The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About37 Development ServicesCITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Subject: An appeal of the Planning From: Michael E. Hays Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99- Dept: Development Services 07, a modification to CUP 97 -17. The site is located at 206 South 031ply "D" Street within the IL, Industrial Light land use district. Date: August 24, 1999 MCC Date: September 7, 1999 Synopsis of Previous Council Action: October 21, 1997: Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -17 approved February 1, 1999: 90 day Extension of Time for CUP 97 -17 approved Recommended Motion: That the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal. Signature Contact person: Margaret Park Phone: '$4-5057 Supporting data attached: Staff Report _ Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Council Notes: Source: (Acct. No.) N/A Finance: Agenda Item No. qhlf� CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99 -07, A MODIFICATION TO CUP 97 -17. Mayor and Common Council meeting of September 7, 1999 OWNER/APPELLANT: Michael and Brenda Allen P.O. Box 5411 San Bernardino, CA 92412 -5411 (909)825 -8545 BACKGROUND: The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99- 07, which was a requested modification to approved CUP 97 -17. This modification to CUP 97- 17 was a request to allow a one -way, 15 foot driveway in place of a two -way, 24 foot driveway for access to Athol Street. The affected property is located at 206 South "D" Street and is within the IL, Industrial Light land use district. The Planning Commission denied this request. The dimensions shown on the appellants' plans were incorrect, making it impossible to construct the required 24' driveway. The Allen's did not discover this error until after the buildings were built and they were constructing the driveway. It is important to note that it is the applicants' responsibility to confirm the boundaries and square footage of the subject property prior to construction. Grounds for Appeal The appellants' grounds for appeal are that John Jensen, a neighbor who testified at the public hearing, swayed the Planning Commission. The appellants state that Mr. Jensen provided incorrect facts regarding the case. Further the appellants' state that the reason for the modification is that a representative of the City gave improper instructions at the time of construction work on the driveway and that the Allen's followed those instructions. Further, the appellant states that the City apparently realized that they were correct and that a City employee was at fault, since the Staff placed CUP 99 -07 before the Planning Commission without requiring that the CUP fee be paid. The Allen's stated that they do not need a 2 -way drive -aisle and a 15' drive -aisle is OK. Staff Response Staff cannot respond to the appellant's perception that Mr. Jensen swayed the Planning Commission's decision on the process. However, it is understood that the purpose of the conditional use permit process is to allow public input and discussion of these types of projects and that the Commission listens to all testimony presented to them prior to making a decision. CUP 99 -07 Appeal MCC Meeting: 9/7/99 Page 2 of 2 Because of ongoing concerns of neighbors regarding the visibility of this impound yard, the Director of Development Services recommended at the Planning Commission hearing that the entire driveway be eliminated and a block wall with curb, gutter and sidewalk be installed. This proposal resolves the problems of both the substandard driveway design and the visibility to the street. Closure of this driveway still leaves two (2) full -size driveways and one (1) substandard driveway for access to the property and will not create access problems. In response to the statement that a City representative gave incorrect instructions, staff confirmed that a Public Works inspector did visit the site to review handicap "path of travel" problems that were created as a result of building construction errors by the Allen's contractor. The inspector discussed the situation with the Allen's contractor, however it was the contractors responsibility to either construct the project per the approved plans or seek approval for revised plans through the proper processes. There were numerous meetings with the Allen's to explain their options, but they did not like staff's suggestions. Because the repeated meetings impacted staff resources, the project was scheduled for review by the Planning Commission in an attempt to resolve the issues. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 (Ayes: Enciso, Garcia, Lockett, Schuiling, Thrasher, & Welch) to deny the request to replace the 2 -way drive -aisle with a one -way drive - aisle. If the appeal is denied, the Allen's have the option of completing the property improvements that were required under CUP 97 -17 or they may apply for a Minor Modification to CUP 97 -17 to delete the easterly driveway and construct a solid block wall between buildings. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The applicant submitted the required Mayor and Common Council appeal fee. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the appeal. Exhibits: 1 - Location Map 2 — Application for Appeal 3 — CUP 99 -07 Staff Report I "JTY OF SAN BERNA, JINO EXHIBIT 1 aENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Adopted 6 -2 -89 )ate Panel No. IJE 3� YARDS AV II " C,ELT� LM �i t >� C E N T R A L CI T Y =u i I ' I si J �• .: , � - I ZL �J L COUNTY' gT GC ENTER CITY K4 G _ , .- . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO EXHIBIT 2 PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 300 North 'D' Street, 3rd Floor, San Bernardino, CA 92418 raj' Phone (9109) 384 -5057 Fax (909) 384 -5080 L- APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR DETERMINATION, DEVELOPMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OR PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION Appellant's Name, Address & Michael and Brenda Allen Phone P. O. Box 5411 San Bernardino, Ca. 92412 -5411 909 - 825 -8545 Contact Person, Address & SAME AS ABOVE Phone Pursuant to Section 19.52. 100 of the Development (Municipal) Code, all appeal must be filed on a City application form within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate fee. Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and time. Date Appeal Filed Receipt No C .A 5— Received by Receipt Amount )1' -Itr- l,' , -,,-�- , -< J � i NOTE: We will be unavailable during the week of July 12, 1999. I I ppeal Application ii Page 2 A The following information must be completed: Specific action being appealed and date of that action Decision of the Planning commission on June 8, 1999 in reference to the application to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Permit. C.U.P. is Number 99 -07 Specific grounds for the appeal Planning Commission was swayed by John Jensen. Mr. Jensen once again provided incorrect facts etc. Action sought Reversal of Denial. Follow the initial recommendation of Staff, that the modification be allowed. Additional information he reason for the modification is that a representative of the City gave improper instructions at time of construction work. We followed instructions. The City apparently realized we were correct and that a City employee was at fault, since the Staff placed the matter before the Planning Commision and we were =ired to pay any fees. Signature of Appellant June 17, 1999 Date EXHIBIT 3 SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION CASE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99 -07 (A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97 -17) AGENDA ITEM: 4 HEARING DATE: JUNE 8, 1999 WARD: 3 APPLICANT /OWNER: Michael & Brenda Allen 206 S. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92401 REQUEST /LOCATION: The applicant requests a modification to CUP 97 -17 to construct a one -way, 15' wide driveway in place of a two -way, 24' driveway for access to Athol Street. The site is located at the southwest corner of Athol Street and "D" Street in the IL, Industrial Light land use district. CONSTRAINTS /OVERLAYS: Subs idence /Liquefaction ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: o Not Applicable ■ Exempt, Section 15301 (e)(2) ❑ No Significant Effects o Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring /Reporting Plan STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Approval • Conditions • Denial • Continuance to: CUP 99 -07 Hearing Date: June 8, 1999 Page 2 of 8 REQUEST AND LOCATION Under the authority of Development Code Section 19.08.020(16), the applicant requests approval of a modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 97 -17 to construct a one -way 15' wide driveway in place of a two -way 24' driveway as originally approved. The reduced width is requested to accommodate the sliding security gate. If a 24' two -way drive aisle were installed, the sliding gate would not clear Building "B ". The site is located at the southwest corner of Athol Street and "D" Street and is generally known as 206 South "D" Street. BACKGROUND /PROJECT STATUS This project was first approved by the Planning Commission on October 21, 1997. A 90 day extension of time was approved by the Planning Commission on November 17, 1999. The original staff report (Attachment C) addressed all the issues raised as part of the original approval process. The driveway modification is the only change requested under this CUP application. The Allen's have completed all the conditions of approval and standard requirements for CUP 97 -17 except for Fire Department requirements and gate screening. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 1. Is the proposed use conditionally permitted within, and would not impair the integrity and character of the subject land use district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of this Development Code? There are 4 driveways proposed for this use. All driveways, with the exception of the eastern- most driveway on Athol Street are wide enough for two -way traffic. The reduction in width of the driveway will allow in- traffic only but the other three driveways also allow full ingress and egress to the property. The driveway will be reduced to the minimum width of 15' as allowed by the Development Code for one -way driveways. The reduction in driveway width creates design issues that will affect the possible future conversion of Storage Building "B" into a structure for lease or use by a different business. Under approval of a future Conditional Use Permit, Building "B" would have to stand on its own merits and be able to meet all Development Code requirements. Based on the approved plan AND the proposed modification, Building "B" does not meet standards for onsite circulation, parking, or fire safety. Staff proposes to modify original Condition of Approval #16 to prohibit the future conversion of Building "B" for use by .a different business. The proposed revised condition is as follows: CUP 99 -07 Hearing Date: June 8, 1999 Page 3 of 8 16. Prior to leasing or use of either- ef bet Phase 1 buildift - Building A for any other business, a revised Conditional Use Permit shall be required to be submitted, reviewed and approved for the installation of any and /or all of the following (including, but not limited to): fencing, wall or barrier dividing; the 3' landscape setbacks around Building A and Buildili.,X B; and trash enclosures that serve these builds ft s Building A." Building B shall not be used for leasing or use by any other business. 2. Is the proposed use consistent with the General Plan? The proposed modification will not allow a use that is inconsistent with the General Plan in that the reduction in the width of the driveway limits access to a one -way direction. 3. Is the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and Section 19.20.030(6) of the Development Code? The use is in compliance with CEQA in that it is an exempt project per Guideline 15332 which says that CEQA does not apply to "in -fill" development that consistent with the General Plan and zoning, is less than 5 acres in size, and substantially surrounded by urban uses. This project meets all of these criteria. 4. Will there be potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and natural resources that could not be property mitigated and monitored? No, as discussed in Finding #3. 5. Are the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use compatible with the existing and future land uses within the general area in which the proposed use is to be located and will not create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations that may be objectionable or detrimental to other permitted uses in the vicinity or adverse to the public interest, health, safe, convenience, or welfare of the City? The availability of three other driveways provide ample access to the site and would not create traffic problems. This is the only aspect of the project that requested to be changed. Based on the approved plan AND the proposed modification, Building "B" does not meet standards for onsite circulation, parking, or fire safety. Original Condition of Approval #16 will be revised to prohibit the future conversion of Building "B°' for use by a different business. This condition will avoid the creation of future parking or circulation impacts onsite and within the surrounding neighborhood. CUP 99 -07 Hearing Date: June 8, 1999 Page 4 of 8 6. Is the subject site physically suitable for the type and density /intensity of use being proposed? The site is physically suitable for an impound vehicle storage yard. The reduction in the driveway width does not limit the accessibility to the site nor does it make it an unsuitable location for the present use as an impound vehicle storage yard. 7. Are there adequate provisions for public access, water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety ? This modification request does not change the infrastructure requirements of this project. All previously approved conditions of approval and standard requirements remain in force and must be completed prior to a final Certificate of Occupancy being issued. RECOMMENDATION The requested modification is consistent with the General Plan and is in conformance with all applicable Development Code Standards. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the request for the driveway modification under Conditional Use Permit 99 -07 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the previously approved Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements. (Attachment "C "). Staff also recommends that the approval be granted for a maximum of 30 days from the date of approval of CUP 99 -07. Respectfully Submitted, MICHAEL E. HAYS Director of Development Services MARGARET PARK, AICP Senior Planner CUP 99 -07 Hearing Date: June 8, 1999 Page 5 of 8 ATTACHMENTS: A. Location Map B. Site Plan C. Conditions of Approval D. Original Conditions of Approval and Standard Requirements (October 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting.) 1 C I LC e i is y It i• I ! SSct �• E •tl .i she � . f= �I .R tl� •Ita 1 � :a � ;. ` }3i _� i••' i iti i � 7A 7 � t °I—u ATTACIBMNT 11B't I • i tai �TTRIPF , �, sit ry o t t l ��j �7•= Ir y �• I � I i � I — - - I CP COWOrCNAL J" OS-"T !� • IJ 7 Li Z • e o ' MIKZ A6L N f= �I CP COWOrCNAL J" OS-"T !� • IJ 7 Li Z • e o ' MIKZ A6L N