HomeMy WebLinkAbout10201966-cc_CCv0001.pdf of an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council, City of Redlands,
held in the Council Chambers, Safety Hall, 212 Brookside Avenue, on
October 20, 1,966, at 7: 00 P.M. Planning Commission Items 3:00 P.M.
Regular Agenda 7 : 00
Waldo F. Burroughs, Mayor
William T. Hartzell , dice-Mayor
Norman N. Martinez, Countilma.n
Jack P . Cummings, Councilman
Charles G. DDM r?yn, Councilman
Ralph P. Merritt, Jr . , City Manager
Carl Davis attorney
Peggy A. Moseley, City Clerk
Ron Kibby, Redlands Daily Facts
Appeal. for Conditional Use Permit No. 106 in accordance with the revised servo
station site prepared by the Manning Department, and subject to the
".R.A. recommendations of all. departments, adding to Planning Department Recor
of endation No.. li , `No commercial activity between 10: 00 p.m. and.. 6: 00 a.
C.U.P. also adding planning .recommendation No. 1: Any time extension to be
No. 1076 considered by the City Council. '
"The motion was seconded. by Mr. Butler and carried by the following rol
call vote:
"AYES : Commissioners Butler, Prendergast and Chairman Hales
NOES : Commissioners Rabe and Heim
SENT: Commissioners Runkel and Emerich"
A statement of Mr. Max Kreston, chairman of the Southeast Redlands CommunitJ
Association was read at this time as follows:
"October :1.9, 1966
"Mayor Waldo F. Burroughs
City of Redlands
"A Conditional Use Permit provides certain specific standards and
conditions for development. It must first be understood that the
Southeast Redlands Community Association is opposed to any chance
of zoning from R -E to Commercial at Ford. and Redlands Blvd. The
question in point today is whether or not the site plan submitted with
the request for a one year extension of CHIP 1016 constitutes as saaagar
revision . If it is a revision then the Buin Corporation must:: reapply
for ":a new conditional use permit according to those :regulation ordinanc
of the City of Redlands, now in effect.
"A arca. or revision is defined in the City ordinances governing coradi.tior
use permit's as one which violates the intent or any of the standards oa
conditions in the original permit.
"It would seem that the City of Redlands through its departments sh.oulc
list all of the standards and conditions in the original permit includ.
aapp:l.icdble council. and planning comzaaission actions . Then the de partmer
should list the effects of the new plan submitted with the request for
extension of CLIP 1076 can each and every standard and condition. This
slaoul.d be a written report documented to show all applicable informa.ti.e
Until this is done it would seem impossible for the City Council,. or
Planning Commission to make a decision or whether or not: the new plan
incorporates major revisions. A standard in the orgina.l permit was the
Ford Road should be 88 feet wide and the new pian shows that the road w
64 feet Nide. It is impossible to say that the 88 feet standard has nc
been violated; the City ordinance says when a standard has been violate
then there is a major revision. Quoting from the Planning Commission
minutes of September 1_3, 1966: "All of the departmental xecommend<Watior
have been re-written to apply to the new site plan. ` 11ow can the govea
bodies of the city of Redlands decide if standards or conditions of the
original_ CUP were violated unless in the re--writing of the departmentaw
recommendations information is provided to show how the original stand":
and conditions are effected.
"We suggest: th .t the departments of the City of Redlands are responsib"
to the governing body, the City Council., who are in turn responsible to
the electorate of which we are a part. We feel that more is required
from the departments of the City than re-writing the original recd enc
sufficient information must also be supplied to the Council for sound
decision making by them on the question: Does the nes plan incorporate
changes which violate the original standards and conditions.
"We :heel that there are major changes and the applicants for the CUP si
reapply; we feel, however, that ___ just as the departments have ful,fi-
chard P. Cheer.
statement of the Buin Corporation submitted by Attorney Craniner, representative
the applicants for C.U.P. 106, was read as follows:
"September 27 , 1066
"Honorable City Council
City Hall
Redlands, California
"Re. Appeal of Planning Commission
Decision oil Revised Site :Plan
under Conditional Use Permit
No. 106 granted Buin for C-°2
Neighborhood Shopping Center
"Gentlemen:
"With the filing of a written appeal of the Planning Commission ' s decision
made September 13, 1966, approving a revised site plan submitted by Buin,
it is now appropriate to comment on the appeal and theprocedure for its
hearing. The appeals procedure apparently was to provide an orderly method
for the City Council to review Planning Commission decisions and to confine
the review to specific issues and climate a rehearing of all matters
previously presented. The appeal filed complains that the submission of the
revised plot plan is not a minor revision as defined by Ordinance No. 1.294
but a major revision requiring submission under regular conditional use
permit.. procedure. It appears to be an objection solely to the procedure
followed and. not to the merits of the Commission ' s decision. 'T'he issue .to
be determined by the Council, therefore, is an interpretation of the :language
of ordinance No. 1294 defining minor revisions as follows:
'Minor revisions are hereby defined as .revisions which in no way v olwatc,
the intent or any of the standards of conditions of the permit or of the
zone. '
"The revised plot plan submitted by Buin was made necessary in order to
realign mord Street to place it on :twin property rather than across the
Buster property as originally approved. The realignment ofFord Street
was made .in accordance with recommendations of the Public Works Department.
The revised plot plan in no way violates the intent, standards of conditions
of the permit or of the zone. No request for increase in area of the site
or increase in the building area or request for uses not specifically
permitted in a C--2 zone are involved in the submission.
"it is a practical fact that an original plot plan approved for a shopping
center is very likely to be revised before final development to accommodate
the needs and desires of the tenants of the shopping center. Every C-2 shopping
center d.ev`:loped in the City -thus far has had at least one .revision of the
site plan originally approved. The following is a schedule showing the
experience of such projects
"C-2 Shopping Original Revised Plot
Center Permit Granted Plans A-a roared
Sages April 17, 1956 lst: January 1953
2nd: April. 1.959
:3rd: September 1961
4th: June 1964
5th: April. 1965
Market Basket April 1956 1st. September 1956 ,
2nd: October 1.9513
University May 1.96:3 1st: March 1964
Plaza 2nd: April 1964
"If consideration of the appeal is limited to the standards set forth
in Ordinance No. 131.9, i. e. , " review the decision of the Commission,
hear new evidence and testimony, if offered ' and confined to the
appea.lEible issues of whether a minor or major revision is involved,
I suggest the hearing could be limited to a maximum time of one hour
and the appellant allowed 30 minutes and the applicant 30 minutes to
prcaseit their respective views . In view of the long delay which has
already occurred, the applicant respectfully suggests that the hearing
on the appeal, be held on October 4. Since no research of any City
department is necessary, I assume that the appellant should be prepared
to proceed without further delay.
"Respectfully yours ,
s/ Rex W. Cranmer
Attorney for Applicant"
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of Sept-.ember 13, 1.966, are
included as part of the record on appeal to the City Council .
Mr. Cant:i.11..on then presented, the position of the Southeast Redlands Commmunit
Association, he discussed the City ordinances related to zoning under which
C.U .P. 1.06 was originally granted, and said that it was the opinion of the
Southeast Redlands Corm unity Association that the site plan revision under
consideration constitutes a major revision, and thus required resubmission
by the applicant..
Attorney Rex W. Cra:nmer, representing the Twin Corporation, briefly reviewei
the history of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 106 by the
Buin Corporation and outlined the developmental steps of this shopping cent(
up to the time of the request for commission review and approval_ of the
revised site plan which was presented to the Planning Commission on Septeiabc
1, 966. Referring to the ordinance under which the CUP was approved, Ordinanc
No. 1.:1.94, and to the Buin Corporation ' s letter, he maintained that to add as
service station to the shopping center site is a minor revision, and that tl
Planning Commission was correct in approving the Commission Review and. Apprc
of the amended site plan under C.U.P. 106.
Also addressing Council with questions and comments were: Mrs. Walter E. Dao
clartner, 302 E. Sunset Drive; Mrs . F. D. Atkinson, :314 Sunset Drive North., Z
Mr. Paul Fo tik, 151 Hilton Avenue.
After the close of the public hearing, Deputy City Attorney Carl Davis expl.Z
to the Council that its responsibility was to review whether the Planning
Commission ' s aapprova.:l.. of the revised site plan is reasonable and supported 1
the evidence before the Commission and any new evidence offered during this
hearing on appeal. He stated that the notice of appeal. was filed on
Septeniber 23, 1966, within the 10--day time period in accordance with the apf
procedure recently adopted in Ordinance No. 1319. fie further stated that tl
issue to be considered was whether the revision of the site plan was major c
minor in view of the evidence received by the Planning Commission and City C
Minor revisions to a site plana previously approved as part of a C.IJ,f , may
isider certain revisions of that site plan requested by the applicant and approved
the Planning Commission on Septeiriber 13, 1966.
-ector of Public Works Shone, questioned regarding the status of the present
Lgnment of ford Street, .informed Council. that the map submitted shows the
aporary alignment of Ford Street to Redlands Boulevard, and that Ford Street
L1 be realigned at such time as funds and right-of--way are available for the
-pose. Shone stated that the alignment shown on the revised site plan. is
aisfactory :From the standpoint of engineering and is adequately designed for the
1.ffic to be anticipated.
Schindler pointed out that Conditional Use Permit No. 166 allows construction
a _3 Shopping Center and that the revision does not materially change its
iractea, as such a C-3 center. Mr. Schindler stated that service stations and
iks we1:epermitted uses in C--3 shopping centers under the City zoning ordinances
that time and upon the granting of C.U.P. No. 106 and are permitted uses now.
stated that site plans are intended to show the orientation of buildings and.
_ationship to the site and to surroundinng property. The designation of i:,ses
)wn on the site plan may be in terms of broad categories of uses which are
-miscible under the zone or cond.itiona.1 use permit as opposed to designating
�cific uses .
zncilman Hartzell gave the background of both the Master Plan and. ordinance No.
)0, and the reasons therefor. He pointed out that ordinance No. 1000 was the
)l or motivating force which affectuated the Master Plan and down through the
yrs it had been modified and revised on numerous occasions - each time with
wempts at broad public participation and public hearings . He also stated
it the Councilor and Planning Commission had adhered cons-i stently to the phi,l.o-
)hy of the Master Plan and the requirements of ordinance No. 1000. The recent
risions of C-1 and C- 2 uses were participated in by members of the Southeast
1.1_ands Community Association, and at no time either prior to or during this
;t revision, had it ever been suggested that these uses, includinggas stations,
deleted ;from the C-2 area . These uses have been -Found useful_, worthwhile and
!essary. He then stated that upon careful study and research of the Planning
un ssi.o ' s approval of the 1uin application, the appeal as presented., the
Aence offered by the proponents, appellants and the applicant and the minutes
the proceedings of the Planning Commission on September 13, 1.066, which are
-t of the record before the City Council , he could find no unreasonable action
the Commission, or abuse of its discretion, in granting Commission. Review and
aroval. of C.U .P. No. 106. He further stated that the broad public interest,
ild indicate that this is a proper use, the ordinances have been complied with
1, therefore, moved denial of the appeal, on grounds that evidence received by the
ginning Commission supports its determination that the requested revision of the
_e plan for uses in the C-2 zone is minor and within the scope of Conditional
Permit No. 106. Mr. Hartzell_ recommended that the City Council make findings
iir1^ fFnr,f- _3"A Mr-II7�rq Fnr rlna;5 31 C1-F # 1- rartiI"YG9a1 n"rl n"r-�r^r',�7M1 of r+r•romrri-ia n
Gas stations have been routinely approved in neighborhood centers at
(1) University Plaza, (2) North Redlands Shopping Center and (3) Sage
d) The realignment of Ford Street has been reviewe=d by the Public Works
Department and found to be feasible from the standpoint of engineerinc
and street sagety.
2 . The revised site plan is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
uses proposed.
3 . According to the recommendations of the Department of Public Works, the
street::s and, highways under the revised site plan are properly designed
to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated .
4. The conditions of approval, adequately protect the public health, safety
and general welfare.
5 .. That the two-mile distance limit between shopping centers as set forth
under Ordinance No, 1.313, does not apply because the application for the
Conditional Use Permit was previously approved under Ordinance No. 1194,
before the two-mile limit went into effect in the City of Redlands.
Councilman DeMirjyn stated that in his opinion the revisions to the site ply:
coaa; :it;ute-d major changes and the decision of the Planning Commission should,
therefore, be reversed.
The motion of Councilman Hartzell, as amended by Councilman Cummings, was
seconded by Councilman Martinez and adopted: by the following roll call vote:
RUNS ; Councilmen Martinez, Hartzell, Cummings, Mayor Burroughs
NOES: Councilman DeMirjyn
ABSENT:SENT: None
Council was recessed for five minutes .
The request of the Bain Corporation for a one-year time extension for Condi.ta
Use Permit No. 1.06 tabled at the meeting of September 20, 1.966, for further
consideration following the appeal of Planning Commission Review and Approval
of Conditional Use Permit No. 106, was presented once again at this time. or
motion of Councilman Hartzell, seconded by Councilman Martinez, a one--year ti
extension from September 28, 1966, to September 28, 1967,. was granted. for
Conditional, Use Permit No. 1.06, with the following roll call vote:
AY Councilmen Martinez, Hartzell., Cummings, Mayor Burroughs
NOES - Councilman DeMirjyn
ABSENT: None
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
As considered by the City Ccruncil at a regular meeting thereof het
October 20, 1966, at 3. 00 P.M.
Present; Councilmen Martenez, Hartzell., Cummings, DeMir yi Mayol
Burroughs, Attorney Davis
Absent: None
1 . R.P.C. No. 264 - Amendment No. 72 to Zonip Orclaanance No. 1.000
That R.P .C. No. 264, amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1.000, a complet
revision of Section 19. 00, R-2 Multiple Family Residential Distric
G. c ommzsslcan t eylE'w anCt Lap 7royal LNo. 2UU -- UUIE U1.1 (_or radon
At this time notice of an appeal to the decision of the Planning
Commission was brought to Council attention. On motion of Councilman
Hartzell, seconded by Councilman Martinez, this appeal wil.wl be held
at 3 : 00 P.M. , on November 1, 1966 .
LCATTONS
Councilman Hartzell referred to a Letter from the Council. on Coinaaunity
Services, inviting the City Council ' s participation in the activities
of that board. City Manager Merritt replied that a .letter had been
directed to Reverend H. Mike Link, requesting that a meeting be arranged
'between members of that board and the City Council.
Councilman Hartzell. now referred to the letter Councilman DeMir jyn
brought to Council attention during the Lwin appeal., which letter
referred to a bakery truck entering Sage ' s parking lot during the
early morning hours . Councilman Hartzell stated that every effort is
being made to conform to the ordinance in the prevention of noise
between 10: 00 P.M. and 6: 00 A.M. , and stated that there had been no
further complaints.
Council. discussed the possibli.l.ity of the formation of a recreation
district to be contiguous with the Redlands School District and
decided that study should begin prptly on this project. On motion of
Councilman Hartzell, seconded by Councilman DeMirjyn, a recommendation
from the Council. will. be presented to the Joint Recreation Conunission.
kNAGER
on motion of: Councilman Martinez, seconded by Councilman Cummings,
the City Clerk was authorized to call. for :bids on the installation
311
ler of an automatic sprinkler system for the northwest corner of Section C
of Sylvan Lark -- a budgeted item in the amount of $8, 750 .
A Grant Deed from Edward.. M. and Merry Campbell and R. E. and Barbara A.
Deed.
11 Morse for street .right-of--way purposes in connection with University
Street improvements was accepted on motion of Councilman Dem r yn, sec-
ended Councilman Martinez, with the City Manager authorized ed t,o
execute a certificate of acceptance.
A request by the J. A. Blash Amusements to operate a carnival in the
vl
university Plaza Shopping Center on November 3 through November Vii, 1.066, :
was approved., subject to the requirements of all City departments, on
motion of Councilman Hartzell., seconded by Councilman Cur=°nning s .
Dues for membership in the Feather River Project Association for the
year 1966 in the amount of $200400 were ordered paid, on motion of
Councilman Hartzell, seconded by Councilman Cummings.
City Manager Merritt :brought to Council notification by the State
Department of Public Health redeclaring the County of San Bernardino