Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-24-06_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, January 24, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner (VACANCY) ABSENT: ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Dan Mc Hugh, City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant Planner David Jump, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Webber called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. All commissioners were present. II. CONSENT ITEM(S) A. NYS NORTH, LLC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. A request for final approval of Parcel Map No. 16497 (Minor Subdivision No. 285) a subdivision of 4.77 acres into 3 separate parcels located at 663 New York Street in the C-M, Commercial/industrial District. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the recordation of Parcel Map No. 16497 (Minor Subdivision No. 285). III. OLD BUSINESS A. NOVA CONCEPTS INC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Pagel 1. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No. 882 to allow for the occupancy of approximately 7,354 square feet of an existing commercial industrial park for a limo manufacturing operation located at 1445 Park Avenue in the EV/IC Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Project Planner Joshua Altopp stated concerns were raised at the previous meeting relative to vehicles parking off site, painting of vehicles, and hours of operation. Mr.Altopp stated the applicant was not available at the previous meeting,therefore the proposed project was continued to today's date. Mr.Altopp stated he made an onsite visit and spoke with the applicant to address the concerns expressed at the meeting. He stated a meeting was held between the applicant and the adjacent property owners and staff was told that the issues had been addressed. Mr. Altopp stated Conditions of Approval 8 and 9 were added to address vehicle parking and vehicle painting issues. He stated a Condition of Approval will be added to require the project to come back to the Commission at a later time to ensure the applicant complies with the required Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne requested clarification on Condition of Approval 9 which prohibits outside storage of vehicles stating he drove by the site and noticed two (2) vehicles parked outside. Mr. Altopp stated the vehicles should be kept within the confines of the building. Commissioner Osborne stated he believes the applicant should be able to temporarily park vehicles to the rear of the main building. Mr. Shaw stated occasionally vehicles are delivered to the site and parked in the parking lot or the vehicles are completed and parked in the parking lot awaiting pick-up; this would be permitted. Mr. Shaw suggested the wording for Condition of Approval 9 be revised to read: There shall be no outside storage of vehicles that are under production or in the course of construction. Relative to Condition of Approval 8, Commissioner Miller suggested clarification on the wording "minor touch up of vehicles." Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Carl Brandstetter, building owner, stated the vehicles are not painted or primered inside the building. Mr. Brandstetter requested clarification on vehicles that are parked outside the building, stating the applicant will need to have the vehicles taken out of the building at some point and parked in the parking lot. Mr. Shaw read the suggested wording for Condition of Approval 9 to Mr. Brandstetter. Mr. Lionel Michel, applicant, stated the vehicles that are parked outside are finished vehicles. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 2 Commissioner Miller stated the parking spaces are designed and designated for employee parking and the Commission does not want the limousines parked in the spaces, regardless of how nice the vehicles may look. Mr. Brandstetter stated he understands the need for the project to come back to the Commission, and he requested a review period longer than 6 months. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Michel how many vehicles would be parked in the parking area. Mr. Michel stated approximately 3 vehicles would be parked outside. Mr. Brandstetter stated the zoning for the property is industrial and he feels Mr. Michel's business is appropriate for the zone. Referring to a neighboring property owner's complaint regarding the applicant, Mr. Brandstetter stated he felt the complainant's expectation to have an office oriented atmosphere in an industrial zone is unrealistic. Chairman Webber concurred with Mr. Brandstetter. Chairman Webber questioned why the applicant did not attend the meeting on January 10tH Mr. Brandstetter stated his name was not included in the mailing list; he was unaware of the meeting and Mr. Michel was out of town. Chairman Webber stated the project will be revisited by the Commission in approximately 6-12 months. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on "minor touch ups"to the vehicles. Mr. Michel stated occasionally he has to use an air brush to touch up minor scratches on the vehicles. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. The Commission reached a consensus to review the project in 12 months. Commissioner Thompson asked if the applicant will be charged a fee for the review. Mr. Shaw stated the review would be treated as a revision to a Conditional Use Permit,therefore the applicant would be charged a fee. Mr. Jaquess stated the fee is approximately$1,100. Commissioner Macdonald suggested the project return to Commission if there are complaints received about the business or the project does not comply with the Conditions of Approval. The Commission concurred with Commissioner Macdonald. Discussion was held regarding vehicles that are parked on the street. Mr. Shaw stated the only vehicles that should be parked in the parking area are vehicles awaiting pick up or those that are going to be worked on. Chairman Webber stated there is an assumption that there will be no more than 3-4 vehicles parked outside. Commissioner Macdonald suggested a revision to Condition of Approval 9 to read: There shall be no outside parking or storage of vehicles. Commissioner Osborne suggested adding the wording "except those vehicles waiting to be picked up or just received." Mr. Jaquess stated the only vehicles of concern should be the vehicles that have been "stretched" Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 3 and are being parked diagonally. Mr. Shaw concurred with adding the wording "no outside parking and/or storage." MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15301, Existing Facilities, Class 1(a). 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.882 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 limousine manufacturing operation is an industrial type use locating within Redlands Business Park. The business park complies with the applicable land use plans of the City, thus ensuring that the proposed limousine manufacturing operation 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 limousine manufacturing operation is a small business operation confined 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 limousine manufacturing operation is an industrial activity, the General Plan designation for the proposed location is Commercial/Industrial, the zoning designation for the proposed location is Commercial Industrial of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, and the proposed project maintains the development standards as required by the zone. 4. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location. The limousine manufacturing operation is an industrial activity and being such is appropriate to be located within an industrial center with a revision to Condition of Approval 9 to read: There shall be no outside parking or storage of vehicles which are under production or in the course of construction. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 4 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. ANNETTE ROBBINS-BARTOLINA, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No. 883 to allow for the occupancy of approximately 1,120 square feet of an existing retail business park (Tennessee Plaza) for a vocal academy located at 414 Tennessee Street, Suite D in the M-2 General Industrial District. Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project stating the owner will be the only employee of the vocal academy. Mr.Altopp stated staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. The applicant declined to speak. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Mr. Shaw noted a motion deeming the project exempt from CEQA was omitted in the original packet, but was distributed prior to the meeting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission deem Conditional Use Permit No. 883 to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Action under Section 15301 (a) Existing Facilities Class 1, Existing Facilities as the project involves no expansion of an existing use. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 883 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 vocal academy is a teaching related use locating within the Tennessee Plaza. The shopping center complies with the applicable land use plans of the City, thus ensuring that the proposed vocal academy 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 vocal academy is a small educational operation Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 5 confined 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 vocal academy is a teaching related use, the General Plan designation for the proposed location is Light Industrial, the zoning designation for the proposed location is General Industrial, and the proposed project maintains the development standards as required by the zone. 4. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location. The vocal academy is a teaching related activity and being such is appropriate to be located within an existing commercial center. B. ROSS HARKNESS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for Variance No.722 for Planning Commission's consideration of a variance from Section 18.40.120 of the Redlands Municipal Code to reduce the front yard setback from the required 25 feet to 17 feet for the property located at 960 Chestnut Avenue in the R-S Suburban Residential District. Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project, stating staff recommends approval of the project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Ross Harkness, representing the applicant, stated it is possible to add onto the property in another location however, it would be more costly to the applicant, the floor plan would not"flow" properly, and the applicant would have to build more than he needs. Mr. Robert Underwood, was seated in the audience. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed project has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15305(a) of Article 19, Categorical Exemptions. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 722 subject to the following findings and Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 6 attached conditions of approval: 3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions, applicable to the property or the intended use, that do not apply generally to other properties, or uses, in the same vicinity and zone due to the substandard size of the parcel, the corner lot location, and the current location of the existing home. 4. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to the property in question, such as those identified in the staff report. 5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity, and have no effect on current living conditions for neighbors of those living at the property in question ensuring aesthetics and safety issues are minimized. 6. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. C. CITY OF REDLANDS MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 114 for approximately 4.13 acres located on the north side of San Bernardino Avenue, and west side of Webster Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Zone Change No. 421 from A-1, Agricultural District to O, Open Land District on 20.13 gross acres located on the north side of San Bernardino Avenue, west side of Webster Street, and east side of Texas Street, in the A-1, Agricultural District. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Minor Subdivision No. 289 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 17558) to subdivide 20.13 gross acres into three (3) lots for property located on the north side of San Bernardino, west side of Webster Street, east side of Texas Street in the A-1, Agricultural District (proposed O, Open Land District). Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 7 Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Doug Gage (and Mr. Mike Poole), Municipal Utilities Department, stated they concur with the staff report and Conditions of Approval and have no comments at this time. Commissioner Osborne asked if there are plans to locate a water tank on Parcel 1 that will be buffered by orange trees. Mr. Poole stated that was correct; they would have 4 rows of trees to act as a buffer. Mr. Paul Thorpe,stated he felt the proposal was foolish,especially with open land directly across the street. Mr.Thorpe stated there are 2 square blocks(on the east and west side of Texas Street)that have been empty for thirty years. Mr. Thorpe stated the City wants to build more houses which will dump water onto San Bernardino Avenue, and the gutters cannot handle the current water flow. Mr. Thorpe stated he sees no reason to pull more trees if we want to have a town that looks like something. He asked who is going to clean the gutters that are full of dirt, weeds, and trees. Mr. Shaw stated there is no proposal at this time to build any residences and it would not be allowed in the Open Land District. Ms. Leonore Sims, 701 Baldwin Avenue, stated we have lost so much habitat. Ms. Sims stated there is water on Texas Street at all times. Ms. Sims stated she had to take 3 vacations due to the noise that was generated when the grove was torn down. Ms. Sims asked the Commission to consider leaving the groves; it is the last preserve on the north side. Ms. Sims asked the Commission to consider the animals. Ms. Sims stated the traffic on San Bernardino is horrendous. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne noted that along with this project is a proposal to put in new sidewalks and gutters on Texas Street, San Bernardino Avenue, and Webster Street. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration for Minor Subdivision No. 289 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 Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1100 recommending that the City Council approve Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 114. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 8 It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 1101, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zone Change No. 421. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Minor Subdivision No. 289 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 4. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code; the project meets development standards of the proposed O, Open Land District; 5. The site is physically suitable for the type of development; the site is large enough to subdivide into three (3) parcels; 6. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a three (3) parcel subdivision; the O, Open Land District allows for subdivisions; 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; the subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resources or within a wildlife corridor; 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; no impacts were identified as part of the negative declaration; 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; the project will improve access in the immediate area; 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. D. REALTY BANCORP EQUITIES TLG, LLC , APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Revision No.1 to Conditional Use Permit No.825 amending the conditions of approval for parking lot lighting and for landscaping for the development of a 13,650 square foot drug store with drive through pharmacy on a 0.85 acre property located on the southeast corner of Lugonia Avenue and Church Street in the Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 9 C-2, Neighborhood Convenience Center District. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project stating the project was approved by the Planning Commission last year. Mr. Baeza stated the proposed revision would amend Conditions of Approval relative to required light standards for the project and would eliminate a planter that was required adjacent to the compactor walls. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Len Christiansen, Realty Bancorp Equities, thanked the Planning Division for its assistance. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Christiansen for clarification on the height of the trash compactors. Mr. Christiansen stated he was unsure of the height but they are protected by a screen wall. Commissioner Miller stated it should be acceptable as long as the compactors are lower than the screen wall. Commissioner Miller stated he did not understand the Municipal Utilities Department's request to remove the planter so that the trash compactors could open in a different direction. Mr. Baeza explained the reason for the requested change. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Christiansen for the reason behind the proposed height increase for the light poles. Mr. Christiansen stated they wanted to eliminate extra light poles. Commissioner Miller asked if there is a benefit to the City to increase the height of the light poles other than it would require fewer poles. Mr. Baeza responded that they were trying to proceed with the project. Commissioner Miller stated any proposed project could come to the Commission and request fewer light poles by increasing the height of the light pole standards. Commissioner Osborne stated that a similar request was approved for a medical building on Nevada/Lugonia and also in Concept Plan No. 2. Mr. Shaw stated staff requested that a shield be placed on the southerly light standard to ensure lighting does not spill into the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the twenty(20)foot standard was taken out of a standard that exists within the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan and applied by staff to this location. Mr. Jaquess stated currently there is no standard for areas outside the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 825 does not require further environmental processing, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, based on the following findings: Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 10 1. The proposed revisions to the project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; the revisions to conditions will not increase impacts to aesthetics. 2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken; the project will be undertaken in the same manner as the previously approved project and, 3. There is no new information of substantial importance with respect to this project's environmental consequences that was not known at the time the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted; no new information is available that would have an impact on the proposed project's environmental consequences. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 825, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed revision will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City; the proposed use, a drug store, is unchanged and is permitted within the C-2, Neighborhood Convenience Center District; 2. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; the project as revised will improve the appearance of the immediate area and will provide a needed service to City residents; 3. The proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, and applicable zoning district and the City's development standards; the project as revised is still consistent with both the General Plan and Zoning and meets all development standards with the exception of the variance; 4. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location; the project still meets all development standards for a drive through use as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. E. TRINITY EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Revision 7 to existing Conditional Use Permit No.541 for the addition of two(2)buildings with a combined area of 51,725 feet,the expansion of parking areas and the Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 11 relocation of an existing building for an existing religious institution located on an 18.9 acre site located at 1551 Reservoir Road in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the applicant is still evaluating the proposed project relative to cost concerns therefore, staff requests the project be continued to February 14tH MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Revision No. 7 to Conditional Use Permit No. 541 to February 14, 2006. Commissioner Thompson noted the application was deemed complete in September 2005. Mr. Shaw stated the applicant will most likely withdraw the application; if not,the project will proceed to the next meeting and staff will recommend denial of the project. F. RODRIGO LAZO, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Socio- Economic Cost Benefit Study 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Minor Subdivision No. 292 a request to subdivide Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0167-281-01 and 14 into four parcels ranging in size from 7,916 square feet to 10,472 square feet within the R-1, Single Family Residential District located on the north side of Brockton Avenue between Texas Street on the West and Lawton Street on the east. Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. The applicant declined to speak. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Mr. Shaw indicated that there was someone in the audience who wished to speak. Chairman Webber reopened the public hearing. Ms. Stella Neri, 1140 Texas Street, stated when she received notification of the meeting she was surprised that the block was being considered for commercial buildings. Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant is going to build houses on lots he currently owns; there is no Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 12 commercial development proposed. Ms. Ned stated she thought the existing houses were going to be removed so that new houses could be built. Mr. Jaquess advised Ms. Ned that her parcel is not a part of the project; only the vacant land along Brockton Avenue will be developed. Chairman Webber asked the applicant to give an estimate as to when he plans to start building. Mr. Rodrigo Lazo, applicant, stated he plans to start building within 6 months. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller expressed concern that there is a situation where an existing setback is non- conforming; if a future request for a variance comes in, he would like to ensure that the non- conforming house is not used as a basis for granting approval of a variance request.Commissioner Miller requested that his concern be noted for the minutes. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 17619 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 Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Tentative Parcel Map No. 17619 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 Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 17619 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 4. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Low-Density Residential and a zoning of R-1, Single-Family Residential District,and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; 5. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into four (4) lots and conforms to lot development standards for the R-1 District in the Municipal Code; 6. The site will be physically suitable for the residential development. The Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 13 General Plan Land Use Designation of Low-Density Residential, and R-1, Single- Family Residential District zoning both allow future residential development in accordance with specified development standards; 7. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resources or within a wildlife corridor; 8. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems, as no construction is proposed at this time. 9. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; 10. 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. G. MEDICAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CO., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Planning Commission to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Planning Commission to consider Commission Review and Approval No. 810 for a 31,647 square foot, two-story medical office building on a two (2) acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Barton Road and Iowa street within the EV/AP, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan Administrative Professional District. Project Planner David Jump stated the proposed project is being revised, therefore the applicant requested the proposed project be continued. Mr. Jump stated a Street Vacation and a Variance will be added to the proposed project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No.810 to February 14, 2006 to allow the project applicant to formalize their plans and submit the required applications. V. ADDENDA- None Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 14 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 10, 2006 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 10, 2006. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF JANUARY 17, 2006 Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council actions of January 17th. Mr. Shaw noted the City Council considered a request from Walton Development. Mr. Shaw stated the proposed project was continued for 3 months. Commissioner Thompson asked if a study was conducted relative to moving the B2 zone. Mr. Shaw stated a full study was conducted in conjunction with the proposal for the Sports Park. Commissioner Thompson noted his concern that moving the line does not negate the fact that there is still a safety issue relative to homes that may be built in the future. Mr. Jaquess stated the Airport Land Use Plan that was prepared in 1997 by Schutt Moen, included a provision that allowed the B2 line to be moved at such time as the helicopter flight pattern was modified. Mr. Shaw stated these are concerns that will be evaluated as part of the Airport Master Plan and will be studied by the consultant. Mr. Shaw stated the City Council liked the project that was before them; but wanted to wait until the Airport Master Plan was completed. Mr. Shaw stated the proposed Bonita Development project was continued to February 7th Mr. Shaw stated a revised plan was submitted with 15 lots proposed and the cul-de-sac was eliminated. VIII. ADJOURN TO FEBRUARY 14, 2006 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting at 3:48 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 15 Patti Ortiz Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 2006 Page 16