HomeMy WebLinkAbout34- Planning C( Y OF SAN BERNAR[ 40 - REQUE T FOR COUNCIL AC i, -3N
From: R. ANN SIRACUSA Subject: Status Report on Conditional Use
Director of Planning Permit 86-44
Dept: Planning
Mayor and Common Council Meeting
Date: February 10 , 1988 of February 15, 1988 , 2 :00 p.m.
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
On November 5 , 1986 , Conditional Use Permit 86-44 was approved, subject
to conditions by the Planning Commission.
On April 21 , 1987 , the Planning Commission denied a requested amendment
to conditions .
On May 18 , 1987 , the Mayor and Common Council continued the appeal of
that decision to November 17 , 1987 —
On November 17 , 1987 , the Mayor and Common Council continued the appeal
decision to February 15 , 1988 .
Recommended motion:
Modify conditions and continue the appeal hearing to June 6, 1988 .
J Sig ature R. Ann Siracusa
Contact person: R. ANN SIRACUSA Phone: 384-5357
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
0"ITY OF SAN BED AARDINO - MEMORANDUNk
To Mayor and Common Council From R. ANN SIRACUSA
Subject Status Report - Conditional Use Permit Date Director of Planning Februar
No. 86-44 Y 10 , 1988
Appeal of Conditions
Approved Date
PURPOSE
This status report has been prepared pursuant to direction
given to staff by the City Council on November 5, 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 , 1986 , 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
Mr . Fisher proceeded with interior alterations and modifi-
cations.
January 26 , 1987 , Mr . Fisher requested by letter amendments
to the following Conditions :
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 15, 1988
Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44
Appeal of Conditions
Page 2
1 . To relocate_the_site�of the_handicap_parking_s ace. 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 . Deletg_tie_planteron_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 requested
approval to relocate the refuse enclosure 10 feet to the
east of the previously approved site . The requested
location does 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 .
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_ ront_setback area. In an attempt to
improve the elevation of the existing structure, staff
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.
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 15 , 1988
Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44
Appeal of Conditions
Page 3
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 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:
"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 .
0
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 15, 1988
Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44
Appeal of Conditions
Page 4
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. Refuse enclosure to be relocated 10 feet
to be east , per_site_plan marked A-3 and
dated Apri1 ,.21 , 1987 . "
7 . "Planter ar,e,�_ adjacent to the south
property line shall be relocated to the
north side of the existing_building, per
t e site plan marked A-3 and dated April
21,-- 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 .
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 15 , 1988
Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44
Appeal of Conditions
Page 5
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 ,
as to the conditions and status of progress in
meeting those conditions. "
At the Mayor and Common Council meeting of November 16 , 1987 ,
a status report was presented . There had very little progress
at the site and the item was continued three months to
February 15, 1988 .
ANALYSIS
February 8 , 1988, staff visited the site and made the
following observations:
1 . The handicap parking stall has been appropriately
relocated . However , the wheel-stop required by code has
not been installed.
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 . Instead , wheel-stops have been installed .
3 . The refuse enclosure has been constructed . However , in
a memo from Steve Enna, April 17 , 1987 , it was noted to
the Planning Department, "The trash enclosure does not
comply with City Standard #508 and was not inspected . "
4 . The curb and gutter have been installed .
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 15 , 1988
Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44
Appeal of Conditions
Page 6
5 . The portion of the parking lot adjacent to the building
has not restriped and accommodates approximately 12 cars .
The parking area behind the building has not been
striped . A fence and gate has been relocated from the
front of the building . The gate is locked and prevents
access for vehicles or the refuse truck . The areas where
the fence posts were originally located are hazardous .
The posts were cut off. Jagged edges of the posts remain
above ground . The posts were not filled in and there are
two inches diameter holes in the parking lot.
6 . The front setback has been planted in lawn with 4 small
palm trees. There is no documentation that landscape
plans were processed appropriately by the City.
7 . A sign review was performed on November 20 , 1987 for one
(1) sign. However , there are three (3) signs located on
the building , two (2) on the east elevation and one (1)
on the south elevation . The roof sign has been removed ,
but the large bull ' s-eye remains propped against the
building 's west elevation .
MAYOR AND COUNCIL OPTIONS
By previous Council action, the applicant has until May 18,
1988 to implement all Conditions of Approval .
The Mayor and Council can either wait until May 18, 1988 to
see if the conditions are met, or modify the conditions at
this time.
CONCLUSION
At the time of staff inspection, it was noted that consider-
able progress has been made toward meeting the conditions of
approval. However , there is still a considerable amount of
work that remains to be done. That work includes:
1. Install the 3-foot landscaped strip at the north
building elevation and the 6-inch concrete header to
separate the landscaping from the parking area.
Also, locate a wheel-stop in front of the handicap
stall and relocate the wheel-stops installed where
the planter belong in front of the other parking
stalls adjacent to the building .
2 . Install the 3-foot wide landscaped planter and the
6-inch curb to separate the planter from the parking
along the north property line.
or
Mayor and Common Council Meeting of February 15, 1988
Status Report - Conditional Use Permit No. 86-44
Appeal of Conditions
Page 7
3 . Install the refuse enclosure in compliance with City
Standard No. 508 .
4 . Restripe the parking area to the rear of the build-
ing in accordance with the approved plan.
5 . Obtain sign permits for all signs installed on the
building . Remove the large bull ' s-eye that is
propped against the west elevation of the building .
In addition, a condition should be added to address the cut-
off fence posts which create a hazardous situation in the
parking lot.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Mayor and Council modify the
original conditions to include filling the cut-off fence posts
so no holes or jagged edges remain and continue the item to
the meeting of June 6 , 1988 .
Prepared by: Sandra Paulsen, Acting Senior Planner
Attachment A - Photographs
SP: lmc
M&CCAGENDA
CUP8644
02: 10 : 88
CUP8644
s
00
x +-J o
O rn
U) o
o z
• r b b
�+ b
's. •rl C3, ro rn ro
ro v O u
�O O U Y1 -4 u]
Z W ro U
OJ b C T
-d G
to v
ro
m o m w
o �4
ro 4
v a v
v �4 a o
�c o v w
u ul w
r
� N ,
JJ
ro v
b JJ
v
�I W
rl O
Q) O
}4 •14
0o cn
>
u •�
v �z b
0 b 1 rl
ca
• a � a
as �
LW to
w q
O *I
u
ro
b
Q)
•� a
r+ v
•� v
N w G.
4J o
• m �+
o a
Z v
a�
m ro 41
ro U �4
ro o
v v c
E G
ro ro +j
cn ro
ri