plans; one was the original landscape plan that went with the prior project and the other to beautify the entire center. Chairman Webber asked about the ninety (90) foot pine tree on the site and asked where it was located on the plans. Mr. Kristensen states that there is one pine tree in the middle of the building which would have to be removed and another just south of the driveway, which also would be eliminated. Chairman Webber stated that he wanted to know where the trees are shown on the existing plans so that they could figure out a way not to eliminate the trees. Mr. Baeza commented that the topographic survey shows the existing trees on the site. Chairperson Webber asked what the problem was with saving the ninety(90) year old tree. Mr. Kristensen stated that the landscape architect that did a study and evaluation of the existing trees recommended that a new landscape plan be developed due to the condition of the trees. Mr. Baeza stated that some of the trees were heaving the parking area. Commissioner Miller stated that he liked the Savon layout better than Walgreen's. The landscape plan called for a wall on the west side but did not see it on the plans. Mr. Baeza stated that the applicant plans on installing a three (3) foot high decorative masonry Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 15 screen wall constructed of split-faced rock to match the building but only for the Walgreen's portion. Commissioner Miller stated that he sees a traffic conflict. He asked if the deliveries were occurring on the west side. Mr. Kristensen answered yes. Commissioner Miller commented that the drive-through be located on the west side. He has concerns that a tractor trailer will park there to unload cargo and customers will be blocked trying to drive through the area. Mr. Kristensen stated that this was discussed and determined that the time the trucks would be unloading cargo would not hinder the people coming around to the drive-through. Commissioner Miller stated that the Savon design had the drive-through on the south side. If the drive-through is moved to the south side, he would be in favor of a variance that would allow the building to be moved as far north as needed. He added that this would avoid potential traffic conflict and would remove a rather unsightly element of the building to a less obvious side. He suggested taking the parking stalls on the extreme west side of the property, move them over to the east side of the single row parking which may allow for more parking and avoid some of the conflicts. Mr. Kristensen stated that this is Walgreen's requirements and position of the site. Commissioner Cook asked if Walgreen's wanted the drive-through on Lugonia Avenue. She added that the most unattractive sides of the building are facing Church Street and Lugonia Avenue. Commissioner Laymon stated that Savon was a very attractive project. She was dismayed with the project with the loss of the big trees. Mr. Kristensen stated they added a lot of landscaping to make it a very soft, pretty corner and that Church Street and Lugonia Avenue intersection is going to be landscaped. Chairman Webber asked if there was a way that there could be a drive-through on the south side. Mr. Shaw stated that staff felt the wall facing Lugonia was somewhat stark without the drive-through component and the roof breaks up that elevation. The drive-through for Savon was a problem because it was a reverse drive and it was awkward in trying to maximize the parking spaces around the front entrance. Mr. Shaw agreed that there may be some architectural elements that could be added to the north and west elevations. Commissioner Miller asked if there was an option for a variance to have a taller wall. Mr. Shaw stated that he thought a variance may have been granted for Savon to have a wall that was six(6)to eight (8)feet high. Mr. Jaquess commented that staff would support Commissioner Miller in moving the building west and moving the parking spaces over to the east since there were concerns about a conflict between truck traffic and drive-through traffic and cars backing out of the spaces. Mr. Shaw commented that more parking spaces could be provided under that design. Commissioner Webber stated he has a problem with the drive-through being where it is but likes the internal focusing of the building. He added that the drive-through would be better on the south but Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 16 could stay where it is according to plan. Relative to staffs position, the trees should be around the buildings. Mr. Webber would like a condition relative to the 90-foot pine tree, stating that it will be retained unless there is something wrong with the tree. Norman Kravetz, applicant and owner of Realty Bancorp,wanted to address the discussion relative to the location of the building and where the parking would be moved. He stated that Walgreen's has very specific plans and approvals. The orientation of the front of Walgreen's to both Uncle Howies and the Ranch Market became part of the synergy of Walgreen's approval process. Mr. Kravetz added that this Walgreen's is important to the north side community that has been deprived of this particular drug store chain. He feels that they will have a difficult time going back to Walgreen's to tell them to redesign the parking spaces. The concerns over the trees and landscaping can be addressed. He wants to make the landscaping the best with either new or revived trees without having any of the existing trees become any danger to the property. Commissioner Webber asked why the movement of the parking spaces would be a"killer thing"to Walgreen's. Commissioner Macdonald stated that corporations are very set in their ways on how they want their building and sites to look. It could be a deal breaker. Mr. Kravetz stated that the parking spaces in question could be considered employee parking. He added that moving the building and parking spaces could kill the project from happening at this location. Mr. Kravetz stated that this is a disastrous site that is being redeveloped without public funds. It would be an enhancement to the rest of the shopping center. Chairman Webber asked why Savon pulled out of their project. Mr. Kravetz stated that Savon stopped development of projects in Southern California for a period of time due to upper management changes. Commissioners Macdonald and Osborne expressed that these were not big enough issues to warrant jinxing the project. Commissioner Laymon concurred. She stated that the north side community leader,Joe Gonzalez, wanted to let the commission know how desperately the north side needed this project to be approved. Commissioner Miller stated that the Walgreen's building is very plain. He added that by adding a module to the canopy would make the proportion better and that extending the parapet would improve the elevation. He asked Mr. Kravetz if that would be a problem. Mr. Kravetz stated that this particular building has 30% more stone and treatment than the typical Walgreen's. He stated that they have added an extra canopy, increased the stone and facade and added fifty (50) percent more landscaping. Going back to Walgreen's for approval would take at least another three (3) months. Financing is in place and Mr. Kravetz stated that the commissions request would cost an additional $300,000. Commissioner Miller questioned the$300,000 cost for a 20 x 20 canopy. He is asking to extend the parapet approximately 18 feet. Mr. Kravetz lowered his estimate of cost to $200,000. Commissioner Webber asked the purpose of the canopy. Mr. Miller stated that it would be a drive- Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 17 through canopy. Mr. Shaw clarified that Mr. Miller is only asking for a raised parapet at the corners of the building. Commissioner Miller provided a drawing of the proposed parapet to the commission and Mr. Kravetz. He stated the requests for the changes to Walgreen's were insignificant. He added that he could go either way relative to the canopy but would be a huge mistake not to have something at least eight (8)feet high to hide what is going on and having a trellis over the third trash enclosure. Mr. Shaw stated that some of these actions were beyond the applicant's control. He asked Mr. Kravetz if the commission continued this item for two (2) weeks to give him time to communicate with Walgreen's, would it solve whether or not they would entertain some of the commission's suggestions. Mr. Kravetz stated that they have been through the process to give them the highest quality store at this location. They have gone through various renditions relative to designs and options and the process has been laborious and very long. He stated that Walgreen's has a corporate structure that allows them to do certain things in a certain time frame. Commissioner Miller stated that it is his impression that there is no flexibility with Walgreen's. Mr. Kravetz stated that he would be happy to go ahead and ask Walgreen's if they would be willing to consider the parapet and that he would be willing to fund it if they approve it. Chairman Webber advised Mr. Kravetz that is up to the Planning Commission to approve or disapprove the building. Amelia Hernden, arborist representing the design project manager, stated the studies done on the site mainly included the parameter landscaping. She did not have documentation relative to the pine tree. She has some photo documentation on the Camphor's on the outside and the palms and could make suggestions. The pines would require further study to see if relocation is possible since it is a large specimen and in considering if the client is interested in expanding the planter. Chairman Webber stated that the pine tree is located right in the planter and is close enough to incorporate it. He is proposing a condition to retain the tree subject to an arborist saying that it is diseased to the point where it could fall over and do physical harm to someone.There are conditions written to retain the Camphor's and queen palms on the site. Ms.Hernden asked if there was any opportunity to relocate those trees into key areas. Mr. Baeza stated that the queen palms could be relocated but the Camphor's and some fan palms are to stay in place. Mr. Baeza will be adding a condition of approval stating that "the tallest existing pine found in the parking lot, west of the supermarket, shall be retained unless a licensed arborist certifies that the tree should not be retained due to health." Eddie Flores, Chairman for the Northside Impact Committee, stated that he has been following this project very closely. Everyone finds the project favorable and a convenience for the seniors. He implored that the commission try to work with the applicant. It would give the area a drugstore north Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 18 of the freeway. He added that they are looking for this type of business,especially with the visioning process that is currently taking place. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber stated that several issues needed to be discussed. He expressed that he was in favor of the parapet addition. Commissioner Cook supported the parapet addition. She appreciates Mr. Miller making the building more attractive. Commissioner Macdonald stated that the commission is being short sighted in looking at the addition of a parapet to a building that represents a company's design. He expressed that it is unnecessary and is jeopardizing that the project could move to another location. Commissioner Webber stated that the commission has backed off on the parking lot and driveway issues, and added a condition to save a tree. He expressed that the commission has made compromises, and the consensus is to retain the idea of adding a parapet to the corners of the building. Commissioner Laymon stated that she does not want to risk losing the project and does not want the parapet to be a deal breaker. She has heard from the north side community and is at a loss in making a decision. Chairman Webber asked if Commissioner Laymons answer was yes or no. Commissioner Laymon responded that she did not want to break the deal over a parapet. Commissioner Cook asked if a condition could be made. Commissioner Miller stated that in the big picture, architects notice things such as parapets and others do not. He stated that the commission compromised but not even an inch is coming back the other way. He suggested resolving the impasse in putting in a condition that says "the northwest and northeast corners shall be modified to the satisfaction of the Planning Director." Commissioner Osborne stated that on the Church Street side, the wall height can be raised with additional landscaping. It should not affect the corporate image. Commissioner Miller stated that the height of the wall should total eight(8)feet and does not care if it is a combination of berms and wall. He added that it should cover the roll up door,trash enclosure with the trash compactor machine and the trash enclosure at the north end. It is an unsightly end of the building and a planter would be enough to screen it. Mr. Miller cannot imagine Walgreen's having an issue with adding a planter next to a building. Mr. Shaw asked where the planter would be located. Commissioner Miller stated that it was on the southwest corner of the building. It would screen the trash compactor. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Kravetz stated that a planter on that corner would cause more problems as it relates to the safety of both the trucks, cars and drive-through people. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 19 Commissioner Miller asked if the planter would be a deal killer. Mr. Kravetz did not have an answer. Commissioner Miller asked if the height of the wall is an issue with Walgreen's or with Mr. Kravetz. Mr. Karvetz stated the height of the wall is an issue with Walgreen's. Commissioner Cook suggested berming and putting a wall on it so that the trash enclosures are screened. Mr. Kravetz does not believe those trash enclosures will be as unsightly as suggested. He believes that there is a height limitation as far as seeing the building from both Church Street and Lugonia Avenue. He did not go over the corner planter with Walgreen's because it was not part of the plan but sees it as a safety issue. Chairman Webber said the corner planter would be just south of the enclosure. Commissioner Osborne concurred that there would be a safety issue around the corner. Chairman Webber asked how it would create a safety issue. Commissioner Osborne stated that there is a concrete block enclosure and a planter around the curve of the corner. Mr. Shaw stated that it looks like the trash enclosure has an angle to it. He suggested that a small shrub row could be planted in front with vines that would grow up the wall of the trash enclosure. Mr. Kravetz stated they could try Mr. Shaw's suggestion relative to the vines. Commissioner Miller suggested that Mr. Baeza add a condition to add a planter. Mr. Shaw stated it should be a minimum of five feet in width. Mr. Baeza stated that the condition would read, "The applicant shall add a planter next to the wall for the southern trash compactor. The planter shall be a minimum of five feet wide and shall be landscaped subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director." Chairman Webber asked about the condition for the parapet wall. Mr. Baeza stated the condition to read, "The applicant shall add a raised parapet to the north elevation of the building at the west and east ends. The parapet shall match the proposed raised parapet at the north west corner similar to the north east corner." Chairman Webber brought up the issue of the west wall and berm. He added that he is supportive of a higher wall that Mr. Miller has suggested either through berming or a higher wall to screen the backside of the building. Mr. Webber asked Mr. Macdonald if he supported this idea. Commissioner Macdonald answered no. Commissioner Osborne stated the only way to support this action would be to give the responsibility to the Community Development Director to work with the applicant. Commissioner Laymon stated that she would support it since it did not interfere with Walgreen's overall plan. Commissioner Cook supported the screening of the trash enclosure with a berm or wall. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 20 Commissioner Webber stated that there is no consensus either way. Commissioner Cooked suggested that Community Development Director Shaw negotiate with Walgreen's. Chairman Webber stated that the commission is pushing their responsibility onto the Planning Director. The Planning Commission should make the decision. Commissioner Cook stated the applicant should compromise on the size of the berm. Mr. Kravetz stated that an eight(8)foot wall of any sort would not look good. Walgreen's approved a three (3) foot wall but it is possible they will approve a four to four and one-half foot wall. Mr. Kravetz emphasized that there was landscaping around the entire property and they are more than enhancing and redeveloping an area. Commissioner Miller stated that there is not an urbanized city in Southern California that does not require retail stores and restaurants to screen the utility sides of buildings. A three(3)foot wall and a three (3)foot berm is insignificant. Mr. Kravetz stated that the architect for this site has done approximately fifty (50) stores and is considered the best architect. He will try to get the higher wall. Chairman Webber stated that the commission should state what kind of wall is desired and put in a condition for it and vote on it. He added that Mr. Kravetz can appeal to the City Council to change it. Chairman Webber stated that the commission needs to make a decision and not pass it onto the Planning Director. Commissioner Cook suggested putting a three (3)foot berm with a three (3)foot wall on top. Mr. Kravetz suggested doing a five-foot wall, giving the Community Development Director the discretion of how the combination is applied. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Kravetz is he was agreeable with the five-foot height. Mr. Kravetz stated he would try to comply the way the commission wanted it. Chairman Webber stated once the commission conditions that wall to five feet, the decision would be final. Mr. Kravetz responded to go with the five feet. Mr. Baeza stated the condition will read, "the applicant shall provide a wall or a combination of a wall and a berm at the west side of the building at the height of five (5) feet measured from the top of curb." Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Laymon commented about the lack of communication relative to this project. Chairman Webber stated that Walgreen's has a specific plan in mind. The commission gave more than it normally would, but in turn, the City is getting a project. Commissioner Osborne asked about the two issues that would be coordinated through the Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 21 Community Development Director. Mr. Shaw stated that the planter and the parapet is subject to his final action and that he has some flexibility there. Mr. Baeza read the following conditions: 1. The largest, existing pine tree, found west of the supermarket will be retained unless a licensed arborist certifies that the tree should not be retained due to health. 2. The applicant shall add a raised parapet to the northeast and northwest corner elevations of the building at the northwest corner to match the proposed raised parapet at the north east corner subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 3. The applicant shall add a planter next to the wall for the southern most trash compactor. The planter shall be a minimum of five feet wide and shall be landscaped subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 4. The applicant shall provide a wall, a combination of a wall and berm at the west side of the building with a height of five feet measure from the top of the curb at Church Street. Commissioner Miller stated for the record that the property slopes from the northeast to the southwest. The building floor is likely to be about two feet higher than the top of the curb so it will not fully screen the doors or trash compactor at five feet. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon and carried on a 6-0 vote that Conditional Use Permit No. 825 and Variance No.705 do not require further environmental processing, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, based on the following findings: A. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; the drug store is for the same use as the previously approved use and occupies less area that the previously approved project. B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken; the project will be undertaken in the same manner as the previously approved project and, C. 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; no new information is available that would have an impact on the proposed project's environmental consequences." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Conditional Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 22 Use Permit No. 825 and Variance No. 705. 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 Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 705 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 site is a blighted and underutilized shopping center in an otherwise healthy neighborhood creating an exceptional condition. 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 is an existing shopping center which contains development in the required street setback. 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;development of the store will provide a benefit to the shopping center and to the overall area. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands;the project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Neighborhood Commercial." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.825,subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City; the drug store is a commercial use proposed for a site with C-2, Neighborhood Convenience Center zoning and a General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial. 2. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; the project will improve the appearance of the immediate area and will provide a needed service to City residents. 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 is consistent with both the General Plan and Zoning and meets all development standards with the exception of the variance. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 23 4. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location; the project meets all development standards for a drive through use as listed in the Zoning Ordinance" G. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 804 - Planning Commission Consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to develop lots 18, 19,and 23 of Tract No. 15469 each with a two-story single family residence. Lot 23 is located on the northwest side of Ashforth Drive south of Sutherland Drive. Lots 18 and 19 are located at the southern terminus of Silverleaf Court. All lots are within Specific Plan No.47. Request submitted byTRIMARK PACIFIC HOMES. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation of the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald asked why this project was coming before the Planning Commission. Mr. Shaw stated that there are three homes that were on some of the higher pad elevations that the Commission had asked to the applicant to come back with for a Condition Review and Approval. Commissioner Macdonald asked for what purpose. Mr. Shaw stated it was for architectural review and viewshed. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant, stated that the lots cannot be seen from Live Oak Canyon Road. He supports staffs recommendation. Commissioner Webber closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Chairman Webber and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 804, 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 streets 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. 804 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. Mr. Osborne stated that this includes Building and Safety's Conditions of Approval that was passed out at the beginning of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 24 V. ADDENDA A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL No. 781 - A request for the Planning Commission to consider a revised color scheme for the approved 683,269 square foot concrete tilt-up warehouse/distribution building on approximately 31 acres located at 2501 West San Bernardino Avenue in Concept Plan 1 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by PROLOGIS. (Project Planner: David Jump) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation. The applicant is proposing an alternate color scheme to better represent their corporate colors. Commissioner Osborne stated that he does not have a problem with the glass going from blue to green but the darker, lighter colors gave some depth to the building and preferred the original color scheme. Commissioner Cook stated that she liked the blue to green color. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Laymon and carried on a 6- 0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the revised color scheme for Commission Review and Approval No. 781. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. May 10, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and carried on a 6-0 vote to approve the minutes of May 10, 2005. VII. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL LAND USE ACTIONS OF MAY 17, 2005 Mr. Shaw gave a brief summary on the City Council actions of May 17tH Chairman Webber stated that Tim Krantz would like to speak about slope modification techniques for some of the developments in the canyon and outside the canyon. He will be presenting a talk to City Council on June 7, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. and Chairman Webber would like to initiate a special meeting for that day. Commissioner Laymon commented for the record that Nissan did a fabulous job on their building. She stated that it is high tech without being cold and appreciates the work that they did on the building. Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 25 VII. ADJOURN TO June 14, 2005 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting at 6:40 p.m. to June 14. Christine Szilva, Administrative Secretary Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of May 24, 2005 Page 26