Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 05-22-07_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: James Macdonald, Chairman Gary Miller, Vice Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Carol Dyer, Commissioner Paul Foster, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director Robert Dalquest, Assistant Director Michael Reiter, Assistant City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Senior Planner David Jump, Associate Planner Tamara Alaniz, Associate Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Macdonald called the meeting to order. All Commissioners were present. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR THE PERSON TO PERSON TRANSFER OF AN OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR OLIVE AVENUE MARKET LOCATED AT 530 W. OLIVE AVENUE. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the Consent Calendar. III. OLD BUSINESS A. CITICOM DEVELOPMENT, LP, 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. 820 for the development of three (3) commercial buildings having a cumulative area of 24,067 square feet on 6.65 acres located at the northeast corner of Parkford Drive and Marshall Street in the CA Highway Commercial District. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No. 877 for the development of a 1,615 square foot drive through restaurant to be located at the northeast corner of Parkford Drive and Marshall Street within a proposed 6.65 acre shopping center located at the northeast corner of Parkford Drive and Marshall Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. 5. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No. 878 for the development of a 1,722 square foot drive through restaurant to be located at the northside of Parkford Drive approximately 200 feet west of Ford Street within a proposed 6.65 Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 1 acre shopping center located at the northeast corner of Parkford Drive and Marshall Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated that this project was continued from the meeting of May 8, 2007 due to questions relative to landscaping, noise and traffic. Mr. Baeza indicated that the applicant needs more time to prepare landscaping plans and has requested a continuance to the June 12, 2007 meeting. Chairman Macdonald asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. No comments were forthcoming and 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 continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Public Hearing on the Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, Conditional Use Permit No. 877 and Conditional Use Permit No. 878, and the hearing on Commission Review and Approval No. 820 to June 12, 2007. B. RON SIMUS, 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 Zone Change No. 427 to pre-zone two contiguous assessor parcels in the unincorporated area of San Bernardino County to the City of Redlands M-1, Light Industrial District on a 6.68-acre parcel (APN: 0298- 052-09) located on the northeast corner of Wabash Avenue and Nice Avenue, and to pre-zone a 6.37-acre parcel (APN: 0298-051-07) to C-4, Highway Commercial District, located on the southeast corner of Wabash Avenue and Naples Avenue. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Annexation No. 88 an Annexation of two contiguous assessor parcels that total 13.05 acres and contiguous San Bernardino County right-of-way totaling approximately 2.6 acres located on the east side of Wabash Avenue, between Naples Avenue and Nice Avenue (APNs: 0298-051-07 and 0298-052-09)within an unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino and the City of Redlands Sphere of Influence area. 5. PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Street Vacation No. 140 to vacate a portion of right-of-way along the west side of Jasper Avenue, between Nice Avenue and Naples Avenue. 6. Planning Commission consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 837 to develop 6.68 acres with a mini-storage facility containing 60,857 square feet of building area, two industrial buildings that are each 11,880 square feet in size, and a 14,285 square foot industrial building located on the northeast corner of Wabash Avenue and Nice Avenue (APN: 0298-052-09) in the unincorporated area of the County of San Bernardino (Proposed for Pre-Zoning to the City of Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 2 Redlands M-1, Light Industrial District). Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Assistant Director Bob Dalquest stated that this project was brought before the Planning Commission on April 24, 2007 and was continued so that the applicant could redesign the project and address issues requested by staff and the Commission. Mr. Dalquest indicated that the applicant has not been able to make the necessary revisions and has requested a continuance to the June 12, 2007 meeting. Chairman Macdonald asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. No comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller that the Planning Commission continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the public hearings on the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, Zone Change No. 427, Street Vacation No. 140, Annexation No. 88, and the hearing for Commission Review and Approval No. 837 to the June 12, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. C. JOSEPH IBRAHIM, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TAMARA ALANIZ) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider VARIANCE NO. 747, a request to grant a variance from Section 18.44.140 regarding the required side yard setback for residences within the R-1, Single Family Residential District, specifically to allow a five foot (5) reduction in the required ten foot (10') garage side yard setback on the south side of a proposed single family residence located on the southwest corner of Lawton Street and Union Avenue. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Tamara Alaniz stated that this project was continued from the April 24, 2007 meeting so that the applicant could provide elevations of the single family residence and submit an application for a Minor Exception Permit for the proposed fence. Ms. Alaniz gave a brief overview of the proposed architecture of the residence and indicated that the applicant has filed an application for a Minor Exception Permit for the fence. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Dyer asked what treatment was being used around the windows. Ms. Alaniz indicated that the applicant was present to address Commissioner Dyer's question. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Elias Afara, Project Designer, indicated that the trim would be composed of a foam material with a stucco finish and that the dimensions of the trim would be four to six inches. Commissioner Miller indicated that the elevations did not show any trim around the windows. Mr. Afara referred to the full size elevation stating that there was a four (4) inch trim going around the windows and that the dimensions could be indicated in the conditions of approval. Mr. Afara informed the Commission that an application for a Minor Exception Permit was submitted to the Planning Department for the fence. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 3 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that Variance No. 747 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15305(A). MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 747 subject to the following findings and attached conditions of approval. 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property or the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same vicinity and zone. The lot width of the project site is sub-standard for this zone, requiring a total of twenty-five feet (25') of side yard setbacks, only leaving a remaining twenty-four feet (24') of width for a single family residence. 2. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone district, but which is denied to the property in question. Variances have been granted for other properties in the vicinity with similar substandard lot configurations. 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. The proposed reduced setback is found in other locations within the City and has provided for safe travel and sight lines for pedestrians and vehicles. 4. The granting of the Variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands, in that no changes to the General Plan are proposed with this project. This includes the addition of condition of approval number six (6)as follows: 6. The trim around the windows shall be of the same size and composition as identified on the elevations as four to six inch (4"—6")foam pop-outs with stucco overlay. D. GHODRAT SHARIFZADEH (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 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 897 to allow the re-model of an existing Chevron station to include a new 2,920 square foot food mart along the west property line and an 840 square foot carwash along the southern property line located at 120 The Terrace Drive within the C-3, General Commercial District. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider VARIANCE NO. 741, a request to waive the development standard contained in Section 18.156.190 (H) requiring that the roof over a pump area and the service station roof form one continuous roofed structure for the Chevron gas station at 120 The Terrace Drive in the C-3, General Commercial District. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 4 Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner David Jump passed around an e-mail from Southern California Edison to the Commissioners relative to undergrounding utilities for this project. Mr. Jump stated that this project was continued from the April 24, 2007 meeting so that the applicant could provide additional information to the Commission relative to the sidewalk area, landscaping, driveway and the undergrounding of utilities. He gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the project and indicated that Public Works Director Ron Mutter was present to address the Commission relative to the driveway issue. Director Ron Mutter gave an overview relative to the driveway issue. He stated that Public Works proposed eliminating one of the driveways immediately opposite the ramp by shifting it around to make it work better from Sixth Street and modifying the traffic patterns from The Terrace. Mr. Mutter stated that this is a better plan for this particular situation from a traffic point of view. Commissioner Miller stated that there was a lot of discussion relative to the two driveways versus one driveway and asked Mr. Mutter how he arrived that the single driveway was the optimum solution. Mr. Mutter addressed Commissioner Miller's question referencing driveway ingress and egress and traffic safety issues. Commissioner Dyer commented that she understood why there should be one driveway instead of two due to the awkward movement being created when a driver comes off the freeway ramp and asked if a new hazard would be created with the new driveway configuration. Mr. Mutter stated that they tried to make a judgement call on what would serve the overall pump and service station and what would provide the best circulation. Chairman Macdonald stated that there was nothing shown on the diagram relative to the placement of the vent tubes for the gas tanks and asked what they were going to do with them. Mr. Jump indicated that the vent tubes would be relocated in the vicinity of the car wash. Mr. Mutter commented on the sidewalk issue and stated that he would support the Commission's desire to do a typical residential parkway on Sixth Street and on The Terrace, but urged caution on the type of trees that would be planted since visibility would be important coming in and out of the driveways. Commissioner Miller stated that he did not have a strong desire to alter the current pattern of landscaping but did want to have a more elegant transition from the pop-out and asked if there would be a problem introducing more planter area along Sixth Street. Mr. Mutter stated that it should not be a problem as long as ADA requirements are complied with and that the minimum sidewalk requirements are met. Commissioner Shamp asked Mr. Mutter if there were plans to widen the sidewalk under the overpass on Sixth Street. Mr. Mutter indicated that there are no plans at this time to do curb to curb widening under the freeway. Mr. Jump continued his presentation indicating that staff recommended approval of the proposed project subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Nasser Moghadam, Project Architect, thanked staff for their help on the project. Mr. Moghadam had concerns relative to meeting all the conditioned requirements and being able to stay within their budget but would comply with whatever was decided today. Mr. Moghadam addressed the issues relative to landscaping, the driveway and undergrounding of utilities. Commissioner James asked if the applicant was willing to agree to the one driveway and if it was a viable alternative. Mr. Moghadam indicated that Chevron did not give them official feedback but had concerns relative to the circulation for the gas trucks. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Dyer asked how the underground tanks could have an effect on what types of trees could be planted on the site. Mr. Moghadam stated that they try to stay away from trees and other plantings that would obscure the buildings and that there are no constraints due to the underground tanks. Chairman Macdonald commented on the undergrounding of the utilities stating that it was his understanding that the in lieu fee would be the same cost as actually undergrounding the utilities. Director Shaw addressed Chairman Macdonald's comment relative to the undergrounding of utilities. Commissioner Dyer commented on the $100 to $150 per linear foot costs relative to undergrounding utilities and stated that it did not appear very expensive if it pertained to undergrounding the frontage on The Terrace. Mr. Jump agreed that the costs did not sound exorbitant but indicated that the applicant would be installing an underground transformer box on the site for all the utilities and that it would also require trenching the back. Mr. Jump stated that the e-mail from Southern California Edison was not clear. Commissioner Dyer asked Mr. Moghadam if he received a financial estimate for the undergrounding. Mr. Moghadam stated that he did not receive an estimate but thought the costs would be high. Chairman Macdonald asked if the utility pole was located at Sixth and The Terrace. Mr. Moghadam stated that the pole was located at Sixth and The Terrace and had concerns relative to undergrounding the pole. Commissioner James stated that he visited the project site and felt that the poles that go along the motel should not be required to be undergrounded and felt that the utility pole at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and The Terrace should be undergrounded. Chairman Macdonald asked the Commission if the sidewalk and planter issues were resolved. Commissioner Miller stated that he was alright with the sidewalk but would like to expand the proposed planter and leave the sidewalk against the curb and transition for additional landscaping while ensuring there is adequate ADA access along the driveway. Commissioner James concurred with Commissioner Miller's suggested and stated that he would support as little modification to the sidewalk as possible. Chairman Macdonald clarified that the sidewalk would remain but that the planter would be increased by approximately five feet. Commissioner's James and Miller supported the one driveway. Chairman Macdonald asked about the landscaping. Commissioner Dyer stated that she had still had concerns with the revised landscape plans indicating that they were unspecific but would approve the plan. Director Shaw indicated that the landscape plan could come back before the Commission for final approval. Chairman Macdonald stated that Commissioner Dyer could work with the applicant to create more detailed landscape plans. Commissioner Dyer indicated that there could be an added condition that the landscape plans be revised and returned to the Commission for review. Commissioner Miller indicated that he would like to see some trees added, especially at the south end where the open car wash bay will be located and at least one or two trees at the corner planter and two trees on the southerly Sixth Street planter. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 6 Chairman Macdonald indicated that the planter located at the corner of Sixth Street and The Terrace has the monument sign and questioned if one tree could be placed on either side of the sign. Commissioner Miller stated that one tree could be placed in that planter. Chairman Macdonald and Commissioner Dyer concurred with Commissioner Miller. Chairman Macdonald asked for discussion relative to undergrounding the utilities. Chairman Macdonald indicated that undergrounding the utilities is a valid requirement but that the Commission needs to look at the affect on the business and whether it is an undo burden and that there was not adequate information relative to the costs involved. Commissioner James indicated that he would like to see undergrounding of utilities when possible and stated that the pole on the corner of Sixth and The Terrace is not aesthetically pleasing and he would like to see that pole replaced with undergrounding and that the pole also creates a safety hazard. He stated that he would not be inclined to require the removal of the pole west of the station. Commissioner Cook stated that making a decision is difficult without having information available relative to the costs involved but agreed with Commissioner James that the pole on the corner of Sixth Street is the most aesthetically unpleasing and should be undergrounded. Commissioner Miller stated that there are a lot of variables relative to costs and understands Edison's reluctance to give a firm number but feels that the costs would be high and supports what Commissioner James suggested. Mr. Jump indicated that the idea of undergrounding is to remove the poles and if the pole at the corner of Sixth Street is removed, then the pole located in the median would also need to be removed. Commissioner Foster stated that it appeared that the minimum amount of undergrounding required by Edison would include the utility poles located in the median on The Terrace and at the corner of Sixth Street and The Terrace. Nasser Moghadam stated that he appreciated the discussion relative to the project. He stated that he will be communicating with Mr. Jump relative to what Edison will require regarding the undergrounding of the utilities. He understands that the landscaping will basically be on Sixth Street and would like to review the revised landscape plans with both Commissioner Dyer and Mr. Jump. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Variance No. 741 and Conditional Use Permit No. 897 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 Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote move that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Conditional Use Permit No. 897 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 May 22, 2007 Page 7 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. 741 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 separation distance between roofed structures, structural complications, and aesthetic impacts that may occur. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to the property in question, such as those identified in the staff report. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity, as no 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. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 897 subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval: 1. The use applied for at this location will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City because the use is conditionally permitted in the C-3 zone and conforms to all property development standards for service stations located within the C-3 District. 2. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the location of the service station currently does not, and will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movement, is an approved use within the C-3 zoning district, will generate revenue to fund City services for residents, and meets all applicable standards for service stations. 3. The proposed development complies to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards because the proposed project meets the minimum lot size requirements, and exceeds all parking and landscape requirements. 4. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location as the use is an approved conditional use within the C-3 District, the site meets all development standards within the Municipal Code, includes an upgrade to on-site landscaping to19 percent of the site, and the site is served by two local streets which have proved to be able to handle the traffic generated by the use from its inception 26 years ago and can serve the traffic generated by the proposed remodel project. This includes revisions to conditions of approval number six (6) and twenty (20), and the addition of condition of approval forty-three (43)as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 8 6. All utilities shall be plaGed URdergFGURd. PlaRS shall be submitted that detail the uRdergrGuRdipg P_f -Al' P­n-1.60te utilities, subjeGt tG review and apprGval by the Community Development DireGter-' The applicant shall be required to underground utilities along the projects frontage only, as needed for public safety and aesthetics in accordance with Southern California Edison standards to definitely include the utility pole at the southwest corner of 6t" Street and The Terrace Drive and to potentially include the utility pole located in the median of The Terrace Drive. Plans shall be submitted that detail the undergrounding of these on-site utilities, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permits. 20. The landscape plans for the parking area and the remainder of the site shall be approved by the GGmmunity Development Director Planning Commission prior to the issuance of Building Permits and shall include the following: a. Provision of a landscape key shall include the species of landscape material used, its frequency, and whether it is deciduous or evergreen. All shrubs shall have a minimum size of five (5)gallons. b. Placement of a concrete mow strip between turf and other surfaces. C. Provision of a detail that shows all trees shall be double staked and have arbor guards if they are in a turf area. d. Clear indication where landscaping will be used to screen mechanical, electrical, or irrigation equipment. e. Landscape and Irrigation Plans must be attached to the Building Plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department. f. Submit one copy of the Landscape and Irrigation Plans directly to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. g. The landscape architect responsible for the design of the proposed landscaping plan shall review and certify that installed landscaping meets the specifications of the landscape plan as submitted except as modified in the conditions of approval. 43. The applicant shall increase the size of the sidewalk at the southeast corner of the site along 6t" Street to a minimum width of 7 feet providing for an adequate transition in the sidewalk to meet ADA standards and this area shall also be maintained by the applicant. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. NORTON COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 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 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 118 modifying the designation of Lugonia Avenue from a Major Arterial roadway to a Minor Arterial roadway between California Street on the west to the 210 Freeway overpass at Citrus Plaza Drive on the east. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 9 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on AMENDMENT NO. 37 to SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 40, an amendment to the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan modifying section EV 4.0105 (C) changing the designation of Lugonia Avenue from a major highway to a secondary highway between Alabama Street on the west to the 210 Freeway overpass at Citrus Plaza Drive on the east. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner David Jump gave a presentation of the proposed project. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Dyer had questions relative to the amount of through lanes on Lugonia Avenue. Mr. Jump addressed Commissioner Dyer's questions. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Pat Meyer, Project Representative, indicated that the Norton project was conditioned to go through this process and that the applicant had an extensive landscape setback so that it could accommodate the eight foot dedication. Mr. Meyer indicated that Norton Community Credit Union and Ethan Allen were in favor of these amendments to clean up the proposed street section. Commissioner James asked if Norton Credit Union would retain the landscaping. Mr. Meyer addressed Commissioner James question. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 118, and Specific Plan No. 40, Amendment No. 37 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 Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1139 (General Plan Amendment No. 118) and recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 118. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1138 (Amendment No. 37 to Specific Plan No. 40) and recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 37 to Specific Plan No. 40. B. TODD WILLIAMS (PROJECT PLANNER: TAMARA ALANIZ) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 910 to allow an internet gaming and computer access business to occupy an existing 2,200 square foot building on the southwest Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 10 corner of Sixth Street and Pearl Avenue located at 683 North Sixth Street within the Town Center District of Specific Plan No. 45. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Tamara Alaniz gave a presentation on the proposed project. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Todd Williams, applicant, thanked staff for their help in moving his project forward. Mr. Williams asked the Commission if they could waive some of the Municipal Utilities Department water fees that are shown in their conditions of approval since they would cause a significant burden on their budget. Director Shaw stated that the water fees were estimates based on what the Municipal Utilities Department had estimated for the applicant's type of use. Director Shaw indicated that the Planning Commission did not have the discretion to waive or modify the fees but that the Utilities Department has the flexibility to modify the numbers based on the information that the applicant can provide them. Commissioner Dyer asked what type of clientele would be drawn to this facility. Mr. Williams addressed Commissioner Dyer's question. Commissioner Miller asked if all fifty (50) game stations would be occupied at the same time. Mr. Williams stated that it could be possible to have full occupancy during the weekends. Commissioner Miller asked if there would be enough parking available if there was full occupancy on the weekends. Mr. Williams indicated that many of the customers would skateboard, bike or walk to the facility and that there would be plenty of parking available if needed. Commissioner Shamp asked Commissioner James several questions relative to the water fees. Commissioner James addressed Commissioner Shamps questions. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that Conditional Use Permit No. 910 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 910, subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval: 1. The proposed internet gaming and computer access business applied for at this location will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City because it is a permitted use in Specific Plan No. 45, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. The internet gaming and computer access business will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because its location will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movement, it is a conditionally permitted use within the specific plan, and it meets all applicable standards for uses in the specific plan. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 11 3. The internet gaming and computer access business will comply with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards because the proposed project meets the on-site parking requirements, is a permitted use with the approval of a conditional use permit and conditions of approval have been applied to the project to ensure that development standards are met. 4. The project is appropriate at the proposed location in that the use is permitted with a conditional use permit within Specific Plan No. 45, the applicant shall provide appropriate safeguards to ensure customer safety, the applicant shall have adequate parking facilities, and the entertainment use will not create an adverse effect on surrounding properties. C. HANGAR 24 CRAFT BREWERY (PROJECT PLANNER: TAMARA ALANIZ) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 908 to allow a brewery to occupy an existing 4,640 square foot building on the south side of Sessums Drive located at 1710 Sessums Drive within the I-P, Industrial District. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider VARIANCE NO. 746 a request for a reduction of the required twenty-five foot (25) front yard setback contained in Section 18.112.120 to nine feet (9') for the placement of a malt silo at 1710 Sessums Drive within the I-P, Industrial District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Tamara Alaniz gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Ms. Alaniz reviewed several changes proposed by the applicant relative to the operation of the brewery and provided handouts pertaining to the conditions of approval that were prepared by the Police Department and ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Commission) Rules and Codes. Ms. Alaniz indicated that there was a small change to the staff report relative to the number of employees and that only one employee was currently being proposed. Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 908 with the revised conditions of approval and that the Planning Commission consider staff discussion and make a determination on the findings required for Variance No. 746. Chairman Macdonald asked for clarification relative to the approval of the variance. Ms. Alaniz stated that staff had difficulty in fulfilling the findings for the variance but felt that an argument could be made for the variance findings. Director Shaw indicated that there is another location that the proposed silo could be located on site that would still meet the needs of the entity and then the variance would not be needed. Director Shaw stated that staff's recommendation is denial of the variance and approval of the Conditional Use Permit and relocating the silo out of the front yard setback area. Commissioner Cook asked for the measurements of the silo. Ms. Alaniz indicated that the silo was twenty feet high and approximately twelve feet, two inches in diameter and was constructed with a white metal material. Ms. Alaniz stated that the applicant is proposing to place their logo on the silo. Commissioner Shamp asked if the variance being granted would only apply to the silo. Ms. Alaniz stated that the variance was specific to the malt silo. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 12 Ben Cook, applicant gave an overview of the brew process affected by the equipment setup. Mr. Cook indicated that keeping the malt silo close to the mill would keep the flavor compounds to a minimum. Commissioner Dyer stated that she sees the silo as a sign and that the variance did not seem to fit with what Mr. Cook was saying about the production of his product. Mr. Cook addressed Commissioner Dyer's concerns. Commissioner Miller asked how large the mezzanine would be where the mill was being proposed. Mr. Cook indicated that the mezzanine would be eight feet tall. Commissioner Miler asked how often Mr. Cook would need to get to the mill. Mr. Cook stated that he would need to get to the mill on brew days or once every two weeks at the beginning of the process. Chairman Macdonald asked if this process was discussed with staff or anyone else relative to putting the mill on the mezzanine. Ms. Alaniz stated that the project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee and the Police and Fire Departments but that the operational procedures were not discussed relative to the building infrastructure. Commissioner James commented that he liked the idea of the brewery and the reuse of the building but was having a hard time with the placement of the silo. Commissioner James asked how the grain was loaded into the silo. Mr. Cook indicated that a large pipe would run from the truck to the silo and that the grain would be blown with compressed air. Commissioner James commented that he was envisioning a truck and trailer coming in to unload to the silo and asked if the loading would be done from the street. Mr. Cook indicated that the truck would be parked in the street or could be pulled into the parking lot. Commissioner James stated that he would have a problem with the truck loading from the street and would prefer to see the unloading take place on-site. Commissioner James asked where the spent grain would be stored. Mr. Cook indicated that the spent grain would be stored in fifty-five (55) gallon drums and would be picked up by a vendor within a few hours of processing. Commissioner James asked Mr. Cook about the fermenters. Mr. Cook gave an overview of the fermenting process. Commissioner James commented that this could become a once a day batch operation resulting in more disposal of waste grain. Commissioner James indicated that it was imperative that the loading and unloading be taken off the street. Director Shaw stated that the license from ABC limits Mr. Cook to 60,000 barrels a year and asked what his estimate would be for this facility. Mr. Cook indicated that he hoped to produce 800 barrels during the first year. Commissioner Cook asked what size truck delivers the malt to the site. Mr. Cook indicated that he believed that they would be half-size semi trailers. Commissioner Cook stated that the Commission could condition the project to ensure that the unloading would take place on-site. Commissioner Dyer asked if Mr. Cook considered flipping the plan to the other side where more parking would be available. Mr. Cook stated that flipping the plan would not work if all the tanks were moved to the other side and would make the auger length unacceptable. Commissioner Dyer suggested moving the malt silo to the other side as well. Mr. Cook addressed Commissioner Dyer's suggestion. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 13 Commissioner Foster stated that he felt that placing the silo on the front of the site would not be offensive to anyone in the area and that it was a good place for it. Chairman Macdonald and Commissioner Shamp concurred with Commissioner Foster. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Chairman Macdonald stated that he did not know what the full support was for granting the variance. Commissioner Cook indicated that she was comfortable with the silo with the logo. Commissioner Miller stated that the proposed silo had an industrial appearance and asked if there was a motor/compressor connected to it. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Cook stated that the motor is inside the silo with a large screw auger that makes no noise. Mr. Cook indicated that the proposed silo is a top of the line unit. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller commented that the silo is painted white as opposed to a stainless steel silo and that it has an industrial appearance. Commissioner Miller indicated that one way to mitigate the appearance is with landscaping and questioned the removal of one of the trees. Ms. Alaniz indicated that the trees would remain and asked Mr. Cook if she was correct. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Cook indicated that he was fairly certain that the tree in question would not need to be removed. Ms. Alaniz stated that there appeared to be approximately 15-1/2 feet of clearance when she visited the site. Commissioner Miller indicated that he finds it hard to grant a variance when there is a good alternative available relative to the placement of the silo. Commissioner James indicated that he liked that this would be a brewery and that the silo could look like a nice architectural feature. Commissioner James had concerns relative to the variance not creating precedence for future projects. Commissioner James indicated that he could support the loading if it was conditioned to take place on-site. Ms. Alaniz indicated that staff could include a condition of approval stating that the applicant shall only unload the grain into the malt silo on-site and not from Sessums Drive. Chairman Macdonald asked if we know that condition is practical and doable. Chairman Macdonald asked if a condition requiring off-loading of the grain from on-site instead of Sessums Drive would work for Mr. Cook's operation. Mr. Cook indicated that it would work. Director Shaw stated that he believed that staff did not anticipate that the applicant would be able to load from Sessums Drive and would not have supported the request if that was the applicant's intent. Commissioner Dyer stated that she still considered the silo to be a sign and did not know what it was going to look like. Commissioner Dyer stated that putting the silo out in the front of the building is an unnecessary exception and would vote against the variance. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 14 Chairman Macdonald indicated that he felt that the applicant did not have a choice in locating the silo to the side of the building since there may be issues with the Fire Department. Commissioner Foster indicated that he does see the silo as a means of attracting business to the location since there may be a tasting opportunity there. Commissioner James indicated that property owner, Jim Ott, was in the audience and asked if this situation would be a problem from an airport perspective. James Ott, property owner and owner of Redlands Aviation, stated that the height of the silo would not interfere with the airport. Mr. Ott stated that the silo out front would be a good idea and would attract more people out to the Airport area. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that Conditional Use Permit No. 908 and Variance No. 746 are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, pursuant to Section 15301. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 5-2, (Commissioner's Dyer and Miller opposed), vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 746 subject to the following findings and attached conditions of approval: 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property or intended use do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same vicinity and zone; 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by the properties in the same vicinity and zoned district but which is denied to property in question; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare and injurious to the public or the property or improvements of others in the vicinity; 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely effect the General Plan or the City of Redlands and that no changes to the General Plan proposed are proposed with this project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 908, subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval: 1. The proposed brewery applied for at this location will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City because it is a permitted use in the I-P, Industrial District, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; 2. The proposed brewery will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because its location will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movement, it is a conditionally permitted use within the zoning district and it will meet the applicable development standards of the zone; Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 15 3. The proposed brewery will comply with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards because the proposed project meets the on- site parking requirements, is a permitted use with the approval of a conditional use permit and conditions of approval have been applied the project to ensure that development standards are met; and, 4. The brewery is appropriate at the proposed location in that the use is permitted with a conditional use permit within the I-P District, the applicant shall provide the appropriate state licensing to ensure proper distribution procedures, the applicant shall have adequate parking facilities, and the brewery will not create an adverse effect on surrounding properties. This includes the addition of Planning Division condition of approval number twelve (12) and Police Department condition of approval number eleven (11) as follows: 12. The applicant shall only unload grain into the malt silo on site and not from Sessums Drive. 11. The Craft brewery shall not engage in use as similar to a restaurant, nightclub or bar and no seating shall be provided for beer tasting or sampling in accordance with Alcohol and Beverage Control wholesale licensing requirements. D. LALITA BAKSHI, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TAMARA ALANIZ) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 909 for the operation of a large family daycare for up to 14 children within an existing single family residence on the east side of Devonshire, north of Reservoir located at 767 Devonshire Drive in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Tamara Alaniz gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed large family daycare facility. Ms. Alaniz gave an overview of the requirements of the Redlands Municipal Code and indicated that a condition of approval would be added relative to the Police Department being notified of clientele in the capacity for registration into their City emergency response system. Ms. Alaniz stated that staff received an e-mail relative to a neighbor opposing the potential boarding home and passed out copies for the Commission's review. Staff recommended approval of the daycare facility subject to the modified conditions of approval. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Lalita Bakshi, applicant, stated that she concurred with the conditions of approval and was available for questions. Salvador Hernandez, neighbor, asked if the CC&R's, (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), were applicable to Ms. Bakshi's residence. Ms. Alaniz addressed Mr. Hernandez' question relative to the CC&R's. Assistant Attorney Michael Reiter indicated that the CC&R's gives a private right of action against Ms. Bakshi to keep her from opening a large family daycare and stated that the homeowner's can go through the court system and/or the Homeowner's Association. Mr. Reiter stated that Mr. Hernandez' opposition can be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cook stated that the Planning Commission has approved daycare facilities in the past with the condition that they come back for review within a certain amount of time. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 16 Mrs. Hernandez, neighbor, spoke about the CC&R's stating that it does not allow a business to be conducted in the home. Chairman Macdonald commented that the Planning Commission does not enforce the CC&R's of a homeowners association. Michael Lee, neighbor, spoke about Conditional Use Permit and requested that the Commission deny or table the project in order to get clarification from the County relative to being able to conduct a daycare facility. Assistant Attorney Reiter gave an overview of the CC&R's (Covenant, Conditions and Restrictions) and stated that the County does not impose them. He reiterated that this is a private issue that can be enforced by the courts but has no impact here. Mr. Lee asked for confirmation that it was acceptable for Mrs. Bakshi to run a daycare out of her home for up to eight children. Assistant Attorney Reiter indicated that it was acceptable as far as the City was concerned but that there are State requirements that Ms. Bakshi would need to follow. Mr. Lee had concerns relative to the parents parking their cars in front of the mailboxes when bringing the children to Ms. Bakshi's house. He stated that he would like a condition added requiring that the daycare be re-evaluated in six months. Commissioner Dyer asked Mr. Lee what other concerns he had other than the access for the Postal Service since Ms. Bakshi is currently running a small daycare. Mr. Lee stated that they currently see some minor inconveniences and impacts to the neighborhood. Chairman Macdonald asked Mr. Hernandez to approach the podium to identify what his specific opposition is relative to the large daycare. Mr. Hernandez indicated concerns relative to traffic, noise, and parking. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller asked about the requirements for staff parking and the number of supervisors required for a large daycare. Ms. Alaniz indicated that State licensing requires two (2) supervisory adults for a large family daycare facility that accomodates fourteen children. Commissioner Miller asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition requiring that the customer not park in front of the mailboxes of the property owners. Ms. Alaniz indicated that she had concerns relative to the Planning Departments ability to enforce that condition since you can park in a right-a-way up to 72 hours. Commissioner Foster asked if the Commission was looking to do something different then what has been done in the past and if not; ask that the applicant come back for review in one year. Commissioner Foster stated that the Commission needs to be consistent in how they look at daycare facilities. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Ms. Bakshi stated that she could send a letter to the parents advising where they could park their vehicles. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Chairman Macdonald indicated that Commissioner Foster's remarks relative to re-evaluating the daycare after one year would give the neighbors adequate time to evaluate the impact on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 17 Commissioner's concurred that a condition of approval should be added to re-evaluate the daycare facility in one year. Ms. Alaniz stated that staff would be adding a condition of approval requiring the applicant to return to the Commission for review after one year of operation. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that Conditional Use Permit No. 909 is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, under Article 18, Section 15274(a), Family Day Care Homes. 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. 909, subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval: 1. The project at this location will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City because the large family day care home is a conditionally permitted use in any single-family residential district which includes the R-E, Residential Estate District, and the proposed use conforms to all property development standards established for large family day care homes; 2. The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the location of the large family day care home will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movement, is a conditionally permitted use within the R-E, Residential Estate zoning district, provides appropriate safeguards to meet State of California licensing guidelines, and meets all applicable standards for large family day care homes; 3. The project will comply with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards because the proposed project meets the on-site parking requirements, has a safe client pick-up and drop-off area, exceeds the rear yard open space requirements, and will not detrimentally affect the character of the residential neighborhood; and, 4. The project is appropriate at the proposed location in that the use: is permitted with a conditional use permit within the R-E, Residential Estate District; the 3,726 square feet of rear yard open space exceeds requirements; the applicant shall provide appropriate safeguards to ensure child safety; the applicant shall have adequate parking facilities; and, the large family day care will not create an adverse effect on surrounding properties. This includes the addition of conditions of approval numbers ten (10)and eleven (11)as follows: 10. The Police Department shall be notified of clientele in the capacity for registration into their City emergency response system 11. After one year operation, the applicant shall return to the Commission for review of any impacts of the large family daycare home on the neighborhood. V. ADDENDA A. Public Official Bias- (DIRECTOR SHAW) Director Shaw referenced the memorandum from the City Attorney relative to Public Official Bias and gave an overview of the document. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 18 B. Planning Commission consideration for use of substitute parking facilities for Ehrler Orthodontics to be located at 215 E. Olive Avenue in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District. Assistant Director Bob Dalquest gave a brief presentation on the proposed substitute parking facility. Staff recommended approval of the substitute parking facilities. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the location of the substitute parking facilities for Ehrler Orthodontics as submitted. C. Budget Suggestions—(DIRECTOR SHAW) Director Shaw gave an overview relative to the document regarding budget suggestions and that any ideas from the Planning Commission would be welcome. VI. MINUTES A. MAY 8, 2007 It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the minutes of May 8, 2007. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF MAY 15, 2007 Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council Actions of May 15, 2007. VIII. ADJOURN TO JUNE 12, 2007 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting at 5:35 p.m. to June 12, 2007. Christine Szilva Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 19 Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2007 Page 20