Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, September 13, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Dan McHugh, City Attorney Asher Hartel, Senior Planner Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant 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. Chairman Webber advised members of the audience that parking permits are available from the Planning Secretary for those seated in the audience. II. CONSENT ITEM(S) (It is recommended that the following item(s) be acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by a Commissioner or a member of the audience.) Commissioner Miller recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest at 2:01 p.m. A. Approval of Final Parcel Map No. 16739 to subdivide approximately 1.38 acres into two lots located at 640 Texas Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by TOM SIMPSON. (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) B. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO.288- Planning Commission to consider a Commission Sign Review for a sign program for a multiple building office complex 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) Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Pagel C. Approval of Final Parcel Map No. 16164 to subdivide approximately 1.66 acres into three (3)commercial parcels located on the north side of Plum Lane east of the northern terminus of Idaho Street in the Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan No. 25. Request submitted by PENCE CONSTRUCTION. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller recused) that the Planning Commission approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 2:03 p.m. III. OLD BUSINESS A. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 104 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 30.4 gross acres on property located north of San Bernardino Avenue, south of Pioneer Avenue, and west of Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) B. ZONE CHANGE NO.396-PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Zone Change from A-1, Agricultural District to R-E, Residential Estate District on three(3)contiguous parcels totaling 30.4 gross acres located north of San Bernardino Avenue,south of Pioneer Avenue, and west of Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER:ASHER HARTEL) C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 809 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development (PRD) on 30.4 gross acres consisting of 61 residential lots and multiple common open space lots located north of San Bernardino Avenue,south of Pioneer Avenue, and west of Judson Street in the A-1,Agricultural District. Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER:ASHER HARTEL) D. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16465- PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 30.4 gross acres into 61 residential lots and multiple common open space lots located north of San Bernardino Avenue, south of Pioneer Avenue, and west of Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District (Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) E. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 105 - PUBLIC Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 2 HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 12.1 gross acres on property located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) F. ZONE CHANGE NO. 399 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Zone Change from A-1, Agricultural District to R-E, Residential Estate District on 12.1 gross acres located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District(Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 819 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development (PRD) on 12.1 gross acres consisting of 20 residential lots and multiple common open space lots located at the southeast corner of PioneerAvenue and Judson Street in the A-1,Agricultural District(Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) H. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16627- PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 12.1 gross acres into 20 residential lots and multiple common open space lots located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A-1,Agricultural District(Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the proposed projects came before the Planning Commission on June 14th. At that time the Environmental Impact Report(EIR)and Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study were referred to the City Council and the remainder of the projects were continued to this date. Mr. Hartel stated the EIR was certified on June 28th, however no action was taken on the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. Mr. Hartel stated the original project was for 108 residential lots, however the revised map now proposes 81 residential lots. Mr. Hartel stated on September 6th staff received a letter/packet from the attorney representing Walton Development. Mr. Hartel stated there was not sufficient time to address the concerns noted in the letter,therefore staff requests the proposed project be continued to October 11 th Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Dean Dennis, attorney, stated that Walton Development worked very hard to come up with Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 3 revised plans for this meeting and objects to the continuance of the project. Mr. Dennis stated the contention that his letter is the basis for the continuance, is in his view, a meritless contention. Mr. Dennis stated the letter is a summary of the facts and information surrounding this case and does not offer new evidence that was not available to the City otherwise. Mr. Dennis stated a delay of the project to October 11th seems wildly excessive. Mr. Dennis stated that Walton has contended from the beginning of this process, that residential development and the airport can coexist in harmony in this city. Mr. Dennis stated the airport advocates have put the issue of compatibility into play. Mr. Dennis stated the delay seems to be in bad faith and they look forward to presenting the project on its merit, because it has a substantial benefit to the City. Mr. Dennis asked the Commission to reject the continuance to October 11tH Mr. Everett Hugh, applicant, stated that Mr. Dennis stated his position and he was available to answer questions. Mr. Eric Paul, a retired airline captain, stated that Mr. Hughes provided a list of Southern California airports that are adjacent to residential areas that he feels support his(Mr. Hughes)case for building houses next to an airport. Mr. Paul stated the northernmost proposed homes are 381 feet from Pioneer Avenue. Mr. Paul stated there is a proposal to further reduce the distance between the nearest residence and the airport. Mr. Paul stated Mr. Hughes selected 10 airports that allow residential buildings close to the airport; all 10 of the airports are now crippled because of the residential developments. Mr. Paul summarized the list of airports and their restrictions. Mr. Paul stated the small amount of tax revenue generated by the 81 homes will be grossly overshadowed by the cost of noise abatement and enforcement. Mr. Paul stated that Redlands Airport should not be compromised by Mr. Hughes or any other developer. Mr. Paul stated the answer isn't fewer homes;the answer is airport compatible development. Mr. Paul stated residential developments are not compatible until they are a lot further away than this development. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Paul if there are any restrictions in place at Redlands Airport. Mr. Paul stated that Redlands Airport and Hemet Airport are two of the only airports in Southern California without flight restrictions. Commissioner Miller requested a copy of the list of airports. Mr. Bob Pierce, Airport Advisory Board, representing the aircraft owners and pilots association, stated the airports were built prior to 1980. Mr. Pierce stated the problems that are occurring today will affect us in the future. Mr. Pierce submitted a list of petitioners requesting the proposed project be put on hold, and Mr. Pierce recommended that it be placed on hold until the Master Plan Review has been accomplished stating it will solve most of the problems. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Pierce for a time frame on completion of the Airport Master Plan. Mr. Pierce stated he did not know; however City staff is working on this matter and he believes the first meeting will be held in October. Director Jeff Shaw stated a special meeting was held in late August. At that time, the City Council Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 4 agreed to pursue an FAA grant to complete the Airport Master Plan. Mr. Shaw stated that staff anticipates that the grant application will be approved and requests for proposals have gone out Mr. Shaw stated a committee comprising two City Councilmembers will assist staff in reviewing items relative to this process. Mr. Shaw stated a workshop will be discussed at the next City Council to discuss whether or not a moratorium should be put into effect. Mr. Pierce stated the Airport Land Use Plan was developed, through legislation, because of the encroachments that took place in 1980. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. Pierce, "If a developer is allowed by the General Plan to place residential development near the airport, how can the Commission legitimately not allow the developer to build?" Mr. Pierce stated the developer may have the legal right to build in a C zone, but the key is how much open space there will be and how do you stop the noise complaints? Mr. Pierce stated the key is to preclude any lawsuits against the City relative to the noise issue. Mr. Gary Van Dorst, Municipal Utilities Department, stated the City Council authorized the City to submit a grant application to the FAA, which was subsequently approved, to update the Master Plan. Mr.Van Dorst stated the City drafted a Request for Proposal (RFP)that must be approved by the FAA prior to distribution. Mr. Van Dorst stated they want the opportunity to update the Master Plan and the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan before they move forward with this type of development. Mr. Hughes, stated the closest point of his property to the southernmost edge of the runway is 1,838 feet. Mr. Hughes stated they have moved their houses further below the B2 zone;the closest house is 190 feet south of the B2 line, which is more than 2,000 feet below the edge of the runway. Mr. Hughes stated there is nothing in the Airport Land Use Guidelines Handbook that indicates there is a need for updating the Airport Land Master Plan. Mr. Hughes stated everything that was adopted by the City three years ago when the B2 line was moved, is in conformance with the Handbook. Mr. Hughes stated the Airport Master Plan that was originally approved 12 years ago predicted that the airport usage would be approximately 300 operations per day, when in fact it is 114 operations per day. Mr. Hughes stated there is no need to update the Master Plan; his subdivision is allowed in the C zone (up to 6 units per acre)by the Land Use Plan. Mr. Hughes stated his project is 1.9 units per acre. Mr. Hughes stated it is bothersome that Redlands Airport feels it is entitled to operate without restrictions. Mr. Hughes stated in the City of Riverside all property owners have to sign an avigation easement in which they acknowledge that there is noise and traffic overthe city. Mr. Hughes stated he is frustrated; he has done everything he can to meet the guidelines. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Hughes why wouldn't the City of Redlands want to operate an airport without restrictions, and how would that create a safety problem? Mr. Hughes stated he is not a pilot; but with everything he has read, there are safety regulations. Mr. Hughes stated there are restrictions on the extensions of the runway and arrival/departure Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 5 patterns that are set up for the airport. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Macdonald stated they(the Planning Commission and City Council)are dealing with a very complex and sensitive situation relative to the airport and its future viability. Commissioner Macdonald stated it was unfortunate that Walton Development played the "attorney lawsuit" card before reasonable attempts to compromise the question at hand have been made. Commissioner Macdonald stated he hoped the attorney involvement and lawsuit preparation will wait until the Commission has an opportunity to evaluate the project on its own merits. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Shaw if the 30-day continuance is appropriate. Mr. Shaw stated the next scheduled Planning Commission has a full agenda, which is the reason for the 30-day continuance. Mr. Shaw stated the staff report was 90% complete at the time that staff received the packet from Mr. Hughes'attorney. Mr. Shaw stated that staff has not had an opportunity to address the issues in the letter so that a review and comments can be given to the Commission. Commissioner Miller stated he felt the letter was very insulting to staff. Commissioner Miller stated he would like our City Attorney to respond to a comment in the letter that stated," it would be inconsistent with the General Plan and legally inappropriate for the City to deny a zone change from agricultural." Commissioner Osborne stated he concurred with a reasonable time for staff, the City Attorney,and the Commission to review the project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 104,Zone Change No. 396, Conditional Use Permit No. 809,Tentative Tract No. 16465,Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 105, Zone Change No. 399, Conditional Use Permit No. 819 and Tentative Tract No. 16627 to the October 11th Planning Commission meeting. I. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 772 (REVISION NO. 1) -Planning Commission to consider the amendment of conditions of approval for a Commission Review and Approval developing an eight (8) building industrial park with a combined area of 118,260 square feet on an approximately 8.22 gross acre property located on the northwest corner of Citrus Avenue and Iowa Street in the EV/IC, Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by MKJ IOWA COMMERCE CENTER, LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA). Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated that Conditions of Approval require that the project provide a bike trail south of the project site on San Bernardino County Flood Control District land and that approvals, clearances, or permits be granted by the District prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Baeza stated the applicant is seeking to modify the Conditions of Approval delaying the need for clearances from the District until final occupancy of the building. Mr. Baeza stated last week staff received a letter from the District granting conditional approval of the bike trail. Mr. Baeza stated Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 6 that Condition of Approval 3 requires that the City agree to enter into a common use agreement with the District for operation and maintenance of the trail;the City is currently working with the District to finalize the agreement. Mr. Baeza stated that staff recommends the Condition of Approval be amended to require conditional approval of the trail prior to issuance of the permit. Mr. Jaquess stated he spoke with Flood Control staff and they are attempting to prepare the agreement on a County level so that it can go before the City Council. Chairman Webber opened the hearing for comments. Ms.Vicky Valenzuela,Thatcher Engineering,stated the project applicant and architect are available to answer questions. Ms. Valenzuela stated she concurs with staff's recommendations. Chairman Webber closed the hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Commission Review and Approval No. 772. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 803 - 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 four (4) building, fifty-two (52) unit motel with an area of 19,730 square feet on an approximately one (1) acre property located on the north side of Colton Avenue approximately 420 feet west of Texas Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Request submitted byCHEN KUO. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief summary on the proposed project. Mr. Baeza stated the project meets all development standards for the C-4 zone. Mr. Baeza stated staff feels the west elevation lacks architectural detail and has been conditioned to return to the Planning Commission for final architectural review. Mr. Baeza stated staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald asked if the hotel would have a brand name identification. Mr. Baeza stated currently it is being called the "Redlands Inn." Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 7 Chairman Webber opened the hearing for comments. Commissioner Osborne asked if the metal roof will be replaced with clay tiles. Mr. Dilip Tiwari, project architect, 1415 West Garvey Avenue,Suite 108,West Covina,CA answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Osborne asked what is proposed for the west elevation,which is visible from Colton Avenue. Mr.Tiwari stated if the Commission recommends additional architectural features,they will be added. Chairman Webber suggested the Commission give the applicant some direction on what they would like to see. Commissioner Laymon stated the project could use some additional architectural embellishment, particularly around the windows. Commissioner Osborne noted that the west elevation is bland; and he suggested some depth be added so that it isn't flat. Mr. Tiwari stated the west elevation is a long, flat wall that is close to the property line; but it can be made more interesting. Commissioner Miller stated he is not comfortable approving the land use without seeing the architecture. Commissioner Miller stated this kind of motel often evolves into a motel where people use it as an apartment. Commissioner Miller stated he is not ready to take action until they see a complete presentation. Commissioner Miller stated the landscape plan proposes planters with raised curbs on the west side; but the water is going to dam up in that area. Commissioner Miller stated this issue needs to be addressed. Commissioner Miller stated the proportions do not look right; one tall, narrow tower appears to be more of a minerette, rather than a mission style. Commissioner Miller stated the project lacks relief; the bridge over the entryway should be taller and more massive.Commissioner Miller stated a lower pitch on the roof might help. Chairman Webber noted that the west tower looks out of place. Commissioner Miller concurred with Chairman Webber. Commissioner Miller stated the tower on the right is nicely integrated. Commissioner Miller stated the railings on the stair have a "spindly look" and they generally communicate an economy grade motel, which is something they are trying to get away from. Commissioner Miller stated the setback on the west side is only five (5)feet, therefore the planting of eucalyptus trees in that location would be difficult to accomplish. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber suggested the project return to the Commission and he stated he would like to see colored renderings of the courtyard, the internal detail, and the facade on the west. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Tiwari if a 30-day continuance would be sufficient. Mr. Tiwari agreed that it would. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 8 It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 803 to October 11, 2005. Commissioner Miller recused himself for items IV-B and IV-C, due to a conflict of interest, at 3:05 p.m. B. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 806 - 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 three (3) building medical complex with an area of 52,559 square feet on an approximately 3.6 acre property located on the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Iowa Street in the 'EV/IC', Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by JAMES H. DIDION. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) C. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 286 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study and consideration of a Minor Subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No. 17283)on 3.53 acres for the purpose of medical condominiums at a property located on the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Iowa Street in the 'EV/IC', Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by JAMES H. DIDION. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr.Altopp stated staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Mohammed Yomis, representing the applicant,thanked the staff for their diligent effort working with him. Mr.Yomis requested that Conditions of Approval 32 and 33 be modified stating they allude to a full length improvement of Park Avenue and Iowa Avenue, beyond the property line. Mr.Yomis stated they discussed this matter with the Public Works Department and Planning Division and they agreed the improvement should be for the area fronting the project; otherwise it would require additional right-of-way. Mr. Yomis stated the current owner of the parcel located at the corner has no intention of developing the property at this time. Mr. Jaquess stated that staff agrees the applicant should only have to install street improvements in Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 9 front of their property; the Conditions of Approval as written, only apply to the front of the property. Mr. Jaquess stated it was not staff's intent to require improvements on the corner property. Mr. Jaquess stated the Department of Public Works modified the Condition of Approval to delete the corner parcel, from the improvement Condition of Approval. Director Jeff Shaw stated he wanted the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) minutes to be reviewed to determine what action was taken and whether or not the Conditions of Approval that were being modified, were associated with a Mitigation Measure. Mr. Jaquess left the meeting to review the ERC minutes. Mr. Yomis requested that Fire Department Condition of Approval No. 1, which requires the installation of two(2)public fire hydrants on Park Avenue and Iowa Avenue and four(4)on-site fire hydrants be reduced to one (1) public fire hydrant on Iowa Avenue and three (3) on-site fire hydrants. Mr. Yomis stated that Fire Marshall Leonard Temby was in agreement with this change. Mr. Shaw stated the proposed project may have to be continued pending review of the CEQA documents. Mr. Shaw suggested the item be tabled so that the Fire Department could be contacted regarding revision of the Condition of Approval. Items IV-B and IV-C were tabled pending review of the ERC minutes at 3:22 p.m. D. VARIANCE NO. 712 - PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission consideration of a Variance from Section 1 8.44.130(A) of the Redlands Municipal Code to reduce the requirement for a front-yard setback for a residential building from twenty-five (25) feet to twenty (20) feet on the Union Avenue frontage and a variance from Section 18.152.070(G.3)to reduce the requirement for rear yard open space for substandard lots below the minimum of 1000 square feet to 520 square feet for the property located on the northeast corner of Union Avenue and Calhoun Street in the R-1, Residential District. Request submitted by STEVEN PARKER. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project and stated that staff recommends approval of Variance No. 712. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Steve Parker, applicant, stated he concurs with staff's findings and would like to proceed with his project. 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 approve Variance No. 712 subject to the findings and attached conditions of approval: 1. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions, applicable to the property or the intended use, that do not apply generally to Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 10 other properties, or uses, in the same vicinity and zone due to the substandard size of the parcel and the fact that it is located on a corner. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to the property in question, such as those identified in the staff report. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity, as no effect on current lines of sight or impediments to pedestrian movement will occur ensuring aesthetic and safety issues are minimized. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. E. VARIANCE NO.707-PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Section 18.168.220 regarding the required landscape area of twenty- five (25)feet or more in width for projects adjacent to freeway right-of-way along the northern property line to be used as parking for property located at the southeast corner of Colton Avenue and New York Street in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. Request submitted by RICHARD FEENSTRA. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) F. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 809-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 an L-shaped, thirty-one (31) unit motel with an area of 14,024 square feet on an approximately 25,632 square foot lot located on the southeast corner of Colton Avenue and New York Street in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. Request submitted by RICHARD FEENSTRA. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Richard Feenstra, 131 Cajon Street, Suite 6, Redlands, stated he concurs with staff's recommendation with the exception of Public Works Department Condition of Approval 14(B)which requires the applicant to meet requirements for a permit from Cal Trans prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mr. Feenstra stated he spoke with a Cal Trans staff member and was assured there would not be a problem with street improvements; the City has proposed a street light at the corner of Colton Avenue and New York Street and he (applicant) would be required to obtain an encroachment permit. Mr. Feenstra stated he would like the wording revised to suggest cooperation with Cal Trans similar to Planning Division's Condition of Approval 31 pertaining to landscape rather than worded as a requirement. Mr. Feenstra stated currently the project is conditioned to include this requirement be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 11 Assistant Director John Jaquess told Mr. Feenstra that Public Works Condition of Approval 14(b) requires that "curb and gutter be constructed from the curb return at the southwest corner of New York Street and Colton Avenue including transitions." Mr. Jaquess indicated he would contact the Public Works Department and ask that they send a representative to the meeting to provide clarification Chairman Webber tabled the item and called for a short recess of the meeting at 3:44 p.m. Chairman Webber reconvened the meeting at 3:55 p.m., stating that items IV-B and IV-C would be heard at this time. B. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 806 - 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 three (3) building medical complex with an area of 52,559 square feet on an approximately 3.6 acre property located on the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Iowa Street in the 'EV/IC', Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by JAMES H. DIDION. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) C. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 286 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study and consideration of a Minor Subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map No. 17283)on 3.53 acres for the purpose of medical condominiums at a property located on the northwest corner of Park Avenue and Iowa Street in the 'EV/IC', Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by JAMES H. DIDION. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Commissioner Miller recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest. Chairman Webber asked Fire Marshall Leonard Temby to clarify Fire Department Condition of Approval 1. Fire Marshall Temby stated he drove by the site and the two (2)fire hydrants on Park Avenue will suffice. Mr.Temby stated he met with the applicant and advised him if the fire service is relocated east of the driveway, it will meet the Fire Department requirements. Mr.Temby stated one (1)fire hydrant will remain on Iowa Street,along with three(3)on-site fire hydrants at three hundred Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 12 (300)foot spacing between hydrants. Mr.Temby stated the Condition of Approvals would be revised by the Fire Department to reflect these changes. City Attorney Dan McHugh stated an issue was raised relative to the construction of improvements along the frontage of the property or beyond (Planning Division Conditions of Approval 32 and 33 and Mitigation Measures 9 and 10.) Mr. Mc Hugh stated if the Commission finds that the revised Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures with the lesser construction, as requested by the applicant, are equivalent to those that currently exist, the Commission has the ability to reduce it without re-circulating the Negative Declaration. Director Shaw stated the Public Works Conditions of Approval were modified to address this issue; the Planning Division Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures were not modified at the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)meeting, although he stated he felt it was their intent to do so. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Cook noted that she liked the building textures and colors. Chairman Webber concurred with Commissioner Cook. Commissioner Cook stated it was a very clean project that contained everything that is required. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller recused) that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review&Approval No. 806 and Minor Subdivision No. 286 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 and find that the change to Mitigation Measures 9 and 10 (which are to also be reflected in the Conditions of Approval) are equivalent to the Mitigation Measures that were recommended by the Environmental Review Committee and made available for public review, and the amended measures do not cause any significant impacts. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote(Commissioner Miller recused)that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review&Approval No. 806 and Minor Subdivision No.286 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 Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 13 6-0 vote(Commissioner Miller recused) 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 Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller recused) that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 806 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval. 4. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the medical office park use because it complies with all property development standards for the 'EV/IC' zoning district; 2. The site properly relates to Iowa Street and Park Avenue which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development because both streets will be constructed to city prescribed standards to their ultimate half widths through compliance with project conditions of approval; 3. The Conditions of Approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 806 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; 4. The use is desirable for the overall development of the community because the proposed project conforms with both the General Plan Designation, Municipal Code requirements, and the development standards of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan with a revision to Fire Department Condition of Approval 1 to read: 1. The developer shall install one (1) public fire hydrant on Park Avenue and Iowa Street and three (3) on-site fire hydrants with 4 x 2 X '/2' outlets. And revisions to Planning Division Conditions of Approval 32 and 33 to read: 32. To mitigate potential impacts from Transportation and Traffic as identified in Section XV(a) of the environmental checklist, Park Avenue shall be constructed along the site frontage at its ultimate half-section width as a Collector Street including landscaping and parkway improvements in conjunction with development. (Mitigation Measure No. 9) and 33. To mitigate potential impacts from Transportation and Traffic as identified in Section XV(a)of the environmental checklist, Iowa Street along the frontage of the Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 14 site to be constructed at its ultimate half-section width as a Collector street including Landscaping on parkway improvements in conjunction with development. (Mitigation Measure No. 10) MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller recused)that the Planning Commission approve Minor Subdivision No. 286 subject to the Conditions of Approval and based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code and East Valley Corridor Specific Plan; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide for condominium purposes; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of condominiums. The General Plan Land Use Designations of Industrial/Commercial and zoning of Commercial industrial of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan both allow for medical office condominiums; 4. The design of the subdivisions or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resource or within a wildlife corridor; 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; 6. The design of the subdivision or 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. Chairman Webber advised that agenda items IV-E and IV-F, which had been tabled earlier during the meeting, would be heard at this time. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting. E. VARIANCE NO.707-PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Section 18.168.220 regarding the required landscape area of twenty- Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 15 five (25)feet or more in width for projects adjacent to freeway right-of-way along the northern property line to be used as parking for property located at the southeast corner of Colton Avenue and New York Street in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. Request submitted by RICHARD FEENSTRA. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) F. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 809-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 an L-shaped, thirty-one (31) unit motel with an area of 14,024 square feet on an approximately 25,632 square foot lot located on the southeast corner of Colton Avenue and New York Street in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. Request submitted by RICHARD FEENSTRA. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Chairman Webber advised that there was some discussion regarding Public Works Department Conditions of Approval. Assistant Director Tom Fujiwara stated the Condition of Approval talks about improving New York Street along the frontage in addition to off-site in a northerly direction to allow for proper transition so that there is an adequate width to accommodate the traffic flow smoothly. Mr. Fujiwara stated they feel this is a public safety issue and he believes a continuance of the proposed project will be helpful. Mr. Feenstra stated he is in total agreement with Mr. Fujiwara, however they hope to not have to wait for the encroachment permit in order to obtain a grading permit. Mr. Shaw stated that Public Works Condition of Approval A(8) could be moved to Condition of Approval C(19). Assistant Director Tom Fujiwara indicated that would be acceptable.The applicant was also in concurrence. Chairman Webber stated he reviewed the landscape plan and it appeared to be fine. Commissioner Miller stated he felt the architecture was good and he supported it. Commissioner Osborne concurred. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Variance No.707 and Commission Review and Approval No. 809, 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 Miller, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 16 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Variance 707 and Commission Review and Approval No. 809. 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 Miller, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 707 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same vicinity and zone. There is a significant grade difference between the property and the 1-10 freeway. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone district, but which is denied to the property in question. There are a number of properties in the City which have been able to develop within twenty-five feet of the freeway right- of-way. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity. The reduced setback would be consistent with existing neighboring development. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial and will not affect any of the policies'outlined in the General Plan in relation to commercial development. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 809, 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 New York Street which is designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 17 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 809 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. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 853- Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the co-location of antenna panels on an existing 104- foot cellular monopalm and the addition of an approximate 336 square foot equipment shelter at an existing 1,871 square foot compound located at 761 San Timoteo Canyon Road within the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by AT&T WIRELESS. (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Jump stated a report from an arborist will be due six(6)months from the date of the project approval to assess the health of the palm trees and ensure that the deep watering system that was required, is sufficient, otherwise the applicant will be required to replace the palm trees. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Adrian Colicci, American Tower Corporation, stated he concurs with staff's requirements. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commission Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 853 and direct staff to file and Post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commission Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.853 subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 18 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 to be permitted 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. 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. H. VARIANCE NO.711 -PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Sections 18.40.100 and 120 to allow a reduction in the required front yard setback from 25 feet to 9 feet along the western property boundary adjacent to Bermuda Drive and to allow for an increase in allowed lot coverage from 30 percent to 34 percent for property located at 701 Bermuda Drive in the R-S, Suburban Residential District. Request submitted by BRUCE FARSHTEY. (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Bruce Farshtey, applicant, stated he was advised that staff is recommending that he move the pool equipment north of the proposed room addition. Mr. Farshtey requested the pool equipment remain at its present location, due to a possible safety issue (closing off of the walkway). MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 19 It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Osborne,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 711 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 due to the sub- standard size of the parcel and orientation of the home on the lot. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to the property in question, such as those identified in the staff report. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity, as no effect on current lines of sight or impediments to pedestrian movement will occur ensuring aesthetic and safety issues are minimized. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands with the deletion of Planning Division Condition of Approval 9. I. ZONE CHANGE NO. 420 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Zone Change from unincorporated San Bernardino County RS-1 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per acre) to the City of Redlands R-E (Residential Estate), on 0.24 acres, Assessor Parcel No. 299-213-16, located on the east side of Wabash Avenue, north of Interstate 10 Freeway. Request submitted by CITY OF REDLANDS. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) Project Planner Asher Hartel gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing.Seeing no comments forthcoming,Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Zone Change No. 420, Tentative Tract No. 16586, and Conditional Use Permit No. 815. 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 September 13, 2005 Page 20 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 1070, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zone Change No. 420. J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 863 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit for the adaptive reuse of a relocated two-story house as a museum at 1153 N. Orange Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. The proposed museum is in conjunction with and adjacent to the existing Historical Glass Museum at 1157 N.Orange Street. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) K. BUILDING MOVING PERMIT 116-PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider the relocation of the "Marten Andersen House", a designated historic resource presently located at 8316 th Street, to a vacant property at 1153 N. Orange Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) L. PARKING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 21 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Parking Modification Permit for two designated historic houses for use as the Historical Glass Museum at 1153 and 1157 N. Orange Street in the C-4 Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) Project Planner Asher Hartel gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Hartel stated staff is concerned about the Orange Street parking because of the narrowness of the street and volume of traffic and recommends that the three (3) parking spaces be placed at the rear. Mr. Hartel stated that Mr. Frank Herendeen proposed an extra parking space at the rear behind the Seymour House. Mr. Hartel stated that one parking space is substandard therefore the trash refuse area would have to be moved to make the parking space work. Mr. Hartel stated that staff took Mr. Herendeen's proposal and expanded on it by placing two (2)spaces behind the Marten Anderson House which would require a revised handicap ramp. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Commissioner Laymon asked Mr. Hartel if he was aware of the letter from the pastor of the church that is located across the street. Commissioner Laymon asked if a formalized parking agreement with the church would satisfy's staff's concerns relative to parking. Mr. Hartel stated that staff could not consider the area for parking, as it is an unimproved, dirt parking lot. Mr. Shaw stated that staff would have concerns because the lot is located across Orange Street, Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 21 which is a busy street. Commissioner Miller stated that each of the homes are on separate parcels, so that one of the homes could be sold off in the future resulting in a commercial use granted without parking. Assistant Director Jaquess stated that one of the Conditions of Approval requires that the two (2) lots be merged into one. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Gary Van Dorst, Municipal Utilities Department, stated he was approached by Mr. Herendeen relative to the standard departmental Condition of Approval for a double enclosure at the facility. Mr. Van Dorst stated he agrees with Mr. Herendeen, that it is not appropriate to the use of this facility and they propose that the Condition of Approval be deleted and replaced with a requirement for automated carts. Ms. Sherli Leonard, Redlands Conservancy, stated she appreciates the help she received from the staff. Ms. Leonard stated she concurs with the Conditions of Approval with the exception of Conditions of Approval 16 and 17. Ms. Leonard stated this was the first time she had seen the requirement for a lot merger(Condition of Approval 17). Ms. Leonard stated they feel the placement of the parking lot behind the house would be a travesty, because it would create a large parking area behind the two buildings and would require the removal of three (3) carrotwood trees. Mr. Frank Herendeen, Historical Glass Museum, stated the museum is open on weekends only, where there is not as much traffic on Orange Street. Mr. Herendeen stated they have a sign indicating that the parking and entrance are in the rear. Mr. Herendeen stated that Condition of Approval 5 requires a new application for a Conditional Use Permit to be filed if the building is sold in the future. Mr. Shaw concurred. Commissioner Macdonald stated he felt that something could be done to allow the rear area to be developed into gardens rather than a parking lot. Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the Parking Modification Permit, if approved as submitted, addresses the applicant's parking needs without a parking agreement or off-site requirements. Mr. Jaquess stated that staff would promote parking adjacent to the property in lieu of parking across the street. The Commission reached a consensus to go with 4 parking spaces on Western , 3 parking spaces on Orange Street and 3 parking spaces behind the building. Commissioner Miller stated if they go with the proposal that shows 4 parking space in the rear, the refuse enclosure would have to be taken down and the trash bins relocated. Mr. Jaquess stated there is a ramp to accommodate handicap access in the rear. Mr. Shaw stated the trash bins would have to be relocated, which is minor. Mr. Herendeen stated currently, people can park where they want. Mr. Herendeen stated in orderto have 4 parking spaces, the grass area would have to be reduced and would cost more money. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 22 Mr. Herendeen requested that Condition of Approval 16 be deleted. Mr. Shaw stated with the deletion of Condition of Approval 16 there will be two parking spaces and 1 handicap parking space. There was a consensus by the Commission to delete Conditions of Approval 16 and 17. Chairman Webber asked if there was a consensus to change the tree species on Orange Street. Chairman Webber suggested a Condition of Approval be added that requires a palm tree similarto the existing trees on Orange Street that complies with the requirements of the Public Works Department. Mr. Jaquess noted that the Planning Commission packet did not include Conditions of Approval from the Public Works, Building and Safety, Fire, and Municipal Utilities Departments. Mr. Shaw suggested the Commission take a few minutes to review the Conditions of Approval from the other departments. Chairman Webber tabled the items pending review of the Conditions of Approval. V. ADDENDA D. Review of Application for Transfer of an On-Sale General Alcoholic Beverage License for Tartan of Redlands located at 24 E. Redlands Boulevard Mr. Jaquess stated staff recommends approval of the On-Sale General Alcoholic Beverage License for Tartan of Redlands. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planing Commission approve the Person-to-Person transfer related to the On- Sale General Alcoholic Beverage License for Tartan of Redlands as there are no problems associated with this facility. Item V-C was heard at this pending the arrival of the Planner for Item V-B. C Updated Municipal Code and General Plan Information Director Shaw stated there was a question regarding obtaining updated information. Mr. Shaw stated staff recommends that the website be used for information on the General Plan and zoning code. Mr. Shaw stated there is a time delay from approval until the information is posted on the website. Mr. Shaw suggested staff be contacted before utilizing the website. B. Final Landscape Plan for Commission Review and Approval No. 795-Dan Carlone Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 23 Commissioner Miller recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest at 5:36 p.m. Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the project was reviewed and required to return to the Commission to show the plantings. Mr. Baeza stated staff is recommending approval of the plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller recused) that the Planning Commission approve the Final Landscape Plan for Commission Review and Approval No. 795. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 5:38 p.m. Further discussion on IV-J, K, and L, which was tabled earlier, was conducted at this time. J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 863 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit for the adaptive reuse of a relocated two-story house as a museum at 1153 N. Orange Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. The proposed museum is in conjunction with and adjacent to the existing Historical Glass Museum at 1157 N.Orange Street. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) K. BUILDING MOVING PERMIT 116-PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider the relocation of the "Marten Andersen House", a designated historic resource presently located at 8316 th Street, to a vacant property at 1153 N. Orange Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) L. PARKING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 21 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Parking Modification Permit for two designated historic houses for use as the Historical Glass Museum at 1153 and 1157 N. Orange Street in the C-4 Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) Ms. Leonard asked Mr. Shaw if the project was subject to Measure U. Mr. Shaw stated that all projects are subject to Measure U. If you are discussing the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit studies, Mr. Shaw stated it would not be required for this project because there are existing structures. Ms. Leonard asked if the development impact fees could be waived. Mr. Shaw stated he did not believe they could. Ms. Leonard stated it appeared that the Conditions of Approval are"boilerplate"items. Ms. Leonard stated a Public Works Department Condition of Approval relative to the Water Quality Management Plan has been waived and she wanted it noted for the record. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 24 Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Hartel to have a representative from the Public Works Department comment on the Condition of Approval and waive it, if needed. Chairman Webber stated the item would be tabled again, pending the arrival of a representative from the Public Works Department. Chairman Webber suggested the proposed project be continued so that the Commission does not "rush through" processing of the project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No.863, Building Moving Permit No. 116, and Parking Modification Permit No. 21 to September 27, 2005. Commissioner Cook left the meeting at 5:45 p.m. D. Final Landscape Plan and Architectural Review for Conditional Use Permit No. 845 and Tentative Tract No. 17253 -ABCO Realty and Investments, Inc. Project Planner David Jump stated the project was approved on June 28, 2005, and required to return to the Commission for final approval of the Landscape Plan and architectural review. Mr. Jump stated the color scheme was revised,the shingles were changed to composition shingles, and asphalt shingle siding and metal trellises were added. Mr.Jump stated there are two(2)issues that will have to be addressed by the applicant;the limited amount of landscape along the southern and western edge of the property and the mix of plant species proposed in this area. Mr. Jump stated staff recommends approval of the final Landscape Plan and continuance of the architectural review to address Planning Commission concerns relative to the roofing materials, stone accent features on the lower elevations,and revision to the trellis design for more compatibility with the "Craftsman" style. Chairman Webber opened the hearing. Mr. Al Mozayeni, developer, stated many revisions have been made to the plans. Mr. Mozayeni stated the project architect will review the changes that have been made. Mr. Mozayeni stated if the proposed project is continued, he may not be able make the next Residential Development Allocation (RDA) deadline. Commissioner Miller requested a summary of the changes that have been made. Mr. David Musser, project architect, summarized the changes that were made to the project. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. Musser if they are still proposing asphalt shingle roofing. Mr. Musser responded by saying they feel the asphalt shingles are consistent with the "Craftsman" style, but they have changed the shingle type to a dog-eared tab with a pattern cut into it. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 25 Mr. Musser stated at the last meeting there was a comment there was not enough detail on the buildings and there was too much siding material. Mr. Musser stated on the second floor elevations (both the interior courtyards and the exterior perimeter of the building masses ) they have picked selected areas and substituted the composite siding for composite shingles. Mr. Musser stated they have two color schemes to mix and match across the buildings. Mr. Musser stated the trellises were redesigned to conform with the "Craftsman" style through the use of masonry block and large tubes to create supports for the trellises. Mr. Musser stated it is their intention to have vines growing on the trellises to create greenery, shade, color and articulation, but they will not be mounted to the buildings. Mr. Musser stated they want to provide something that is easily maintained by the Homeowners' Association. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Musser to consider a stone base and double column for the trellis. Mr. Musser stated a single column is used regularly and they are proposing split faced masonry bases. Commissioner Miller stated he felt the bases that are proposed are too short. Commissioner Laymon concurred with Commissioner Miller stating the trellises look unsubstantial in comparison to the mass of the building. Chairman Webber stated he felt the cinder block should be changed. Mr. Musser suggested that the block could be plastered. Commissioner Osborne stated he felt the base was still too small. Commissioner Miller stated he supports an interpretation of the"Craftsman"style which tends to be massive with a stone or river rock waterline and have long overhangs. Commissioner Miller stated he felt the block should be raised to the bottom of the window sill. Commissioner Miller stated he felt plaster would work as long as it has a three (3) inch cap and he felt there are creative ways to use concrete block so that it looks like cut stone. Commissioner Miller stated the applicant may want to go with cultured stone which could result in additional points during the RDA process. Mr. Musser stated the project could be brought back for a follow-up review by Planning staff. Mr. Mozeyani stated the plans would be revised, per the Commission's comments, prior to the RDA process. Commissioner Miller expressed concern on the intense colors of the project. Chairman Webber and Commissioner Macdonald stated they like the colors. Commissioner Miller stated he expressed concern on the closeness of the buildings at the previous meeting, however he now understood by connecting the building, the architect would not have to provide a separation between the units. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Final Landscape Plan for Conditional Use Permit No. 845 and Tentative Tract No. 17253. Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 26 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the architectural review for Conditional Use Permit No. 845 and Tentative Tract No. 17253 with the addition of Conditions of Approval to read: The block base for all on-site trellises shall be equal to the height of the bottom of the adjacent windows to provide a continuous sight line at this elevation. All block bases for the on-site trellises shall be finished with a decorative cap at the top. The block base pillar for on-site trellises shall be changed to a height of 32-inches tall and shall incorporate varying block sizes of four inch, six inch and eight inch block with a minimum width of 18 inches by 18 inches to compliment and mimic the craftsman architectural style. Each proposed paint color for the building facade shall be the same color up to each screed line on the building. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 9, 2005 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of August 9t" VII. ADJOURN MEETING TO SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 Director Shaw gave a brief summary on the City Council actions of September 20t" Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to September 27th at 6:31 p.m.The evening session was cancelled due to lack of a quorum Patti Ortiz Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of September 13, 2005 Page 27