Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout34- Planning (2) CITY OF SAN BERIrARDINO MEMORANDUM► R. Ann Siracusa To Mayor and Common Council From Director of Planning Subject Status Report - CUP 86-44 Date November 5 , 1987 Appeal of Conditions ?HO—— Approved Date 9 PURPOSE This status report has been prepared pursuant to direction to staff given by the City Council on May 18 , 1987 , to monitor the implementation of the conditions imposed on Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 and to report back to the Council in six months . BACKGROUND Request Conditional Use Permit 86-44 was a request by Robert L. Fisher , Sr . to establish an indoor shooting gallery retail store and training facility at 766 South Lugo in the C-M, Commercial Manufacturing Zone . The proposal was to convert an existing warehouse-type structure into an indoor shooting range. Location The subject site is located on the west side of Lugo Street , north of Central Street at 766 S. Lugo. The site is not within any Redevelopment Project Area. It is located within Airport District V. History The application for CUP 86-44 was received by the Planning Department on September 16, 1986 . On October 2, 1986 , the Environmental Review Committee recommended a Negative Declaration be issued for the Conditional Use Permit . November 5, 1987 , the item appeared on the Planning Commis- sion Agenda . With agreement from the applicant , CUP 86-44 was approved on the consent agenda, subject to Conditions and Standard Requirements contained in the staff report . Includ- ed in the approval letter is a standard statement, "The decision of the Commission shall be final unless appealed in writing to the Mayor and Common Council . The written appeal shall be submitted to the office of the City Clerk within 10 days from the date of the Commission' s decision . " Mr . Fisher proceeded with interior alterations and modifi- Mp4�,ions . Memorandum to Mayor and Common Council Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 Appeal of Conditions Meeting of November 16, 1987 January 26 , 1987 , Mr . Fisher requested by letter amendments to the following Conditions: 1. To relocate the site of the handicap_parkig space. The applicant requests to relocate the stall to the north property line . This would require maneuvering across the drive aisle by a handicapped individual . 2 . Delete the plant_er_on the north_ side_of- the_Parcel . San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19 .56 .120 .A.5 requires landscaping in open parking lots be a minimum of 5% of the paved area. The landscaping shall include one tree for every ten spaces or fraction thereof . Landscaping shall be approved through submission of landscape plans to the Planning Department for approval . Staff required landscaping of the north and south prop-erty lines in an attempt to meet this standard requirement . After reevaluation, staff proposes landscaping be relocated from the south property line to the north building elevation. 3 . Trash enclosure relocation. The applicant requests approval to relocate the refuse enclosure 10 feet to the east of the previously approved site. The requested location will not interfere with circulation nor parking . 4 . Southerly--driveway- closure. As required by the Engineering Department , the southerly driveway was to be removed and replaced with standard curb and gutter . The applicant requests this standard requirement be deleted due to an attempt to secure reciprocal access agreements with the property owner to the south. This agreement has not been produced . Retaining the driveway would serve no purpose . A field inspection reveals a red curb constructed on the property line with the driveway apron remaining. This creates a hazardous and liable situation for the City, and a very unsightly condition. 5 . Parking lot striping . Staff required restriping in the rear of the building to allow circulation, primarily for refuse trucks which will be required to drive the full length of the property to reach the refuse enclosure. To enable the large trucks to continue in forward motion and eliminate backing, deletion of six parking spaces is necessary. 6. Landscaping-in-the-front-setback area. In an attempt to improve the elevation of the existing structure, staff 2 Memorandum to Mayor and Common Council Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 Appeal of Conditions Meeting of November 16, 1987 required landscaping adjacent to the building on the east elevation . This was to extend to the width of the porch plus the width of a four foot sidewalk , or nine feet . The existing asphalt abuts the base of the building creating a stark appearance. Once the elevation is improved with the required planter area, and once the required ten foot setback from the east property line area is landscaped, a 10 foot strip of asphalt would bisect the two areas . Staff included the 10 foot strip of asphalt to be removed and replaced in landscaping to create a cohesive landscape area and an attractive street elevation. January 27 , 1987 , a cash deposit was received by the City to guarantee installment of the refuse enclosure, and the required front setback and parking lot landscaping . Mr . Fisher was given 90 days to complete the required work with the understanding the City would use the funds to complete the work if it was not done within the 90 days . No deposit was received for the removal of the driveway and installment of the curb as required by the Engineering Department . February 24 , 1987 , Mr . Fisher paid the fee required for an amendment to Conditions and the request began processing through appropriate channels . It was subsequently placed on the Planning Commission agenda for April 21 , 1987 . April 17 , 1987 , a memo was received from the Engineering Department, signed by Steve Enna, Construction Engineer which stated: "766 S . Lugo Street was inspected on Friday, April 17 , 1987 . The existing driveway approach needs to be removed. Curbing has been poured on a City Right-of-Way without inspection, permits or prior approval by the Engineering Department . The trash enclosure does not comply with City Standard #508 and was not inspected. " April 20 , 1987 , a letter was hand-delivered by the applicant requesting a continuance of the item from the meeting of April 21 , 1987 based on reasons of health. By the time the letter was delivered, staffs report and recommendation had been prepared, printed, and delivered to the Commissioners . April 21, 1987 , the amendment to condition request appeared on the Planning Commission agenda. The action of the Commission was as follows, taken from the minutes of the meeting: 3 Memorandum to Mayor and Common Council Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 Appeal of Conditions Meeting of November 16, 1987 "Edward Gundy presented comments , noting the request for the applicant and location of the site. Mr . Gundy stated that the cost of improvements should not be considered a reason for waiver of conditions . He noted that the applicant has posted a cash deposit in lieu of completion of improve ments . He also noted that the applicant has installed signage on the east and west elevations without proper permits or approval . Mr . Gundy noted staff ' s recommendation for modification to conditions regarding the location of a landscaped strip and the location of the refuse enclosure. He stated that staff also recommends that all signage be installed per Code requirements . Mr . Anderson stated that staff had received a request from the applicant for continuance of the item. Mr . Anderson read the applicant ' s submitted letter requesting continuance of the item. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Knowles stated that he recalled that this item was on the Consent Agenda when it was originally approved and the applicant voiced no concerns regarding conditions'. He stated that he concurred with staff ' s report . Commissioner Knowles made a motion to approve the recommendation of staff, as contained in the memorandum to the Planning Commission dated April 21 , 1987 , for modification (as follows) to condi- tions # 5 and # 7, with no further modifications to conditions . "Conditions : 5 . Refu_se_,enclosure tobe_relocated_10 feet to__the- east ,- per_ site_plan_ a mrked A-3 and dated-April_211_1987 . " 7 . "Planter area adjacent_ to__thesouth property_line _shall be relocated to the north_ side of the- - existing_ building, per the _site_plan_marked_A_3_and dated April 211.1987 . " 4 I-Oft Memorandum to Mayor and Common Council Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 Appeal of Conditions Meeting of November 16, 1987 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lightburn and carried unanimously. " April 30 , 1987 , the applicant appealed the Commissioner ' s decision in a letter received by the City Clerk . The letter cited "difficult hardship to health, business , and emotional stress" as the basis of the appeal . May 18, 1987 , the item appeared on the Council agenda . Action at that meeting was as follows, based on the minutes of the meeting: "Mr . Fisher explained that meeting all the condi- tions as imposed by the Planning Department would pose a financial hardship on him, and felt that many of the conditions were not necessary. He referred to the general run-down condition of the general area in which his business is located. Mr . Fisher also explained that the parking require- ment of 32 parking spaces is excessive, as most of his customers are there at night when adjacent businesses are closed . Mr . Fisher explained what he had already accomp- lished with street improvements and landscaping. He had conferred with Mr . Anaya of Parks , Recrea- tion and Community Services regarding the landscap- ing, but did not have a plan prepared . Vince Bautista, Principal Planner, stated that all of the conditions being requested as part of the CUP are standard conditions placed on other similar applications . He stated that the $1,200 bond is in for the landscaping, not for street improvements. Council Member Quiel made a motion, seconded by Council Member Reilly and unanimously carried, that the matter concerning CUP No. 86-44 be continued to November 16, 1987; that the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission remain the same, but that applicant Mr . Fisher be given a year in which to perform and complete those conditions, giving priority first to the handicapped parking and removal of the drive approach in front of the facility and then meeting the other conditions within 12 months from today' s hearing . Within the next six months, staff will inspect the site, with a report back to the Council on November 16, 1987, 5 Memorandum to Mayor and Common Council Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 Appeal of Conditions Meeting of November 16, 1987 as to the conditions and the status of progress in meeting those conditions . " Analysis October 28, 1987 , staff visited the site and made the following observations: 1. The handicap stall has not been relocated . It remains across the drive aisle from the building . It is substandard in size. 2. Neither the planter which was changed from the south property line to the north elevation of the building , nor the planter on the north property line has been installed . 3 . The trash enclosure has not been constructed . An area of weeds and a stack of block are evidenced . 4 . Neither the improvement to the curb nor the drive way apron removal has been done. The space is being used for illegal parking and remains an unsightly and liablous situation . 5 . The parking lot has not been restriped. 6. The front setback area is barren with weeds , dirt mounds , pieces of irrigation pipe and a dead tree in evidence. The illegal parking on the old driveway apron occurs in the front setback . 7 . The oversized and unpermitted signs remain on the roof of the west elevation. Roof signs are expressly prohibited by Code . Penants, banners and a wall sign remain on the east elevation, none of which has a permit . The large bullseye target on the west elevation, which is approximately 225 sq. ft . is leaning against the building unattached and is illegal . MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS It is staff ' s understanding that Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 is in effect with the conditions imposed by the Plan- ning Commission. The applicant has , by Council action, until May, 1988 to implement the conditions of approval . The Mayor and Council could either wait until May, 1988, to determine if the conditions have been met or if immediate action is desired, the Council could place an item on the 6 Memorandum to Mayor and Common Council Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 Appeal of Conditions Meeting of November 16 , 1987 Council agenda to hold a public hearing to review Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44 . CONCLUSION At the time of the staff inspection there had been no attempt on the part of Mr . Fisher to comply with any conditions or standard requirements imposed at the time of approval . The applicant requested these amendments to avoid additional costs . All conditions imposed were in an effort to upgrade the site, and in most instances to meet minimum standards as set forth by code. The cost of improvements should not be a consideration as a tradeoff for the aesthetic value of a development . Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Planner II csj 11/5/87 DOCUMENT:MISCELLANEOUS CUP8644 7