Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, October 25, 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 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, Assistant Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant 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 with the exception of Commissioner Thompson. 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. TERRACINA MEDICAL CENTER, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. A request for the Planning Commission to consider the final landscaping plan for Commission Review and Approval No. 794 for the Terracina Medical Condominiums which consist of both the 2.0 acre main building site and the.72 acre secondary parking area located at 255 Terracina Boulevard in the MF, Medical Facilities District and T, Transitional District respectively. C. BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT CO.,APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOHN JAQUESS) 1. Review of application for the stock transfer of an on-sale general alcoholic beverage license for Bon Appetit at University of Redlands located at 1200 E.Colton Avenue. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Pagel It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Consent items A and C. Commissioners Macdonald and Miller recused themselves due to a possible conflict of interest at 2:03 p.m. B. DON WILLS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) 1. Planning Commission to consider Commission Sign Review No. 291 for the adoption of a uniform sign program for Plaza Villa Rosa located at 1705 - 1711 Lugonia Avenue in the Office Industrial District of Specific Plan 25. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 4-0 vote (Commissioners Macdonald and Miller recused) that the Planning Commission approve Consent item B. Commissioners Macdonald and Miller returned to the meeting at 2:05 p.m. III. OLD BUSINESS A. MICHAEL LI AND STEVE TENG/MLST INVESTMENT, LLC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No.812 to develop a 6,750 square foot commercial center on a 25,616 square foot lot located on the southeast corner of Lugonia Avenue and Orange Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Project Planner Altopp gave an overview of the proposed project. He stated that the applicants are seeking clarification as to the Commission's final position relative to the underground utilities. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Steve Teng and Michael Li, applicants, were available for questions. Commissioner Miller had questions relative to the applicants cost analysis. Mr. Teng stated that estimated costs associated with the undergrounding of the utilities were completed with the assistance of a hired consultant, Edison,Adelphia and Verizon. Mr. Li stated that the costs are more than originally budgeted but that they would still like to continue with the project even with the$120,000 additional costs. Commissioner Macdonald asked if the applicant understood that the City would make it a priority to do the other underground lines and relieve them of that responsibility. Mr. Shaw stated that staff has proposed this alternative to the applicant and that this could be identified as a priority in the future but that funds are not available at this time. Staff identified that undergrounding would occur in front of the property and what would remain is a pole at the corner. Chairman Webber asked how much the citizens of Redlands would pay to put the poles underground as the Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 2 project goes forward. Mr.Jaquess stated that it would be funded by Rule 20,which is moneythat Edison sets aside for the City to use for undergrounding. Commissioner Miller made several calculations relative to lineal foot costs, stating that the combination of a 90 and 145-foot run would run about $400 a lineal foot. He indicated that it would be helpful if costs were available from Public Works. Mr.Shaw stated that costs are high due to either coring underneath or closing both Lugonia and Orange Street during certain hours. Chairperson Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller stated that the costs are disproportionate relative to the size of the property and he would like to see some more independent opinions of what the costs are before making a final decision. Commissioners Cook and Laymon concurred with Commissioner Miller that a cost analysis was in order. Commissioner Osborne stated he will accept the frontage along Lugonia if the Commission is willing to compromise in removing the pole to the east. Chairman Webber indicated that the developer should have realized the costs associated with developing a corner lot versus a single frontage lot and that the city was going to require undergrounding of power lines. He stated that the poles should go underground at the expense of the developer. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 812 to November 8m B. WALTON DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for Zone Change No. 396 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. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 104 for 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. 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No.809 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. 5. PUBLIC HEARING for Tentative Tract Map No. 16465 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). Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 3 6. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Zone Change No.399 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). 7. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 105 for 12.1 gross acres on property located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. 8. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No.819 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 Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A-1,Agricultural District(Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). 9. PUBLIC HEARING for Tentative Tract Map No. 16627 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). Commissioner Laymon recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Project Planner Asher Hartel gave a brief background on the proposed project. The project was previously reviewed by the Commission to allow staff to review and respond to an attorney's letter from the developer. Gary VanDorst, Solid Waste Manager representing the Municipal Utilities Department, stated the City staff recommendation of denial is based on Airport considerations. Mr.VanDorst stated that the Airport Master Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are in the process of being updated. He addressed issues relative to protecting zoning laws, overflight impacts, preservation of land use, noise exposure to people on the ground and Airport restrictions due to complaints. Dean Dennis, Attorney for Walton Development, stated that he submitted a letter dated October 18th for Planning Commission review. He stated that the project now meets or exceeds the requirements for a PRD (Planned Residential Development)and R-E zone. The only remaining issue has to do with the zone change which is tied to the airport compatibility. He has submitted the legal reasons why he believes the denial of the zone change is inconsistent with the General Plan. He stated that in the written material presented, it shows the reasons why the project and the airport can coexist at the proposed distance. The factual evidence shows that homes can coexist at a distance of more than 2,000 feet from an airport. Everett Hughes, representing Walton Development,encouraged the Commission to deal with facts instead of emotions since all of the facts indicate that this project should be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. There is no evidence that there would be safety issues or that they would be introducing additional noise complaints. Eric Paul, retired airline captain and full time user of Redlands Airport, addressed development issues, potential airport curfews and other restrictions,and the inability to expand airport services. Mr.Paul urged the Commission to protect Redlands Airport and deny the Walton Development project. John James, Airport Advisory Board member, stated that he is against the zone change. He expressed the importance of the airport and its value to the City. Rick Brown, R. D. Brown Co., stated that he has a development application in progress with the Planning Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 4 Department on a nearby seven acre site. He expressed that he had no knowledge of the impending land use issue and is concerned that he will be unable to proceed with his project. He supports the Walton Development project. Bill Cunningham, representing the Redlands Association, addressed conversion of agricultural land issues relative to Measure U and N. He stated that he was delighted and respected the efforts of the Commission in looking at the long term character of quality and economic viability of the Citywithout moving precipitously with regard to the future of the airport. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber addressed Mr. Browns comments. Commissioner Macdonald stated that it was his opinion to put everything on hold until decisions relative to land use are resolved. Commissioner Miller stated he would like to see a consistent land use policy. He stated that the testimony given in the workshop and at this meeting contradicted Walton's position that an airport and residential development could coexist. He expressed that he sees the Redlands Airport as a valuable asset that we have to protect and recommended that the project be placed on hold. Commissioner Cook stated that she is in favor of waiting until we know what the land use plan says relative to the Airport. She stated that she does not know if having houses next to an Airport is a good idea. Commissioner Osborne stated he is in favor of waiting until the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is revisited and available to see if there is significant interference. Chairman Webber stated that this project stresses the need for the master plan to be developed for the Airport. He thought that it was a mistake when the B2 line was moved back in 2003. He recommended waiting for the land use plan to be completed. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Hughes if a decision was needed today and if he would agree to continue the project as recommended. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Commissioner Macdonald asked if there was a time table on completing the Master Plan for the Airport. Mr. Shaw stated that we are looking at an approximate time frame of twelve to eighteen months. Commissioner Macdonald asked if a certain date and time must be entered by the Planning Commission or could they keep putting the project on hold. City Attorney McHugh stated that it would not be in the best interest of the City or applicant to do an indefinite continuance on this matter for twelve or eighteen months. Mr.Shaw suggested a time period be established if something could be accomplished and if the applicant was willing to agree on a continuance. Otherwise, a recommendation for denial was prepared by staff. Mr. Dennis stated that he is looking for ways to reach a consensus and compromise on the project. In the interest of both the City and project applicant, they are not willing to agree to a continuance and would prefer that the Commission take action on the project. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Zone Change No. 396 because the zone change is not necessary,or is premature,and could cause development which would conflict with the General Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 5 Plan policies requiring protection of the Redlands Municipal Airport as a safe and economically viable enterprise of the City,and also cause development which would subject the public to unnecessary noise and safety hazards because of the properties' proximity to the airport. Further, a change to the proposed Residential Estate zoning could conflict with plans to update the Airport Master Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which may modify the B-2 and C zones of that plan, by causing an unacceptable density of development on the property. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Cook and carried on a 4-1 vote (Chairman Webber voting no)that the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council of the revised Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Conditional Use Permit numbers 809 & 819 and Tentative Tract numbers 16465 and 16627, because 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 Cook and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 104 based on the reasons that(1)the Planning Commission has not recommended the A-1 zoning be changed for the project properties; (2) maintaining the properties in agricultural preserve status is consistent with the existing A-1 zoning and the City's General Plan Section No.7.40 relating to the preservation of agriculture;and (3) premature removal of the agricultural preserve status could lead to the development of the property with uses that are incompatible with uses which may be allowed under the updated Airport Master Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 809 based upon the following findings: A. The proposed project is inconsistent with, and not permitted within, the A-1 Agricultural District zoning and the Agricultural Preserve designation, and because approval of the proposed project would conflict with the applicable land use plans of the City by being in violation of the City's General Plan policies and applicable zoning. B. The proposed project will not comply to the maximum extent feasible with the policies of the City's General Plan,the applicable A-1 zoning district and the City's development standards for a Planned Residential Development because current standards have not been applied to the project as follows: 1. The allowable density under the A-1 District is exceeded by the proposed TT 16465. 2. Proposed lot sizes are inconsistent with a PRD project in the A-1 District for the proposed TT 16465. C. That the proposed project is not appropriate at the proposed location because the Zoning District does not provide for the use of the property for residential uses at the density that is proposed. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 6 It was moved by Commissioner Cook,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Tentative Tract No. 16465,based upon the following findings: A. That the proposed map is inconsistent with the City's General Plan or other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code because although the project has a General Plan land use designation of Very-Low Density Residential which may be found consistent with the project, the project is not consistent with the zoning of A-1,Agricultural;in addition the project does not meet the Planned Residential Development Ordinance of the Municipal Code as follows: 1. The allowable density under the A-1 District is exceeded for the proposed TT 16465. 2. Proposed lot sizes are inconsistent with a PRD project in the A-1 District for the proposed TT 16465. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Zone Change No. 399, because the zone change is not necessary,or is premature,and could cause development which would conflict with the General Plan policies requiring protection of the Redlands Municipal Airport as a safe and economically viable enterprise of the City, and also cause development which would subject the public to unnecessary noise and safety hazards because of the properties' proximity to the airport. Further, a change to the proposed Residential Estate zoning could conflict with plans to update the Airport Master Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan which may modify the B-2 and C zones of that plan, by causing an unacceptable density of development on the property. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 105 based on the reasons that(1)the Planning Commission has not recommended the A-1 zoning be changed for the project properties; (2) maintaining the properties in agricultural preserve status is consistent with the existing A-1 zoning and the City's General Plan Section No.7.40 relating to the preservation of agriculture;and (3) premature removal of the agricultural preserve status could lead to the development of the property with uses that are incompatible with uses which may be allowed under the updated Airport Master Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 819, based upon the following findings: A. Because the proposed project is inconsistent with, and not permitted within, the A-1 Agricultural District zoning and the Agricultural Preserve designation; the proposed project will adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City by being in violation of the City's General Plan and applicable zoning. B. That the proposed project will not comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable A-1 zoning district and the City's development standards for a Planned Residential Development because current standards have not been Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 7 applied to the project as follows: 1. The allowable density under the A-1 District is exceeded for the proposed TT 16627. 2. Proposed lot sizes are inconsistent with a PRD project in the A-1 District for the proposed TT 16627. C. That the proposed project is not appropriate at the proposed location because the Zoning District does not provide for the use of the property for residential uses at the density that is proposed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Tentative Tract No. 16627,based upon the following findings: I. That the proposed map is inconsistent with the City's General Plan or any applicable specific plan,or other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code because although the project has a General Plan land use designation of Very-Low Density Residential which may be found consistent with the project,the project is not consistent with the zoning of A-1, Agricultural; in addition the project does not meet the Planned Residential Development Ordinance of the Municipal Code as follows: 1. The allowable density under the A-1 District is exceeded for the proposed TT 16627. 2. Proposed lot sizes are inconsistent with a PRD project in the A-1 District for the proposed TT 16627. Commissioner Laymon returned to the meeting. C. CHEN KUO, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No.803 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. Project Planner Baeza stated that this item was continued from the meeting of September 13th to allow the applicant time to revise their architectural drawings. The applicant requires more time to update the drawings, however, the project has approached its 180-day CEQA time limit. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take an action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration which will give the project an additional sixty (60)days for processing. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 8 Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. No comments were forthcoming and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Miller stated that his intention was to ensure that this was a quality project due to the nature of the motel. He asked if there was enough leverage to insist on some conditions to make this a quality project. Mr. Shaw stated that the issues have to do with the design of the project. He stated that those are the elements that are being evaluated relative to the Commission Review and Approval action. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 803,and direct staff to file and post a"Notice of Determination"after City approval of Commission Review and Approval No. 803 and in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 803 and the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study to November 22"d IV. NEW BUSINESS A. GENEIL AND TERRY VINES, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) 1. Planning Commission to consider Revision 2 to previously approved Commission Review and Approval No. 759 on the "Barton House" site on 3.57 acres. The request is for a single-story office building with 4,460 square feet to replace a previously approved project with five (5) office/retail buildings with an area of 4,154 square feet at 32 Nevada Street(formerly 11245 Nevada Street)in the Administrative Professional District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Project Planner Hartel gave a brief summary of the proposed project. Mr. Hartel stated that the Planning Commission approved a revision to convert stables behind the Barton House and five bungalow houses to office use in the central area of the site in October 2003. The applicant is proposing revisions of the previous approval for the five bungalow houses, changing them to a single ranch style building for office use. The revision was approved by the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission on September 8m Commissioner Miller stated that the City Parking Ordinance was amended since the last approval stating that we base parking for office space on gross building area. This was approved before that change and questioned if this applies in this case relative to the different building. Mr. Hartel stated that he reviewed the parking standards. The parking on the previous plans was based on one space for every 250 square feet of floor area which is also on the revised plans. Commissioner Miller stated that one page of the site plan shows 4,335 square feet of leased space and on the next page of the plan,shows the actual square footage 4,460 square feet. He stated that it would change the parking requirements from fourteen(14) to eighteen(18)spaces. Commissioner Miller wanted to make sure that they are basing the approval on the right numbers. Mr. Hartel stated that calculations show that there are still extra parking spaces available. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Miller stated that even if you interpret by the revised ordinance, this project still complies. He added that if we have a new project before us,we should use the new ordinance and not base the parking on leaseable square feet. Mr. Shaw stated that we can indicate that and will evaluate it relative to the plan check using the one per 250 ratio on the analysis of the project. Commissioner Osborne asked if the Barton House is on the State Registry. He stated that no comments were addressed from SHPO(State Historic Preservation Office)and asked if this needed to be reviewed bythem. It was Mr.Osborne's understanding that SHPO may need to review the project if the site is designated a historic landmark. Mr. Shaw stated that staff will check the conditions of the State designation to see if review is required. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. No comments were forthcoming and the public hearing was closed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that no subsequent environmental document is necessaryfor approval of Commission Review and Approval No. 759, Revision No. 2 because the project remains consistent with the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on July 13,2004, based on the following findings: 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the project was undertaken which will require major revisions of the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. No new information of substantial importance,which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 759, Revision No. 1 was approved, has been identified." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No.759, Revision No. 2, subject to the following findings: 1. The size and shape of the site are adequate for the proposed office and wedding facility. 2. The site properly relates to Barton Road and Nevada Street, which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by office and limited retail uses,and the conducting of weddings. 3. The conditions proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 10 759, Revision No. 2, are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood and the City of Redlands. 4. When completed, the project will contribute to the overall development of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Office Designation of the General Plan." The motion includes the addition of Condition of Approval number 27 as follows: Staff is to determine if a referral to SHPO is appropriate. Chairman Webber recessed the meeting for a short break at 4:00 p.m. Chairman Webber reconvened the meeting at 4:10 p.m. B. ERIC SAUTTER, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 808 to develop a 4,783 square foot medical office on a 0.37 acre site located at the northeast corner of Terracina Boulevard and Laurel Avenue in the M-F, Medical Facility District. 3. PUBLIC HEARING for Variance No. 706 from Section 18.68.090 to allow parking to be located in the twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback for a proposed 4,783 square foot medical office on a 0.37 acre site located at the northeast corner of Terracina Boulevard and Laurel Avenue in the M-F, Medical Facility District. Project Planner Baeza gave a short presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Miller asked if a color board was available. Mr. Baeza provided a color board to the Commission for review. Commissioner Cook asked if the roofing material was painted or a glazed metal. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. John Byram and Eric Sautter, architects for the project, stated that the roofing material is "Rheinzink"which never needs painting or maintenance. Mr. Byram addressed setback and landscaping issues. Chairman Webber had questions relative to the height of the ridges and the width of the spacing. Mr. Byram stated that the ridges will be 1-1/2" high with 14"spacing for stability. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Chairman Webber stated that there was concurrence among the Commissioners relative to the metal roof and that a Condition of Approval should be prepared. Mr. Baeza added Condition of Approval number 29 relative to the metal roofing as follows: Ridges for the proposed C metal roof shall have standing seams that are 1-1/2" high and spaced at 14" on center. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Osborne asked where he could view one of the proposed metal roofs. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Byram stated that a similar roof is used by the fire station at Cal Tech in Pasadena. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Variance No. 706 and Commission Review and Approval No. 808 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 706 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 small, irregularly shaped and has frontage on two(2)streets 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;a nearby parking lot on Fern Street has less than a twenty-five(25) foot 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 site will improve its appearance and provide a benefit 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 Office (Medical). MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Osborne and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 808, 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. All development standards are being met with the exception of the variance. 2. That the site properly relates to adjacent streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 12 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No.808 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval will address impacts to health and safety. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. The project will provide office space to a medical office in the City. 5. The proposed project will develop offices which is consistent with the existing Office (Medical) Designation of the General Plan." The motion includes the addition of Condition of Approval number 29 as follows: Ridges for the proposed C metal roof shall have standing seams of 1-1/2"and they shall be spaced at 14"on center. C. MKJ-MCCALLA INVESTMENTS, LLC,APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study 3. PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on an amendment to Specific Plan No. 40 (Amendment 34)to the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan creating the EV/TC Commercial Transition District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on an amendment to Specific Plan No. 40 (Amendment 35)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/TC, Commercial Transition District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. 5. Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on Commission Review and Approval No.796 to develop an eight(8)building business park development with a combined building area of 135,570 square feet on approximately 9.5 acres located on the east side of Nevada Street, immediately south of the Atchison,Topeka,and Santa Fe railway and 122 feet north of Redlands Boulevard in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (proposed EV/TC, Commercial Transition District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan). Mr. Baeza gave an overview of the project. He stated that the project came before the Commission in May for a General Plan Amendment changing the existing commercial designation to industrial. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the project citing concerns of how the project would affect properties in the vicinity. City Council recommended a new district be created within the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan that could accommodate this type of business park development. The new district will allow a mix of commercial and lighter industrial uses typicallyfound in a business park environment. Mr.Baeza referred to an exhibit that was handed out to the commissioners at the start of the meeting that had all the uses for the new district. The project meets all the development standards of East Valley Commercial Transition(EVTC)district. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 13 Commissioner Miller asked if there was an exhibit that showed the square footage of uses. Mr. Baeza responded that the exhibits were available for all of the buildings. He added that the calculations were based on the area of the building at the drip line. Mr. Baeza answered Commissioners Miller and Cook questions relative to parking and drip line calculations. Commissioner Miller had concerns relative to the drip line and feels that parking should be based on the gross square footage of the building. Mr.Shaw concurred with Mr. Miller stating that there is a Condition of Approval that requires that analysis be completed prior to issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Miller commented that his site plan indicated that there was more office square footage than warehouse. He added that it looked the opposite when looking at the table where the wholesale/manufacturing area was more than fifty(50%)of the building. Mr. Baeza stated that the applicants provided exhibits showing the overall area of the building, basing it on the drip line. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mike Mueller, representing MKJ-McCalla,thanked staff for working on the re-zoning issue and accommodating this project. Commissioner Miller asked questions relative to why restaurants were omitted from the EV/TC exhibit. Mr. Baeza indicated that staff looked at uses typically found in a business park. The Commission consented unanimously in adding restaurants as a permitted use. Commissioner Miller asked for more information relative to the types of businesses that would use the proposed facilities. Mr. Mueller answered his questions and reviewed the type of businesses. Mr. Mueller provided photographs of a similar facility located in Temecula for Commission review. Commissioner Miller noted a conflict between the grading plan and landscaping requirements stating that a proposed retaining wall would reduce landscape. Mr. Mueller answered Commissioner Millers question relative to providing a block wall on the east and north property lines indicating that a chain link fence already exists there on the Antique Mall property. Chairman Webber asked if there would be a fence or wall on the southside of the project with Mr. Mueller responding that there would only be landscaping. Mr. Jaquess indicated when uses are compatible, staff is comfortable with using landscaping, particularly when both parking lots come together. Bud Thatcher, Thatcher Engineering, commented that he will pick up the grade differential within the landscape section since the additional landscaping was added. He indicated that the retaining wall will be omitted. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber commented that this would be a good project in an area that is appropriately zoned for the use. He indicated that he feels the territory should remain commercial and will not change his position or support the project as presented. Mr. Jaquess recommended that the commission might want to consider how the specific plan amendments should be addressed. Mr. Shaw indicated that the first Specific Plan Amendment is to create the EV/TC (Commercial Transition) zone that does not affect the land use designation of the property. The second Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 14 Specific Plan Amendment is basically applying the designation to the property. He stated that there is the ability to take separate actions on the two amendments. Commissioner Macdonald asked if the proposed zoning could be applied throughout the City to any property in the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Staff responded yes. Commissioner Miller commented that he would be against the project if it was not for the City Council action. ("The following votes have been revised as clarified at the end of the hearing by a vote of the Commission and as requested by Mr. Thatcher,representing the applicant, indicating actions of the Planning Commission as opposed to failed motions.") MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Osborne and approved on a 4-2 vote(Commissioners Miller and Osborne voting no)that the Planning Commission deny approval to the City Council of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Amendment No.34 to Specific Plan No.40, Amendment No. 35 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 Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Osborne and approved on a 4-2 vote(Commissioners Miller and Osborne voting no)that the Planning Commission deny approval to the City Council of the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Amendment No. 34 to Specific Plan No.40, Amendment No.35 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 Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Osborne and approved on a 5-1 vote(Commissioner Miller voting no)that the Planning Commission deny approval of a reduced LOS at the intersection of Alabama Street/Redlands Boulevard during the peak hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b and 5.20c." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Osborne and approved on a 4-2 vote (Commissioners Miller and Osborne voting no)that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Amendment No. 34 to Specific Plan No. 40." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Osborne and approved on a 4-2 vote(Commissioners Miller and Osborne voting no)move that the Planning Commission recommend Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 15 that the City Council deny Amendment No. 35 to Specific Plan No. 40." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Osborne and approved on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Miller voting no)that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of Commission Review and Approval No. 796, based on the following findings: 1. The site for the proposed use is appropriate for commercial uses but not for the mix of industrial and commercial uses as proposed. 2. The proposed project is not consistent with the(EV/CG)General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Commissioner Osborne asked if the addition of restaurants as an approved use should be part of the motion. Mr.Shaw stated that the Commission's recommendation is to deny the project but staff can indicate in the staff report that is forwarded to City Council that discussion occurred relative to the restaurant use. D. CITY OF REDLANDS,APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: BOB DALQUEST) 1. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on an amendment to Section EV4.0201(b-g) of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (Specific Plan No.40,Amendment 31)regarding off-street parking requirements for nonresidential uses. Project Planner Dalquest gave an overview of the proposed project. He stated that the amendment would incorporate the same parking requirements that are currently in the Municipal Code into the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan along with other additional uses. Commissioner Miller addressed parking issues and asked if there was a means in place to ensure that parking would be adequately calculated. Mr. Dalquest stated that Planning checks for parking use when tenant improvement plans are submitted or during the business license process. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Negative Declaration for Specific Plan No.40(Amendment No.31),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 Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 16 It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1073,recommending that the City Council adopt Amendment No. 31 to Specific Plan No. 40." E. XRTAINMENT ZONE, LLC (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No. 871 to allow for the occupancy of approximately 7,780 square feet of an existing commercial retail center (Citrus Village)for a family fitness and recreation center at a property located at 409 E. Palm Avenue in SP No. 41. Project Planner Altopp gave a presentation on the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 871. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Joel Peterson, cofounder of the project, was available for questions. Commissioner Macdonald commented that it would have been nice to see pictures of the activities being proposed. Chairman 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 Conditional Use Permit No.871 subject to the following findings,submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval as follows: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City. The proposed family fitness and recreation center is a commercial use locating within the Citrus Village Shopping Center. The shopping center complies with the applicable land use plans of the City, thus ensuring that the proposed family fitness and recreation center will not affect the applicable land use plans of the City. 2. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed family fitness and recreation center is a business operation confined to within the tenant space in which it is located. There will be no outside affects on the public and the type of operation will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards. The proposed use of a family fitness and recreation center is a commercial activity, the General Plan designation for the proposed location is Commercial,the zoning designation for the proposed location is Specific Plan No. 41 Citrus Village Shopping Center a commercial shopping center,and the proposed project maintains the development standards as required by the Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 17 4. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location. The family fitness and recreational center is a commercial activity and being such is appropriate to be located within an existing shopping center." Commissioner Osborne left the meeting at 5:35 p.m. F. DENNINSKI TREMBINSKI, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No.874 for an 874 squarefoot Personal Training Center located with an existing tenant space within the Tri-City Shopping Center in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Project Planner Altopp gave a presentation of the proposed training center. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 874. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. No comments were forthcoming and the public hearing was closed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.874 subject to the following findings,submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval as follows: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City. The proposed personal training center is a commercial use locating within the Tri City Shopping Center. The shopping center complies with the applicable land use plans of the City, thus ensuring that the proposed personal training center will not affect the applicable land use plans of the City. 2. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The proposed personal training center is a small business operation confined to within the tenant space in which it is located. There will be no outside affects on the public and the type of operation will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards. The proposed use of a personal training center is a commercial activity, the General Plan designation for the proposed location is Commercial, the zoning designation for the proposed location is General Commercial of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, and the proposed project maintains the development standards as required by the zone. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 18 4. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location. The personal training center is a commercial activity and being such is appropriate to be located within an existing shopping center." G. LOMA LINDA MEDICAL CENTER (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. Planning Commission to consider Commission Review and Approval No. 813 for the construction of additional parking facilities totaling 76 spaces for the Loma Linda Behavioral Medicine Center located at 1710 Barton Road on the northwest corner of Iowa Street and Barton Road in the EV/AP, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan Administrative Professional District. Project Planner Jump gave an overview of the proposed project that will add parking facilities and off-site improvements. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Edward Field, Executive Director of Finance at Loma Linda Behavioral Center, thanked the staff for recommending the proposal and asked for approval of the project. Chairperson Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No.805 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval. 1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the new parking areas and will comply with all property development standards for the EV/AP zoning district. 2. The site properly relates to Barton Road and Iowa Street 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 required to be improved to city prescribed standards through compliance with project conditions of approval. 3. The Conditions of Approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 813 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 and Municipal Code requirements by achieving required parking standards. H. PANDA EXPRESS (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 19 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Amendment 32 to Specific Plan No. 40 (East Valley Corridor Specific Plan)modifying section EV 3.0613(2)to eliminate text restricting the location of drive-through restaurants from any closer than three-hundred(300)feet from each other. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Conditional Use Permit No. 869 to allow the construction of a 2,448 square foot fast food restaurant on a 40,471 square foot parcel located at the southwest corner of New Jersey Street and Redlands Boulevard in the EV/CG, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan General Commercial District. Project Planner Jump gave a presentation of the proposed project. Chairman Webber asked the location of the neon lighting. Mr. Jump stated that it would be located below the trim on each of the towers. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. George Mendoza, project manager of Panda Restaurant Group,stated that he concurred with the Conditions of Approval and was available for questions. Commissioner Miller stated that it is recommended that drive-throughs facing significant streets put trellis work or a canopy arch over the drive-through windows and asked Mr. Mendoza if he was opposed to the idea. Mr. Mendoza stated that they just started using a speaker post next to the menu board that already has an incorporated canopy. Commissioner Miller stated that his idea is more of an architectural feature that would be in proportion to the entrance tower that an automobile could drive underneath and would obscure the view from the street. There was discussion relative to setback issues that would result with adding a trellis or canopy for the drive- through window. Commissioner Miller asked if a variance would be required if the applicant was agreeable with the canopy. City Attorney McHugh stated it might be better to see if the applicant wants to file for the variance and then continue with the entire project to keep it consistent with the variance and the Conditional Use Permit at the same time. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Mendoza if he was open for a continuance to allow the variance to come forward. Mr. Mendoza stated that he was not opposed to putting a structure over the drive-through area but had concerns relative to time contingencies which were very stringent. He hoped that the variance would not be an issue. Mr. Jaquess stated that Planning could notice the variance but had concerns with how quickly the applicant could prepare a site plan revision and the detail on the architectural element. Mr.Shaw stated that there does not have to be a lot of detail relative to the actual element itself if we identify where the columns are going to be placed. Mr. Shaw and Mr. Jump addressed time line issues relative to keeping the applicant on schedule. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 20 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Cook and carried on a 5-0 vote to move to continue Planning Commission consideration of Mitigated Negative Declaration,Socio Economic cost Benefit Stud and Amendment 32 to Specific Plan No.40 and Conditional Use Permit No.869 to the meeting of November 8''. I. AT&T WIRELESS (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No. 850 to allow the placement of a new 60-foot cellular tower disguised as a utility pole and the establishment of a 368 square foot lease area for an equipment shelter, on private residential property approximately 710 feet from Live Oak Canyon Road in the A-1, Agricultural District specifically located at 32036 Live Oak Canyon Road. Project Planner Jump gave a presentation of the proposed project stating that the issue with the Conditional Use Permit application is the type of treatment that will be used and what would fit in the proposed area. Commissioner Macdonald asked why there were no pictures of a windmill. He stated that the windmill seems a logical choice for a rural canyon environment. Mr. Jump stated that the windmill could be a consideration. Chairman Webber commented that the windmill would be out of place and that the power pole would be a better choice since it fits in with the area. Commissioner Cook concurred with Chairman Webber. Mr.Jump stated that the other issue is the undergrounding of utilities but feels that this should not occur in this area in the near future. Commissioners Cook and Laymon were in agreement that the power pole fits in with the area. Commissioner Miller commented that it was mentioned that it was going to be a long time before seeing underground utilities in the proposed area and asked about future technology changes. Chairperson Webber opened the public hearing. Adrian Colicci, American Tower Corporation, stated that he concurs with staffs requirements. Mr. Colicci addressed the issues relative to future technology. He stated that the applicant would agree to remove their facility and examine other options for site placement if power poles are required to go underground. Commissioner Cook asked about the future of cell towers. Mr. Colicci gave an overview of future technology stating that stealth treatments are becoming more realistic in appearance. Commissioner Miller asked if there was a Condition of Approval relative to altering the stealth treatment if undergrounding of utilities occurs. Mr. Jump stated that he did not add a Condition of Approval and was not sure that he could put a time constraint on it. City Attorney McHugh stated that it would be an appropriate condition and that there would be no time constraint. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 21 Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Macdonald recommended continuing this project for two weeks to allow for another presentation with pictures of a windmill.The Commissioners concurred with Commissioner Macdonald's recommendation. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission move to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 850 to November 8t" V. ADDENDA- None VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES E. September 13, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon and carried on a 5-0 vote to approve the minutes of September 13, 2005. F. September 27, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon and carried on a 5-0 vote to approve the minutes of September 27, 2005. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF OCTOBER 18, 2005 Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council land use actions of October 18tH VIII. ADJOURN TO NOVEMBER 8, 2005 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting at 6:25 p.m. to November 8, 2005. Christine Szilva, Administrative Secretary Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 2005 Page 22