Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 07-25-06_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: James Macdonald, Chairman Thomas Osborne, Vice Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Paul Foster, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner ABSENT: None ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Dan McHugh, City Attorney David Jump, Associate Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Macdonald called the meeting to order. All commissioners were present except Commissioner Foster. Jeff Rowan, property owner of 1520 Dwight Street and resident of 3340 Clubheights Drive, Colorado Springs, CO., had concerns relative to poor cell phone reception in the area of 1520 Dwight Street, Redlands, CA. II. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Miller recused himself from Consent Calendar item II C, due to a conflict of interest. Chairman Macdonald pulled item II C from the Consent Calendar. A. REDLANDS CYPRESS VILLAS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ROBERT DALQUEST, AICP) Planning Commission to consider a TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16610 for an approved tentative tract map to merge five (5) parcels into one parcel totaling 4.79 acres located on the north side of Cypress Avenue, east of Hibiscus Drive in the R-2-2000 (Multiple Family Residential) District. B. INVESTWEST PARTNERS I, LLC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ROBERT DALQUEST, AICP) Planning Commission to consider COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 311 for approval of a Uniform Sign Program for an 11,132 square foot commercial center on approximately 1.14 acres located on the southeast corner of Pearl Avenue and Eureka Street in the Town Center District of the Downtown Specific Plan No. 45. D. Planning Commission review of application for the person to person transfer of an on- sale beer and wine alcoholic beverage control license for Benjarong Restaurant at 1001 Park Avenue, Redlands, CA 92373. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Pagel E. INLAND SIGNS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Planning Commission to consider COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 312 for a four (4) foot tall monument sign with a sign area of 24 square feet for Arthur Murray Dance Studio within the front yard setback at 1969 Orange Tree Lane, in Specific Plan No. 25. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 6-0 vote to approve Consent Calendar items II. A, B, D, & E. Commissioner Miller recused himself from item II C due to a conflict of interest and left the meeting room at 2:05 p.m. C. BEK CONSULTING INC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Final Landscape Plan for TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16742. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 5-0 vote, (Commissioner Miller excused), to approve Consent Calendar item Il. C. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 2:08 p.m. III. OLD BUSINESS A. HANNIBAL PETROSSI, 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. 811 an Industrial development consisting of two single story buildings comprising a total of 72,098 square feet on a 4.75 acre site located on east side of Nevada Street approximately 700 fee south of Redlands Boulevard within the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan Industrial/Commercial District(EV/IC). Assistant Director John Jaquess stated that the applicant is requesting an extension of time to do additional work on the site plans and architecture. Staff is recommending a continuance to August 8, 2006, which will be the last opportunity to act on this project without the applicant asking for an extension of time for processing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commissioner Review and Approval No. 811 to the August 8, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Miller recused himself due to a conflict of interest on item III B. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 2 B. YOCUM-BALDWIN DEVELOPMENT, 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. 817 for construction of one (1) building with 29,660 square feet and 3,726 square feet at mezzanine level for twelve (12) manufacturing/warehouse/office units on 2.1 acres, located on the east side of New York Street between Colton Avenue and Brockton Avenue in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Joshua Altopp stated that the applicants architect was unable to attend today's meeting and that the applicant requested a continuance of the project to August 8, 2006. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 5-0 vote, (Commissioner Miller excused), that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 817 to the August 8, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting. C. QUANTUM STRUCTURES, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 108 an amendment to change the land use designation from Office to High Density Residential on approximately 7.5 gross acres (APN: 0292-201-08, 21, and 22) located at the northeast corner of Alabama Street and Orange Avenue. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on AMENDMENT 33 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 40 (East Valley Corridor Specific Plan) to change the land use designation from EV/AP, Administrative Professional District to EV2500RM, Multiple Family Residential- 2500 District on approximately 7.5 gross acres (APN: 0292-201-08, 21, and 22) located at the northeast corner of Alabama Street and Orange Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 3 5. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17693 - to subdivide 7.5 gross acres into eighty-one (81) numbered lots and one (1) lettered lot for the purpose of town homes for property located at the northeast corner of Alabama Street and Orange Avenue in the EV/AP, Administrative Professional District (proposed EV 2500RM, Multiple Family Residential 2500 District)of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. 6. Consideration of COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 814 to develop an eighty-one (81) unit town home project on approximately 7.5 gross acres, located at the northeast corner of Alabama Street and Orange Avenue in the EV/AP, Administrative Professional District (proposed EV 2500RM, Multiple Family Residential District)of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Joshua Altopp stated that the applicant has asked for an extension of time to make site and architecture revisions that were previously requested by the Planning Commission, and is requesting continuance to the September 12, 2006 meeting. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue consideration of General Plan Amendment No. 108, Specific Plan No. 40 Amendment 33, Tentative Tract No. 17693, and Commission Review & Approval No. 814 to September 12, 2006. NEW BUSINESS A. ORANGE TREE LANE L.P., 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. 830 to develop a two story medical office building with a combined floor area of 22,764 square feet on approximately 1.67 acres, located at the southeast corner of Orange Tree Lane and Nevada Street(A.P.N. 0292 351-01) in Specific Plan No. 25. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 302 to subdivide a 22,764 square foot two story medical office building for the purposes of condominiums located at the southeast corner of Orange Tree Lane and Nevada Street (A.P.N. 0292-251-01) in Specific Plan No. 25. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a presentation of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Osborne referred to the PowerPoint presentation, commenting on the lack of trees on the east side, at the south end of the double parking aisle. Mr. Altopp stated that there are conditions to add a couple of trees in that area. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant, stated that they have reviewed the staff report and are in favor of all the conditions and recommendations. Mr. Meyer asked for clarification of condition of approval twenty- four (24), regarding an additional cornice. Mr. Altopp referred to the PowerPoint presentation, clarifying the roof treatment. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification of the inconsistencies of the elevations versus the floor plans. Mr. Meyer responded that there were some changes made after the initial review and that the applicant made corrections to the elevation, but evidently, not the floor plan. The elevation is the correct indication of what is going to happen. Commissioner Shamp had concerns relative to the main entrance facing the freeway and asked what motivated the applicant in facing the building in that direction. Mr. Meyer responded that it was primarily identity and that this could be one entire medical building wanting visibility from the freeway. Mr. Shamp asked if the applicant would be open to putting the entrance on the other side of the building with the signs facing the freeway. Mr. Meyer responded no, which is why the applicant was asked to repeat the same look on Orange Tree Lane. Commissioner Miller commented on the lack of triangular planters on the north side of the building. Mr. Meyer asked Commissioner Miller if he wanted the triangular planters on the north side of the building. Commissioner Miller responded yes. Mr. Altopp asked if the commissioners would rather see tree wells as opposed to trees in a planter adjacent to the building. Commissioner Miller stated that he would prefer shade trees with large umbrellas of foliage. Mr. Meyer stated that they will try to incorporate both. Chairperson Macdonald asked if this issue was written as a condition. Mr. Altopp stated that it can be added as a condition. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner James stated that he liked the project and did not share Commissioner Shamp's concern relative to the entry. Commissioner Osborne concurred with Commissioner Shamps concerns but had no problem with the entry facing the freeway. Commissioner Shamp commented that the backside of the building, facing Orange Tree Lane, lacks most of the features of an actual, true entrance to a building, and has a strong problem with the entry facing the freeway. Commissioner Macdonald asked if there was additional support for Mr. Shamps opinion. Commissioner Miller personally agreed with Commissioner Shamp but did not think there is an ordinance requirement to dictate the location of the entrance. Commissioner Foster arrived at 2:35 p.m. Commissioner Osborne commented that the project required a 6/7t" vote and asked Commissioner Shamp if he was strongly opposed or was leaning towards a no vote. Commissioner Shamp responded that he was opposed since the entrance of the building was a significant planning issue. Commissioner Osborne suggested a continuance of the project. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Shaw commented that Commissioner Shamp had the ability to separate the various different actions of the project. City Attorney McHugh suggested reopening the public hearing and summarize the issues presented for the benefit of Commissioner Foster. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Chairman Macdonald commented that there was discussion about the orientation of the building relative to the front entrance facing the freeway. He asked Mr. Meyer to give Mr. Foster the applicant's point of view. Mr. Meyer gave a brief overview of the proposed project. Commissioner Foster asked why the applicant wanted the entry facing the freeway. Mr. Meyer responded that it was a marketing issue for the applicant and that the building has a potential of bringing in a major medical user that typically, would want freeway visibility. Commissioner Foster asked Mr. Meyer if the applicant might enhance the elevations facing Orange Tree Lane to meet Commissioner Shamps concerns. Mr. Meyer stated that the applicant did agree to put some triangular planters on that side of the building and could consider providing some kind of projection where the arch is to give it some definition. Commissioner Shamp commented on the false entry on Orange Tree Lane, stating that it did not meet his prerequisite of an engagement of the surface streets, which is what he wants to see in a building. He stated that he will oppose the Commission and Review Approval, but will vote yes on all the other motions. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Altopp to give an overview of the project, focusing on the key points for Commissioner Foster. Mr. Altopp gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Foster asked if this is a location that would require public art. Mr. Shaw stated that there is no specific requirement for public art. Chairman Macdonald asked Mr. Foster if he was brought up to speed. Mr. Foster responded yes. Commissioner Miller commented that there is shared parking proposed between the two parcels instead of a planter and wanted to ensure that an ordinance was not being violated. Mr. Jaquess addressed Commissioner Miller's concern. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review & Approval No. 830 and Minor Subdivision No. 302 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 Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review & Approval No. 830 and Minor Subdivision No. 302 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. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 6 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve a reduced LOS at the intersections of Alabama Street/Redlands Boulevard and California Street/Redlands Boulevard during the peak hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b and 5.20c. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-1 vote, (Commissioner Shamp opposed), that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review &Approval No. 830 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 medical office building use because it complies with all property development standards of Specific Plan No. 25, Urban Service Commercial District; 2. The site properly relates to Orange Tree Lane and Nevada 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 constructed to City prescribed standards to their ultimate half widths through compliance with project conditions of approval; 3. The Conditions of Approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 830 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 the General Plan Designation, Municipal Code requirements, and the development standards of Specific Plan No. 25, Urban Service Commercial District; This includes the addition of the following condition of approval: The applicant shall install triangular tree wells in the parking area adjacent to the north elevation at an interval of every three spaces. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Minor Subdivision No. 302 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and Specific Plan No. 25, Urban Service Commercial District; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide for condominium purposes; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of condominiums. The General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial and zoning of Specific Plan No. 25, Urban Service Commercial District, both allow for medical office condominiums; 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is 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 a biological resource or within a wildlife corridor; Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 7 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems; 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; 7. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The property is not in an agricultural preserve. B. ALAN E. RONSKA, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 312 amending Section 15.36.340 of the Redlands Municipal Code pertaining to allowable signs in the M-2, General Industrial District. Assistant Director John Jaquess stated that the applicant has requested additional time to resolve scheduling conflicts and to look into amending their application based on staff recommendations and input that they have received in prior staff reports. Staff recommends continuance to August 8, 2006. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Ordinance Text Amendment No. 312 to the meeting of August 8, 2006. C. PLASTICS PLUS TECHNOLOGY, INC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 890 to allow the establishment of a plastics injection molding company within a newly constructed approximately 35,146 square foot industrial building located at the corner of Almond Avenue and Research Drive at 1495 Research Drive in the Commercial/Industrial District of Concept Plan No. 1. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation of the proposed project. Steve Dvorak, representing the applicant, stated that they believe that they meet all the requirements for the area and requested the commission's approval. Commissioner James asked if there were machines used in the plastic injection molding operation and if the applicant planned on putting silos on the roof. Mr. Dvorak responded there would be no silos on the roof. Commissioner James asked if raw materials and scrap materials would be kept inside the building. Mr. Dvorak responded yes. Commissioner Cook asked what types of products were being manufactured. Mr. Dvorak responded medical and electronic components and light assembly. Commissioner Shamp asked if the smell of plastic could be detected outside the building. Mr. Dvorak responded no. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 8 Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 890 subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval: 1. The use applied for at this location is conditionally permitted in the Commercial/Industrial District of Concept Plan 1, which allows fabricated plastic products subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; 2. The plastic injection mold manufacturing and fabrication operation at this location is necessary and desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone; 3. The project site is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, meets all development standards and other features required in order to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood; 4. That the site for the plastic injection mold manufacturing and fabrication operation relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use. The building to be utilized by the plastic injection mold manufacturing and fabrication operation was originally designed to handle all traffic generated by commercial uses allowed within the center; 5. The conditions for the proposed use are reasonably related to the use to address potential effects of the proposed use, and are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and the best interests of the neighborhood. D. STARBRIDGE COMMUNICATIONS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 854 to allow the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility approximately 70 feet in height to be disguised as a clock tower and become an entry monument feature within a City owned orange grove located immediately east of California Street and immediately south of the eastbound on-ramp for the Interstate 10 Freeway in the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan General Commercial District(EV/CG). Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner David Jump gave a presentation of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility to be disguised as a clock tower. Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Osborne asked if this was the same company that proposed the ninety (90) foot water tower and if so, why they went from ninety (90) to seventy (70) feet. Mr. Jump responded that it was the same company and that they found a way to compromise the height of the tower. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 9 Commissioner Macdonald asked if it was staffs recommendation that the color of the tower match the Wal- Mart building. Mr. Jump responded yes. Commissioner Miller complimented staff on the proposed tower, stating that it was a great solution that complimented the Wal-Mart building and gives a landmark to the entrance of a significant retail area in town. Commissioner Cook stated that she did not mind the clock tower but had a problem with it matching Wal- Mart. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Jump stated that the applicant's representative was in transit and would arrive around 3:30 p.m. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Shamp concurred with Commissioner Cook relative to the architectural style of the tower. He suggested looking into some historical precedent for other types of towers such as church or water towers. Commissioner James concurs with Commissioner Shamp's comments but liked the clock tower concept. Commissioner Foster echoed Commissioners Millers comments stating that he would rather have a clock tower as presented rather than a fake tree at the entrance of the City. Commissioner Osborne stated that staff was trying to tie the clock tower in with the shopping center so that it would not stand out. Commissioner Macdonald stated that the clock concept is excellent but the design and appearance could be improved. Mr. Shaw commented that he recently took a picture of an open clock tower that he saw in Irvine that was solid on the top with a designed open framework below it. Commissioner Macdonald asked for suggestions. Commissioner Cook was fine with the style as long as it did not look like a big, stucco box coming out of the ground. She also suggested a different roofing material. Commissioner Osborne suggested varying the dimensions on the tower using stone or tile in between. Commissioner Shamp suggested that a water tower would be more beneficial since it sits in an orange grove. The commissioners advised Commissioner Shamp that a water tower was previously proposed but denied. Chairman Macdonald commented that Commissioner Miller drew a modified architectural drawing for a clock tower. The drawing was passed around. There was a general consensus that the proposal could be improved. Commissioner Foster echoed Commissioner Cook's comments relative to changing the roofing material and suggested that a terra cotta tile roof would look better. Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 10 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 854 to the August 8, 2006 meeting. E. SARA MILLER, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider VARIANCE NO. 733 a request to allow the addition of new laundry room approximately 110 square feet in size along the existing street side building line within the required front yard setback of 25 feet as required by Municipal Code Section 18.40.120 for the R-S, Suburban Residential District located at 1140 West Olive Avenue. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation of the proposed variance. Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Shamp asked about the new lot coverage. Mr. Jump stated that the lot coverage would be 28.3% in a zoning district that permits thirty(30) percent. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 733 subject to the following findings and attached conditions of approval: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions, applicable to the property or the intended use, that do not apply generally to other properties, or uses, in the same vicinity and zone due to the sub-standard lot size and width of the parcel and the increased setback along Olive Avenue; 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to the property in questions, such as those identified in the staff report; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity, as no affect on current lines of sight or impediments to pedestrian movement will occur, ensuring aesthetic and safety issues are minimized; 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. F. FRED KOWALSKI, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider VARIANCE NO. 734 a request to allow the addition of approximately 178 square feet to an already sub-standard lot which would increase the current lot size to 5,586 square feet still below the required Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 11 minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet as required by Municipal Code Section 18.40.070 for the R-S, Suburban Residential District located at 611 E. Cypress Circle. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation of the proposed variance. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 734 subject to the following findings and attach conditions of approval: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions, applicable to the property or the intended use, that do not apply generally to other properties, or uses, in the same vicinity and zone due to the existing lots not conforming with R-S, Suburban Residential District standards relating to lot size; 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to the property in question, such as those identified in the staff report; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity, as the increase in lot size aids in remedying the current substandard nature of the existing lot, yet maintains existing development standards to ensure aesthetic and safety issues are minimized; 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. V. ADDENDA A. A report regarding comments from Fred Ford from the Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2006 pertaining to sidewalks in the vicinity of Center Street and Cypress Avenue. Director Jeff Shaw gave a brief report relative to the comments of Mr. Fred Ford at the July 18, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Shaw stated that under the standard requirements, a sidewalk was not required due to the nature of the improvements being proposed. Mr. Shaw commented that the City does have an ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act) program in effect. Commissioner Shamp asked how the City makes a determination relative to installing sidewalks. Mr. Shaw responded to Mr. Shamps question. Mr. Shamp had concerns about this particular lot since it was close to a grocery store and that the safest possible pedestrian access should be provided. It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission receive and file this report. VI. MINUTES A. July 11, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 12 It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of July 11, 2006. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF JULY 18, 2006 Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council Actions of July 18, 2006. VIII. ADJOURN TO AUGUST 8, 2006 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. to August 8, 2006. Christine Szilva Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of July 25, 2006 Page 13