Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-1020_CCv0001.pdf:S 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, 1966, at 7 : 00 P.M. Planning Commission items 3:00 P.M. Regular Agenda 7:00 T Waldo F. Burroughs, Mayor William T. Hartzell, Vice-Mayor Norman N. Martinez, Countilman Jack B. Cummings, Councilman Charles G. DeMirjyn, Councilman Ralph P. Merritt, Jr. , City Manager Carl Davis, Attorney Peggy A. Moseley, City Clerk Ron Kibby, Redlands Daily Facts Chuck Palmer, San Bernardino Sun None The meeting was opened with the pledge of allegiance, followed by the invocation by Reverend David L. Silke of the First Baptist Church. Appeal for Conditional Use Permit No. 106 in accordance with` the revised serv: station site prepared by the Planning Department, and subject to the C.R.A. recommendations of all departments, adding to Planning Department Recor of endation No. 17, 'No commercial activity between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a C.U.P. also adding planning recommendation No. 21: Any time extension to be No. 106 considered by the City Council. ' "The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following ro' call vote: "AYES : Commissioners Butler, Prendergast and Chairman Hales NOES : Commissioners Rabe and Heim ABSENT: Commissioners Runkel and Emerich" A statement of Mr. Max Kreston, chairman of the Southeast Redlands Communit). Association was read at this time as follows: "October 19, 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 change 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 CUP 106 constitutes a major 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 major revision is defined in the City ordinances governing condition use permits as one which violates the intent or any of the standards ox conditions in the original permit. "It would seem that the City of Redlands through its departments shoulc list all of the standards and conditions in the original permit includi applicable council and planning commission actions. Then the departmer should list the effects of the new plan submitted with the request for extension of CUP 106 on each and every standard and condition. This should be a written report documented to show all applicable informatic 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 orginal permit was th4 Ford Road should be 88 feet wide and the new plan shows that the road i 64 feet wide. 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 13, 1966: "All of the departmental recommendatior have been re-written to apply to the new site plan. ' How can the govex bodies of the city of Redlands decide if standards or conditions of the original CUP were violated unless in the re-writing of the departmental recommendations information is provided to show how the original standE and conditions are effected. "We suggesttha:t- the departments of the City of Redlands are responsibl to the governing body, the City Council, who are in turn responsible tc 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 recommenc sufficient information must also be supplied to the Council for sound decision making by them on the question: Does the new plan incorporate changes which violate the original standards and conditions, "We feel that there are major changes and the applicants for the CUP sl reapply; we feel, however, that --- just as the departments have fulfil chard P. Cheer. statement of the Buin Corporation submitted by Attorney Cranmer, representative the applicants for C.U.P. 106, was read as follows: "September 27, 1966 "Honorable City Council City Hall Redlands, California "Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on 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 the procedure 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 elimate 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. 1294 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. The issue to be determined by the Council, therefore, is an interpretation of the language of Ordinance No. 1294 defining minor revisions as follows: 't 'Minor revisions are hereby defined as revisions which in no way violate 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 Ford Street to place it on Buin property rather than across the Buster property as originally approved. The realignment of Ford 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 shoppig center devtLoped 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 genter kermit Granted Plans Approved Sages April 17, 1956 lst: January 1958 2nd: April 1959 3rd: September 1961 4th: June 1964 5th: April 1965 Market Basket April 1956 lst: September 1956 2nd: October 1958 University May 1963 lst: March 1964 Plaza 2nd: April 1964 "If consideration of the appeal is limited to the standards set forth in ordinance No. 1319, i. e. , ' review the decision of the Commission, hear new evidence and testimony, ifoffered' and confined to the appealable 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 present their respective views . In view of the long delay which has already occurred, the applicant respectfully suggests that the bearing 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 September 13, 1966, are included as part of the record on appeal to the City Council. Mr. Cantillon then presented the position of the Southeast Redlands Communi, Association; he discussed the City ordinances related to zoning under which C.U.P. 106 was originally granted, and said that it was the opinion of the Southeast Redlands Community Association that the site plan revision under consideration constitutes a major revision, and thus required resubmission by the applicant. Attorney Rex W. Cranmer, representing the Buin Corporation, briefly reviewer the history of the application for Conditional Use Permit No. 106 by the Buin Corporation and outlined the developmental steps of this shopping cento 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 Septembi 1966. Referring to the ordinance under which the CUP was approved, Ordinan( No. 1194, and to the Buin Corporation' s letter, he maintained that to add a service station to the shopping center site is a minor revision, and that t) Planning Commission was correct in approving the Commission Review and Appr( of the amended site plan under C.U.P. 106. Also addressing Council with questions and comments were: Mrs. Walter E. Bal gartner, 302 E. Sunset Drive; Mrs. V. D. Atkinson, 314 Sunset Drive North, i Mr. Paul Fojtik, 151 Hilton Avenue. After the close of the public hearing, Deputy City Attorney Carl Davis expli to the Council that its responsibility was to review whether the Planning Commission' s approval of the revised site plan is reasonable and supported I 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 September 23, 1966, within the 10--day time period in accordance with the ap] procedure recently adopted in Ordinance No. 1319. He further stated that t] issue to be considered was whether the revision of the site plan was major minor in view of the evidence received by the Planning Commission and City Minor revisions to a site plan previously approved as part of a C.V.P. may 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 reviewed 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 streets 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. 1313, 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 plz constituted 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: AYES : Councilmen Martinez, Hartzell, Cummings, Mayor Burroughs NOES : Councilman DeMirjyn ABSENT: None Council was recessed for five minutes. The request of the Buin Corporation for a one-year time extension for Conditi Use Permit No, 106 tabled at the meeting of September 20, 1966, for further consideration following the appeal of Planning Commission Review and Approval of CO-nditionalUse Permit No. 106, was presented once again at this time. or motion of Councilman Hartzell, seconded by Councilman Martinez, - a one-year tj extension from September 28, 1966, to September 28, 1967, was granted for Conditional Use Permit No. 106, with the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Martinez, Hartzell, Cummings, Mayor Burroughs NOES: Councilman DeMirjyn ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS As considered by the City Council at a regular meeting thereof 'he] October 20, 1966, at 3:00 P.M. Present: Councilmen Martenez, Hartzell, Cummings, DeMirjyn, Mayoi Burroughsi Attorney Davis Absent: None 1. R.P.C. No. 264 - Amendment No. 72 to Zoning Ordinance No. 1000 That R.P.C. No. 264, amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1000, a complet revision of Section 19.00, R-2 Multiple Family Residential Distric fwoCC1iission xeview ta rova-L yo. zguic A vu ir vi oE2Dratipn 22, 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 will be held at 3:00 P.M. , on November 1, 1966. Councilman Hartzell referred to a letter from the Council on Community Services, inviting the City Council's participation in the activities of that board. City Manager Kerritt replied that a letter had been directed to Reverend 1-1. Mike Finko requesting that a meeting be arranged between members of that board and the City Council. Councilman Hartzell now referred to the letter Councilman DeKirjyn brought to Council attention during the Buin appeal, which letter retarredto a bakery truck entering Sage' s parking lot during the early morning hours . Councilman Hartzell staed that every effort is being made to conform to the ordinance in the prevention of noise )bbetween' 10:00 , P.M. 'and''6:00 A.M. , and stat'e' d that there had been' no further complaints. Council- discussed the possiblility of the formation of a recreation district, to be c6ntigvous with thl�Redlands School District and decided that study should begin prc(ptly on this project. on motion of Councilman Hartzell, seconded by Councilman Demirjyn, a recommendation from the Council will be (presented. to the Joint "'Recreation Commission. on motion of Councilman Martinez, seconded by Councilman Cummings, All the City Clerk was authorized to call for bids on the installation cler of an automatic sprinkler system for the northwest corner of Section C of Sylvan Park - a budgeted item in the amount of $8,750. A Grant Deed from Edward,. M. and Marry Cpppbell and R. E. and Barbara A. Deed all Morse for street right-of-way purposes in connection with University Street improvements was accepted on motion of Councilman Demirjyn, sec- onded by Councilman Martinez, with the City Manager authorized to execute a certificate of acceptance. A request by the J. A. Slash Amosements to operate a carnival in the Val University Plaza Shopping Center on November 3 through November 6, 1966, was approved, subject to the requirements of all City departments..- on motion of Councilman Hartzell, seconded by Councilman Cummings. Dues for membership in the Feather River Project Association for the year 1966 in the amount of $200.00 were ordered paid, on motion of Councilman Hartzell, jeconded.,,by Councilman Cummings. City Manager Merritt brought to Council notification by the State Dep I artment of Public health redeclaring the County of San Bernardino