Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 12-8-09_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, December 8, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: Paul Foster, Chairman Gary Miller, Vice Chairman Jim Macdonald, Commissioner Ruth Cook, Commissioner Carol Dyer, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF Michael Reiter, Assistant City Attorney PRESENT: Oscar Orci, Community Development Director Robert Dalquest, Assistant Community Development Director Manuel Baeza, Principal Planner Tabitha Kevari, Associate Planner Chris Boatman, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Foster called the meeting to order, and opened up the Public Comment period. There were no comments forthcoming and the Public Comment period was closed. All members were present. II. PRESENTATION A. Award of plaques to Ruth Cook and James Macdonald for dedicated service on the Planning Commission. Chairman Foster gave a presentation and presented the plaques to Commissioner Cook and Commissioner Macdonald. Commissioner Macdonald thanked the fellow Commissioner's and staff. Commissioner Cook expressed her gratitude for the opportunity to serve on the Commission. Chairman Foster stated he, and Commissioner Shamp were reappointed and welcomed the new Commissioner's Jan Hudson and Conrad Guzkowski. III. CONSENT ITEMS A. REDLANDS OLD SPAGHETTI FACTORY (PROJECT PLANNER: ROBERT DALQUEST, AICP) Review of application for the person to person transfer of an On-Sale General Alcohol Beverage license for Old Spaghetti Factory located at 1635 Industrial Park Avenue. It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the Consent Calendar. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 1 IV. OLD BUSINESS A. MAJOR SINGH VIRK & NARINDER PK VIRK, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 864 to develop a 3,505 square foot commercial center on a 0.3-acre parcel located at 1135 Orange Street in the C-4 (Highway Commercial) District. Assistant Planner Chris Boatman gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Miller inquired if the applicant had provided color samples for the proposed siding. Assistant Planner Boatman confirmed. Commissioner Shamp inquired if the applicant is required to provide an accessible path of travel from the sidewalk. Assistant Planner Boatman confirmed and stated it would be addressed in the plan check process. Chairman Foster opened up the hearing. Mr. Napolitano came forward to address the Commission and stated he concurred with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Shamp inquired if the applicant planned to designate an accessible path of travel. Mr. Napolitano concurred and recommended an additional condition of approval. Vice Chairman Miller requested clarification on the roof plan and screening of the air conditioning units. Mr. Napolitano stated a parapet wall is an option with screening. Vice Chairman Miller expressed concern the triangular planters may not be able to accommodate the umbrella of the tree canopy. Mr. Napolitano concurred. Vice Chairman Miller recommended spacing the windows for appearance. Commissioner Macdonald stated window visibility is vital for a retail business. Vice Chairman Miller recommended the architect combine the columns to have an affect of narrowing the span and to give the illusion of more mass. Mr. Napolitano concurred. Chairman Foster invited Ms. Leanora Sims forward to address the Commission. Ms. Sims, resident, stated the project will bring beauty to the area and is in favor of the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald stated he is in favor of the proposed project, as it is. Commissioner Dyer stated she is satisfied with the revised design. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 2 Commissioner Cook stated she concurred with Commissioner Miller's comments. Commissioner Dyer inquired if the site design had extra parking stalls. Assistant Planner Boatman confirmed the applicant did not have extra parking stalls with the new revised plan. Commissioner James stated he concurred with Vice Chairman Miller's comments regarding the detail and felt staff could mitigate the recommendations. Commissioner James stated he is pleased with the project overall. Commissioner Shamp stated he concurred with Vice Chairman Miller's comments. Commissioner Shamp emphasized the importance of the pedestrian access on the project. Commissioner Shamp stated he is confident the applicant and staff could come to an agreement on the location of the pedestrian access. Chairman Foster inquired if the Commission was in favor of the pedestrian access. Vice Chairman Miller stated it is a requirement of the American Disabilities Act (A.D.A). Director Orci confirmed a path of access for pedestrians is a requirement and must be A.D.A. compliant. Commissioner Dyer recommended switching the trash enclosure and access for pedestrians. Assistant Planner Boatman stated they would not have adequate room for the minimum trash bin. Director Orci recommended revising one of the fingers adjacent to the driveway for the access point, then jog into the A.D.A. accessible units with path access. Commissioner Dyer concurred. Commissioner Shamp inquired if striping is necessary. Director Orci concurred. Chairman Foster stated the majority of the Commission is in favor of the proposed project and inquired if Assistant Planner Boatman could clarify the Commission's recommendations. Assistant Planner Boatman stated the concerns were as follows; 1) Revise the spacing of the columns and implement aspects of the sketch provided by Vice Chairman Miller. 2) Ensure the mechanical equipment is screened and the architecture is consistent. 3) To ensure there is sufficient space in the planter for the tree umbrella. 4) Provide windows of a Victorian style and less of a commercial style. Chairman Foster closed the hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration Commission Review and Approval No. 864 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 3 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 864 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and all of the required yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features will adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood; the site design meets all the requirements of the municipal code and is consistent with the Commercial General Plan land use designation. 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways which are properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use; Orange Street will be improved to its ultimate half width and the project will not either individually or cumulatively exceed a level of service standard established by the County of San Bernardino's Congestion Management Plan. 3. The conditions set forth in the approval and those shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; the project will provide offsite and onsite improvements to ensure safe vehicle and pedestrian travel and will provide required utilities." With the revised conditions of approval as follows; 39. The applicant shall provide a row of five (5) gallon privets (Ligustrum Texanum) to provide a continuous screening within landscape planters fronting Orange Street. 40. The applicant shall plant new needlepoint ivy at twelve (12) inches on center within all landscape planters. 41. The applicant shall provide an eight (8) foot handicap accessible path adjacent to the required handicap parking stall. 42. The applicant shall work with staff to finalize design details and provide consistency with Victorian style architectural elements. B. WESTSIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TABITHA KEVARI) 1. Consideration of a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 53 (Revision No. 3) to modify the existing phasing plan for off-site improvements and to develop a 5,968 square foot classroom expansion for an existing private school (Westside Christian School) on 5.45 acres located at 1495 W. Olive Avenue in the R-S (Suburban Residential) District. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 4 Associate Planner Tabitha Kevari gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Foster opened up the Public Hearing. Mr. Brad Robertson, representative, stated he was available for any questions. Vice Chairman Miller requested a modification relative to waterproofing the wall as follows; the applicant shall repair the wall in such a way to prevent water from passing from the site to the neighbor's property. Mr. Robertson concurred and stated they proposed to make the improvements on Bellevue Road and the corner, as well. Chairman Foster invited Mr. John Gura forward to address the Commission. Mr. John Gura, resident, requested clarification on the height of the new building. Associate Planner Kevari stated the height of the new building is nineteen (19) feet ten (10) inches. Mr. Gura requested clarification on the setback. Associate Planner Kevari stated the setback is eighteen (18) feet. Mr. Gura confirmed the applicant had not proposed another location on the site for the addition. Mr. Gura stated his real estate broker wrote a letter of opposition on the location of the proposed addition. Chairman Foster invited Mr. Michael Sonnen forward to address the Commission. Mr. Michael Sonnen, resident, expressed concern on the drainage during the construction period. Mr. Sonnen stated the wall has no footings. Mr. Sonnen requested the applicant propose a new location for the addition. Mr. Robertson stated the proposed project has an eighteen (18) foot building height with a sloping hip roof and is within eighty-eight (88) feet from the Gura's residence. The Sonnen residence is fifty (50) feet away. Mr. Robertson stated the applicant could not relocate the addition and requested approval of the proposed addition. Commissioner Macdonald recommended placing the addition inside of the "L" of the existing building. Mr. Robertson stated this has been the intended location of classrooms, the applicant planned for the grades to progress sequentially. The location inside of the "L" is the playground for the preschool and kindergarten children and they must be segregated and secure. Commissioner Macdonald stated the location is obtrusive and declared he witnessed the monstrosity from the street between the Sonnens' and Guras' residence. Mr. Robertson stated the addition is eighty-eight (88) feet from the Gura residence. Commissioner Macdonald stated he is not in support of the proposed project because their view would be a twenty-two (22) foot wall. Mr. Robertson stated the applicant had no intention on relocating the building. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner James stated he had concerns regarding the drainage and is confident staff and the applicant will address any issues that may arise. The original building is of an institutional/commercial type style, and a Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) is a method to review the design to make sure it is a good fit for the zoning. The applicant had made concessions on the design, setbacks, and the roof line to be more compatible with residential neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 5 Commissioner James confirmed he had requested the applicant relocate the addition and the applicant stated the younger children needed segregation and security, as well as conflict with the future plan of adding a gymnasium and more classrooms to the west of the property at which time the site will be full. If the site was developed as a residential neighborhood the parcels could have two-story homes with a ten (10) foot setback. Commissioner James stated he is in support of the proposed project as it is. Commissioner Macdonald stated he recommended the additional classrooms be relocated in the "U. Commissioner James confirmed if the proposed addition was placed in the "L" the applicant would lose the playground area for the preschool and kindergarten children and would conflict with the future plans for the gymnasium and additional classrooms. Vice Chairman Miller stated the concern is if the Commission is preserving the residential neighborhood and the quality of life of the residents. If there were residential homes proposed for the site they may have a two story home nineteen (19) feet tall at the eave line, and a ridgeline of twenty-five (25)feet. The proposed project has a twelve (12) foot tall eave line, and is in compliance with the residential zoning. Vice Chairman Miller stated he is in support of the project. Commissioner Cook stated when the project came to the Planning Commission in 2003 it was a conceptual plan and was not an approved location. Commissioner Cook concurred a home may have similar limitations but a home would not be ninety-seven (97) feet wide. Commissioner Cook stated part of the C.U.P. process is to determine if the proposed use will not be a significant impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Dyer declared the majority of the development has been to the east of the site and stated there is a vast amount of unrestricted space to the West. It is not appropriate to further impact the residents with the proposed addition and confirmed her opposition to the project due to the visual impacts to the residents. Commissioner Macdonald stated the C.U.P. gives the Planning Commission an opportunity to consider the proposed use. Commissioner Macdonald confirmed the residents will suffer significant financial loss with the addition built behind their home. The church has options, the residents do not. Commissioner Shamp expressed concern for residents on the south side of the property if the addition was placed in the wing of the "L". Commissioner Macdonald stated his recommendation was to relocate the addition to the center of the "L" not the foot of the "U. Commissioner Shamp stated when you own a home there is always a possibility of circumstances changing and devaluing your property. The property owner has the right to develop their property. Commissioner Shamp confirmed his support of the proposed project. Chairman Foster stated he had hoped the subcommittee, and the applicant would have reached a compromise. Chairman Foster confirmed the Commission had indicated the location of the proposed addition was not acceptable, and recommended a new location. Chairman Foster declared the applicant has options and the residents do not and confirmed his opposition on the proposed project. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 6 Director Orci recommended the opportunity to provide findings for denial, in case the applicant chooses to appeal the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Macdonald requested a vote from the existing Commission. Chairman Foster inquired if Director Orci would like to discuss the matter with the City Attorney. Director Orci confirmed. Chairman Foster stated he will recess the Commission for five (5) minutes in order to discuss the matter with the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development. Chairman Foster reconvened at 3:42 pm. Chairman Foster had requested staff prepare findings of the Commission's decision to deny and return to the Commission by the end of the meeting. The retiring Commissioner's will have the opportunity to vote for the record. Chairman Foster re-opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Brad Robertson requested a continuance to the January 19th Planning Commission. Chairman Foster stated a continuance had been granted previously with a clear direction to relocate the addition, the applicant choose not to accept the Commissions' recommendations. Chairman Foster inquired why the Commission should continue to January. Mr. Robertson stated they could possibly increase the setback by a few feet. Chairman Foster stated the Planning Commission will recommend denial to City Council; and the applicant can appeal the decision. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. The MOTION was recessed to the end of the Planning Commission meeting in order to provide findings for denial. Vice Chairman Miller stated the applicant may have thought the subcommittee did not find relocating the building necessary. Chairman Foster requested a vote from the Commission to continue the Consideration of a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and PUBLIC HEARING to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 53 (Revision No. 3) to January 12, 2010. The roll call vote was as follows; Commissioner Macdonald-No Commissioner Cook-No Commissioner Dyer-No Commissioner James-Yes Vice Chairman Miller-Yes Commissioner Shamp-Yes Chairman Foster-No Chairman Foster stated the motion failed, to lack of a majority. Staff will prepare the findings for denial, and return to the end of the Planning Commission meeting to read the motions. IV. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 7 A. GAYATREE PATEL, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TABITHA KEVARI) 1. Consideration of a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15315 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/ Benefit Study. 3. PUBLIC HEARING to consider Minor Subdivision No. 332 to subdivide 3.31 acres containing an existing hotel into two (2) commercial parcels located at 1230 W. Colton Avenue in the EV/CG (General Commercial) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Associate Planner Kevari gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Vice Chairman Miller stated the hotel was approved as a single parcel. The municipal code changed and allowed the applicant subdivide the property, at the time of approval the applicant had plans ready to submit to develop an office building. Vice Chairman Miller stated that was approximately five years ago with no improvements to the property. Vice Chairman Miller recommended additional conditions to landscape the parcel as part of the approval. Assistant Director Dalquest concurred and stated staff would be in support of landscaping or groundcover. Associate Planner Kevari requested clarification on the preferred landscaping. Commissioner Dyer stated a hydro seed mix with automatic irrigation. Staff concurred. Commissioner Dyer stated the parcel was an odd shape and inquired how it was possible to develop. Assistant Director Dalquest stated when the applicant went through the development process they needed to file a Variance on the setbacks. Chairman Foster opened up the Public Hearing. Mr. Kevin Richer, representative, stated they concurred with the conditions of approval and requested the condition regarding the Community Facilities District be deferred to the time of the building permits. Assistant Director Dalquest requested Municipal Utilities and Engineering address the question. Mr. Michael Pool, Municipal Utilities and Engineering, agreed to defer the condition of approval under Community Facilities District when building permits are pulled. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote that Minor Subdivision No. 332 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 8 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve the Socio- Economic Cost Benefit Study for Minor Subdivision No. 332. It has been determined that the 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 Dyer, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve Minor Subdivision No. 332, subject to the conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Commercial and a zoning of General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site has a relatively flat grade and is large enough to subdivide into two (2) lots. The lot sizes are adequate in size for the existing hotel use on Parcel No.1 and a future development on Parcel No. 2 and both parcels will comply with the General Commercial District designation of the site; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development for two commercial parcels. The General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor allows a floor area ratio of 60% for hotel/office buildings and 25% for retail/commercial buildings. Parcel No. 1 meets the 60% floor area ratio requirement for the hotel use and Parcel No. 2 is adequate in size to accommodate either retail or office use; 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. The subdivision involves no new development and therefore no environmental impacts will occur; 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 under Williamson Act Contract." This includes the addition of condition of approval number ten (10) and modification to condition of approval no seven (7) as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 9 10. The applicant shall landscape parcel number two (2) with a hydro seed mix and will be watered with an automatic above ground irrigation system. 7. Associate Planner Kevari requested modification from "As a condition of and prior to the final parcel map approval" to "As a condition of and prior to the issuance of building permits for parcel number 2". B. CHRIS KIRKLEY, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) 1. Consideration of a Notice of Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/ Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 868 to develop a 5,550 square foot industrial building on a 0.79-acre infill parcel located within an existing industrial park at 1222 Indiana Court in the EV/IC (Commercial Industrial) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Assistant Planner Boatman gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Foster opened up the Public Hearing. Mr. Gary Stegemann, representative, stated he concurred with the conditions of approval and is available for any questions. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission find that Commission Review and Approval No. 868 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines pursuant to Section 15332. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 868 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 December 8,2009 Page 10 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 868 subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and all of the required yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features will adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood; the project meets the applicable development standards contained within the EV/IC (Commercial Industrial) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan and has been designed to accommodate permitted uses within the district; 2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways which are properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use; the project is within an existing industrial development that has been designed to accommodate traffic generated by permitted uses; 3. The conditions set forth in the approval and those shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; all required improvements such as landscape area, parking areas and egress/ ingress have been designed in accordance with the Municipal Code and East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. C. ESRI, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 375 (Revision No. 1) to modify the site design of an existing tow yard facility with the development of a parking lot for property located at 1143 Park Avenue in the M-2 (General Industrial) District. 3. PUBLIC HEARING to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 652 (Revision No. 1) to modify the site design of an existing tow yard facility with the development of a parking lot located at 1075 Park Avenue in the M-2 (General Industrial) District. 4. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 825 (Revision No. 6) to develop a parking lot across nine (9) contiguous parcels located on the south side of Park Avenue, west of New York Street and east of Tennessee Street in the M-2 (General Industrial) District. 5. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 867 to develop a courtyard for outdoor seating, to reconfigure an existing parking lot, and to approve off-site parking facilities for an existing restaurant located at 499 New York Street in the M-2 (General Industrial) District. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 11 Principal Planner Manuel Baeza gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Dyer inquired if the current parking for Benjarong Restaurant was substandard. Principal Planner Baeza stated their parking lot was not fully improved, they have thirty-one (31) parking stalls which would meet their requirement with the current seating of the restaurant. Commissioner Dyer requested clarification if the restaurant planned on sharing their parking. Principal Planner Baeza stated there is a lease on the parking and subject to review and approval by the City. Chairman Foster opened up the Public Hearing. Mr. Dave Atchley, representative for ESRI, stated he was available for any questions. Mr. Louis Flores, representative for Benjarong Restaurant, stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Dyer expressed concern on the parking lot screening for Benjarong Restaurant. Mr. Atchley stated they will extend the wrought iron fencing with vine for the Benjarong Restaurant parking lot. Commissioner Dyer concurred. Chairman Foster closed the Public Hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Revision No. 1 to Commission Review and Approval No. 825, Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 375, Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No.652 and Commission Review and Approval No. 867 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 375 subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed development at the L&L tow yard facility will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City because the parking lot is a permitted use in the M-2 District and is intended to provide additional parking facilities for a major employer in the City and enable them to expand in the future; 2. The proposed development at the L&L tow yard facility will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because conditions of approval have been placed on the project that mitigate impacts generated by the project to a level of less than significant; including impacts in the categories of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Noise, Water Quality, and Public Services; Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 12 3. The proposed development at the L&L tow yard facility 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 because the project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the M-2 District; which calls for uniform and orderly development, as well as General Plan policy 4.80 which calls for providing space for the expansion of existing industries such as ESRI. 4. The proposed development at the L&L tow yard facility is appropriate at the proposed location; because the parking lot will not interfere with business activities of the existing tow yard or other businesses in the area as they also contain parking lots. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 652 subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed development at the Broncs tow yard facility will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City because the parking lot is a permitted use in the M-2 District and is intended to provide additional parking facilities for a major employer in the City and enable them to expand in the future; 2. The proposed development at the Broncs tow yard facility will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because conditions of approval have been placed on the project that mitigate impacts generated by the project to a level of less than significant including impacts in the categories of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Noise, Water Quality, and Public Services. 3. The proposed development at the Broncs tow yard facility 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 because the project is consistent with the intent and purpose of the M-2 district which calls for uniform and orderly development, as well as General Plan policy 4.80 which calls for providing space for the expansion of existing industries such as ESRI. 4. The proposed development at the Broncs tow yard facility is appropriate at the proposed location; because the parking lot will not interfere with business activities of the existing tow yard or other businesses in the area as they also contain parking lots. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 6 to Commission Review and Approval No. 825, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The parcels that comprise the site for the parking area together are adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use; the parking lot will be developed in accordance with all City standards for parking stalls, two-way drive aisles, landscape setbacks and parking area planters. Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 13 2. The overall site properly relates to neighboring streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development; As part of the project Park Avenue will be fully developed to its ultimate half-width of 32 feet, pursuant to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In addition New York Street is fully improved as required under the General Plan. 3. The conditions of approval proposed for Revision No. 6 to Commission Review and Approval No. 825 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; Conditions of approval have been placed on the project that mitigate impacts generated by the project to a level of less than significant including impacts in the categories of Aesthetics, Air Quality, Noise, Water Quality, and Public Services. With added Condition of Approval No. 28, 29 and modification to Municipal Utilities and Engineering Condition of Approval No. 19, and 21 as follows: 28. The fencing along Park Avenue shall be extended across the entire parking lot area facing Park Avenue. 29. All trees planted along Park Avenue and New York Street shall have a minimum size of 24-inch box. 19. The Developer shall be responsible in accordance with RMC Section 12.22.050 as a condition of development to relocate of the existing overhead utilities to provide for the widening of Park Avenue. 21. The Developer shall be responsible in accordance with RMC Section 12.22.050 as a condition of development to relocate of the existing overhead utilities to provide for the widening of Park Avenue. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve a substitute parking location for Commission Review and Approval No. 867 subject to the following findings: 1. All or part of the substitute location is within two hundred (200) feet of the principal use; the substitute location is adjacent to the restaurant being served. 2. The substitute lot is in the same possession as the use it is intended to serve. The applicant has established a long term lease with ESRI. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 867, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 14 1. The site for the proposed outdoor seating area is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use; the project will provide an outdoor courtyard for dining and contains adequate area to intensify the use; 2. The site containing the restaurant and outdoor seating area properly relates to neighboring streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development; As part of the project Park Avenue will be fully developed to its ultimate half-width of32 feet pursuant to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. In addition, New York Street is fully improved as required under the General Plan. 3. The conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 867 for the restaurant are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; conditions of approval have been placed on the project that require compliance with the Municipal Code as well as adequate parking for the restaurant. VI. ADDENDA A. WORKSHOP to review and discuss the pending surface mining entitlements and reclamation plans for Robertson's Ready Mix and CEMEX Materials located within the Upper Santa Ana River Wash Plan, and also known as General Plan Amendment No. 122, Street Vacation No. 153, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 948, 949, 950, 951, 952 & 964. Chairman Foster requested the Workshop be continued to January 26, 2010 in order for the new Commissioner's to be present for the discussion. The Commission concurred. The Planning Commission reconvened the motion for the Westside Christian School. IV. A. WESTSIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, APPLICANT MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 4-3 vote (Commissioner Macdonald, Commissioner Cook and Chairman Foster opposed) that Revision No. 3 to Conditional Use Permit No. 53 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, and carried on a 4-3 vote (Vice Chairman Miller, Commissioner James, and Commissioner Shamp opposed) to deny Revision No. 3 to Conditional Use Permit No. 53 subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed addition to the school at this location will adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City because it is not consistent with General Plan Policy 3.30c which states, "Discourage changes in residential areas that would disturb the character or clearly have a destabilizing effect on the neighborhood". Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 15 2. The proposed school expansion will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because the massing of the building will cause a substantial negative aesthetic effect on adjacent residences and severely detract from the residential character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposed school expansion will not 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 because there is ample area on the subject site to accommodate the school addition without locating the addition closer to the adjacent residences which will cause a substantial adverse aesthetic impact and impact the quality of life of the adjacent residences. 4. The proposed school addition is not appropriate at the proposed location because the school addition size is not in character and scale to the adjacent residences, it is too close to the adjacent residences and there is ample area on the subject site to accommodate the school addition without impacting the adjacent residences and their quality of life." VII. MINUTES A. November 10, 2009 It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the minutes of November 10, 2009 with one correction. VIII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF NOVEMBER 17, 2009 AND DECEMBER 1, 2009 Chairman Foster inquired if there were any City Council actions to report for November 17, 2009 and December 1, 2009. Director Orci confirmed the City Council approved the Architectural Guidelines. Staff will email a copy to the firms currently working with the City, as well as have copies at the counter as needed. Director Orci stated there are no other reportable Land Use Actions. Chairman Foster thanked Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Shamp for their participation and assistance in presenting the Architectural Guidelines to the City Council. IX. ADJOURN TO JANUARY 12, 2009 Chairman Foster adjourned the meeting at 4:26 to the January 12, 2009 meeting. Linda McCasland Oscar Orci Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 16 Senior Administrative Technician Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes of December 8,2009 Page 17