Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-04_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, August 24, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Gary Miller, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: Ruth Cook, Commissioner Caroline Laymon, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Leslie E. Murad II, Assistant City Attorney I. CALL SPECIAL MEETING TO ORDER Chairman Webber called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. All commissioners were present except Commissioners Cook and Laymon. II. Commission Review and Approval No. 748 (Revision 1)-A request by the applicant for revision of Conditions of Approval regarding the timing of the installation of a traffic signal associated with the development of an industrial park consisting of twenty-eight (28) concrete tilt-up buildings totaling 257,201 square feet located on the southwest corner of Alabama Street and Park Avenue in the Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by R. P. Wages. Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the project, a twenty-eight(28) lot subdivision with twenty- eight (28) concrete tilt-up industrial buildings, was originally approved in April 2003. Mr. Jaquess stated the parcel map has been recorded and building permits have been issued for twenty-six(26) of the buildings. Mr. Jaquess stated all of the Conditions of Approval have been met or are in the process of being met, with the exception of Planning Division Condition of Approval No. 2 1 (which requires that the applicant be responsible for the installation of a fully functional traffic signal at the intersection of Alabama Street and Citrus Avenue prior to occupancy)and Public Works Department Condition of Approval No. B.14 (which requires that the applicant install a traffic signal at the intersection of Alabama Street and Citrus Avenue that will interconnect with the signals at Park Avenue and Redlands Boulevard). Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant is requesting that the Conditions of Approval be modified to allow final occupancy of the buildings prior to the installation of the traffic signal at Alabama Street and Citrus Avenue. Mr. Jaquess stated the requirement for the two Conditions of Approval was a result of General Plan policies that require Level of Service (LOS)C be maintained at all intersections,or if the LOS is already below LOS C, it may not be reduced below that level. Mr. Jaquess stated that R. P.Wages is the project that triggered the implementation of the 4/5 vote by the City Council for the intersection of Alabama Avenue and Redlands Boulevard. Mr. Jaquess stated it was determined that the LOS for the intersection at Park Avenue/Citrus Avenue would be reduced below LOS C unless traffic signals were installed therefore a Condition of Approval was Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2004 Pagel added to address this issue. Mr. Jaquess stated the traffic signal equipment for Citrus Avenue has been purchased but not installed. Mr. Jaquess stated there is a bond on file with the Public Works Department to cover the cost of the installation at Citrus Avenue and Alabama. Mr. Jaquess presented a number of factors for the Commission's consideration.: A. The traffic signal at Park Avenue has been installed and is operational. The equipment and traffic signal poles and lights have been ordered for the intersection of Citrus Avenue and Alabama Street. B. It is projected that the traffic signal at Citrus Avenue and Alabama Street will be installed and operational in no more than 90 days. C. The installation of the signal at Citrus Avenue and Alabama Street is fully bonded in the Public Works Department. D. In addition to the bond, there are two (2) buildings within the project for which building permits have not been issued. The project could be conditioned to be held up until the traffic signal is installed. E. The occupancy of the twenty-six(26)buildings for which permits have been issued, will occur incrementally over a period of time. The entire project will most likely not be fully operational until after the date that the required signal has been installed. Mr. Jaquess stated that staff also evaluated the request from an environmental review standpoint. Mr. Jaquess stated there were no mitigation measures dealing specifically with the issue of traffic signalization or Level of Service issues. Mr. Jaquess stated staff is recommending approval of revisions to Planning Division Condition of Approval No. 21 and Public Works Department Condition of Approval No. 14.B. Mr.Jaquess stated staff is recommending revision to the wording of the two (2) Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Macdonald asked why the urgency of a special meeting for the project, rather than placing it on a regular meeting agenda. Director Jeff Shaw stated he would allow the applicant to answer the question.Mr. Shaw stated the buildings are ready for occupancy and the applicant is in a bind relative to financing issues. Commissioner Macdonald stated if the traffic signal at Citrus Avenue/Alabama Street is tied to the Park Avenue/Alabama Street signal, how can less than 6/7 of the Planning Commission vote to approve a revision to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Jaquess stated the signalization at Citrus Avenue/Park Avenue was not tied directly to the finding for adequacy at Redlands Boulevard/Alabama Street. Mr. Jaquess stated there is a recommendation from the Public Works Department that the signal lights be interconnected from a traffic flow standpoint but it is not linked directly to the finding for adequacy. Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Osborne asked the applicant if there is a time limit on completing the development of the remaining two (2) lots. Mr. Jaquess stated the site has been graded and the parking is being installed at this time. Mr. Jaquess stated there will have to be some type of soil stabilization if construction has not commenced shortly after the installation of the traffic signal. Commissioner Osborne noted that the two(2)buildings are architecturally significant buildings and if they are absent for a period of time, the project will be missing some of the elements that the Commission hoped to have in that area. Mr. Randy Wages, applicant, stated that within the last 48 hours he had reached an agreement with buyers for the two (2) buildings. Mr. Wages stated once the agreement has been signed, he will commence with obtaining permits and beginning construction. Commissioner Macdonald stated he did not understand the cost involved in the installation of a traffic signal relative to the cost for the entire project. Mr.Wages responded by stating this situation was the result of a misunderstanding and miscommunication with the City regarding the second traffic signal and he is making every effort to have the second traffic signal installed. Mr. Wages stated the cost of the infrastructure for the project has been in the range of$2.5 million. Mr. Ron Mutter,Director,Public Works Department, stated the issue is regarding the timing of the signal. Mr. Mutter stated the traffic signals are manufactured as orders are placed, and there can be delays of up to six (6) months for delivery of the signal due to the overwhelming development occurring in Southern California. Mr. Mutter stated they are making every effort to allow the conduits and foundations to be placed so that the traffic signals can be installed immediately upon delivery of the poles and controller. Commissioner Macdonald asked if miscommunication was the reason that the equipment for the second traffic signal was not ordered in a timely manner. Mr. Wages stated that was correct. Mr. Wages stated he has tenants who have been ready to move into the buildings for the past 30 days and the City has been diligently working with him to accomplish this goal. Commissioner Thompson stated he has never before seen a project where the cost of a traffic signal is borne by one developer without some type of reimbursement from the traffic mitigation fund. Commissioner Thompson asked if there was a traffic mitigation fund in place,and if there isn't,why not? Mr. Mutter stated our existing Municipal Code does not provide for reimbursement of traffic signals, streets,or storm drain improvements,although there is a fee credit that is allowed. In the case of the R. P. Wages project, two signals were installed at a cost that was considerably more than the credit for traffic signals. Also, the applicant received credit for street improvements made to Alabama Street. Mr. Mutter stated the City Council allocated funds to look at updating development impact fees, with a reimbursement program being one of the key issues. Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. Mutter if he anticipates that the allowed speed limit on Alabama Street will be reduced.Mr.Mutter stated that traffic would have to be evaluated via a radar count to determine the correct speed for that area. Commissioner Osborne stated he hoped there would be some synchronization of the traffic signals. Mr. Mutter stated traffic signals and four way stops are not cure-alls for traffic, although they are great intersection controls. Mr. Mutter stated that they are proceeding with Requests for Proposals (RFPs)for the Redlands Boulevard/Alabama Street project. Mr.Mutter stated we may begin to see changes in the traffic flows in that area,however they are looking at addressing the Alabama corridor traffic flow. Commissioner Miller stated,as he understands it,the only impact of the revisions to the Conditions of Approval is a six-month delay of an operational traffic signal. Mr.Mutter stated the delay would be approximately 90 days because the equipment has been ordered. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 5-0 vote that no further environmental review is required for the amendment of these conditions in accordance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is not being changed, the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken have not changed,and there is no new information of substantial importance affecting the project since the Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on April 15, 2003. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision 1 to Commission Review and Approval No. 748 subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all the required yard setbacks and walls or fences, landscaping and other features to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the area. 2. That the site properly relates to streets and highways which are properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community,is consistent with the policies,programs and objectives of the Redlands General Plan. 4. That the conditions set forth in the approval and those shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 5. That Commission Review and Approval 748(Revision No. 1)therefore be approved Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2004 Page 4 subject to all departmental conditions including the revisions to Planning Division Condition of Approval No.21 and Public Works Condition of Approval No.B.14 as recommended in the staff report. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS -None IV. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to September 14, 2004 at 2:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patti Ortiz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of August 24, 2004 Page 5