Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, June 28, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner ABSENT: Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Dan Mc Hugh, City Attorney Asher Hartel, Senior Planner Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant Planner David Jump, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Webber opened the public hearing at 2:00 p.m. All Commissioners were present except Commissioners Laymon, Osborne and Thompson. II. SPECIAL PRESENTATION C. DEVERS PALO VERDE PROJECT#2 UPDATE- FRED SALZMAN, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON Ms. Beverly Powell, Southern California Edison (SCE), 287 Tennessee Street, stated that they have kept the city apprized of the Devers Palo Verde Project, which is a project to upgrade the transmission towers. Ms. Powell stated that Mr.Alez Mateuchev would give a PowerPoint presentation for Mr. Salzman who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Mateuchev gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Mateuchev stated that SCE is proposing to construct a new 230-mile long high voltage transmission line between California and Arizona. Mr. Mateuchev stated the project will bring an additional 1,200 megawatts of transfer capability. Mr. Mateuchev reviewed the purpose/need for the new transmission lines, the project time line, and the regulatory approval process. Ms. Powell stated a copy of the application that was filed with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is available at the Redlands Service Center for review and a copy of Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Pagel the application was given to the City on disk. III. CONSENT ITEM(S) A. Review of Application for a Fiduciary Transfer of an On-Sale General Alcoholic Beverage License for Khashayar Shahbabaie to KS Entertainment, LLC for property located at 345 Fifth Street, Redlands, CA. (Project Planner: John Jaquess) B. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 284 - A request for Planning Commission consideration of a Commission Sign Review for two building mounted signs for Sylvan Learning Center located at 413 E. Palm Avenue, in Specific Plan No. 41 (Citrus Village). Request submitted by TIM HEEMSTRA. (Project Planner: Joshua Altopp) C. REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13986. -A request for the Planning Commission to consider a revision to the approved final landscaping plan for a previously approved residential condominium project for Tentative Tract Map No. 13986 and Conditional Use Permit No. 503 in Specific Plan No.39(Orange Avenue Condominium)District located on the south side of Orange Avenue,200 feet east of Alabama Street. Request submitted by JERRY ZIGROSSI.(Project Planner: Asher Hartel) D. ZONE CHANGE NO.412- Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Zone Change from R-S, Suburban Residential District to a proposed zoning of R-2, Multiple Family Residential District for property with an area of 2.6 acres located on the south side of Highland Avenue, west side of Ford Street, and immediately east of the 1-10 Freeway. Request submitted by BUCKEYES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza)WITHDRAWN E. VARIANCE NO. 694- Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Variance from Section 18.168.220 of the Municipal Code to allow a five (5) foot setback in lieu of the required twenty-five(25)foot freeway setback for parking structures for a proposed apartment complex to be located on the south side of Highland Avenue,west side of Ford Street, and immediately east of the 1-10 Freeway in the R-S, Suburban Residential District (Proposed R-2, Multiple Family Residential District). Request submitted by BUCKEYES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza)WITHDRAWN Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 2 F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 841 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Conditional Use Permit for the development of a thirty-seven (37) unit apartment complex on a 2.6 acre property located on the south side of Highland Avenue,west side of Ford Street, and immediately east of the 1-10 Freeway in the R-S, Suburban Residential District (Proposed R-2, Multiple Family Residential District). Request submitted by BUCKEYES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza)WITHDRAWN MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Consent Calendar items. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 106 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING on a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Agricultural to Light Industrial District on approximately 15.63 acres located on the north east corner of Wabash Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue, Request submitted by LARRY JACINTO. (Project Planner: Joshua Altopp) B. ZONE CHANGE NO. 414 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Zone Change from unincorporated San Bernardino County IC (Community Industrial) to the City of Redlands M-1 (Light Industrial District) on approximately 6.73 acres APN: 0297-121-07-0000 and a Zone Change from unincorporated San Bernardino County AG-AP(Agricultural,Agricultural Preserve)to the City of Redlands M-1 (Light Industrial District)on the remaining 8.90 acres APN: 0297-121-10 and 11 located on the northeast corner of Wabash Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue, Request submitted by LARRY JACINTO. (Project Planner: Joshua Altopp) Commissioner Miller recused himself due to a conflict of interest at 2:19 p.m. The proposed project was tabled due to a lack of a quorum. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 2:20 p.m. D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 33 (AMENDMENT NO. 1)- PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 3 Council for an amendment to the sign criteria for Specific Plan No. 33 Section C. 7.b.4 to allow pedestal signs to identify up to three (3) tenants in a commercial center. Request Submitted by SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES.(Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) E. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 281 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Commission Sign Review for four (4) freestanding signs for a six building commercial center located on the west side of Alabama Street, the south side of Lugonia Avenue, and north side of Orange Tree Lane in the Commercial District of Specific Plan No. 33. Request submitted by SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) F. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO.289-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Commission Sign Review for four (4) freestanding signs for a six building commercial center located on the west side of Alabama Street, the south side of Lugonia Avenue, and north side of Orange Tree Lane in the Commercial District of Specific Plan No. 33. Request submitted by SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the proposed project was continued from the previous Planning Commission meeting to allow staff an opportunity to discuss the recommended changes with the applicant. Mr. Baeza gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project and reviewed the text of the three (3) proposed changes to the Specific Plan: A. Ground signs shall be permitted for the identification of a single complex containing multiple tenants, for up to three tenants in a multiple tenant complex and for a combination of up to three (3) tenants with the identification of the complex. B. Tenants' allowable signage shall be determined by store frontage at a ratio of one (1) square foot of sign area for every one (1) foot of building frontage. Only the single longest frontage of a building may be used to calculate allowable sign area except for multi-tenant buildings of less than 10,000 square feet adjacent to arterial streets where both building frontage adjacent to the street and frontage facing the parking area may be counted. C. Grounds signs shall not have a sign area that exceeds sixty-five (65) square feet in area nor fourteen (14) feet above ground in height. Grounds signs shall not extend over public property and ground signs in a corner cutoff area shall not exceed three (3) feet above the adjacent curb top. Mr. Baeza reviewed the proposed center identification sign and the multiple tenant pedestal signs that were submitted for processing. Commissioner Miller noted six(6)sign locations identified for pad D. Mr. Baeza stated they are possible locations. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Baeza if there is anything in the Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 4 ordinance that would preclude someone from installing six(6) signs. Mr. Baeza stated up to six (6) signs with a maximum area of twenty (20 ) square feet would be allowed on pad D. Commissioner Miller stated he felt there is the potential for a lot of signage on a relatively small building. Mr. Shaw stated the applicant indicated they anticipate two (2)tenants for the building. Mr. Jaquess stated he believes they are two (2) separate applicants. Mr. Baeza stated there is a limitation that you cannot exceed 75% of the building frontage. Mr. Shaw cited the Walmart Shopping Center as an example;some of the applicants have installed very small signs on the rear of the buildings because they are visible from the street. Commissioner Miller clarified if the applicants on pad D went with the six (6) signs, each tenant could have three (3) signs no larger than twenty(20) square feet each. This was confirmed. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Del Carlo, representing the applicant, stated he appreciated working with Mr. Shaw, Mr. Jaquess and Mr. Baeza. Mr. Del Carlo stated their intent is to provide signage that will be visible from the arterial street. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt R.P.C. No. 1064 and recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 1 to Specific Plan No. 33. Commissioner Miller noted that the project will have less signage than what would be allowed under the Specific Plan as it is currently written. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Commission Sign Review No. 281 and Commission Sign Review No. 289 subject to the Conditions of Approval as contained in the staff report. V. NEW BUSINESS C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17253 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Tentative Tract Map for a thirty- Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 5 seven (37) unit condominium development on 2.56 acres located on the southwest corner of Lugonia Avenue and Church Street in the R-2, Multiple Family Residential District. Request submitted byABCO REALTYAND INVESTMENTS, INC.(Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 845 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for a conditional use permit for the development of a thirty-seven (37)unit condominium development on a 2.56 acre property located on the southwest corner of Lugonia Avenue and Church Street in the R-2, Multiple Family Residential District. Request submitted by ABCO REALTY AND INVESTMENTS, INC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Baeza stated the project includes 37 condominiums in four buildings, a clubhouse,and a swimming pool in the open space area. Commissioner Miller questioned the number of covered parking spaces provided by the project stating he counted 48 garage stalls, not 62 as noted in the staff report. Mr. Baeza stated there are fourteen (14) additional parking stalls located underneath the townhouses. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. David Musser, architect, stated they have worked extensivelywith staff to ensure thatthe project meets the requirements of the building code. Mr. Musser was unable to start the presentation due to difficulty with the laptop equipment. Chairman Webber recessed the meeting at 2:44 p.m. to allow Mr. Musser to work on the laptop equipment. Chairman Webber reconvened the meeting at 2:50 p.m. Mr. Musser presented a computer model of the site. Mr. Musser stated there are sound attenuation issues to be worked out on Lugonia Avenue. Mr. Musser stated the project is legally one building that is connected with small portals,which allows the applicant to address zoning and building code issues. Commissioner Macdonald asked Mr. Musser to clarify his statement relative to the one building with open areas. Mr. Musser stated the building is a horseshoe shape,from a building code standpoint, however it appears to have separated elements. Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 6 Chairman Webber asked why most of the trees interior to the project are small stature trees. Mr. Musser stated the reason for the ornamental trees is not to have them grow up and overwhelm the foundation of the buildings, which could cause maintenance problems. Chairman Webber stated one of the species proposed for the parking lot is not suitable and will have to be changed. Assistant Director John Jaquess noted that the landscape plan will come back to the Planning Commission for final approval. Mr. Ali Mozayeni, applicant, stated Chairman Webber made landscape recommendation for his previous project and he would be happy to meet to discuss recommendations relative to the landscaping for this project. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Macdonald noted that he could not recall the last time a project was approved with asphalt roofing. Commissioner Cook concurred. Mr. Baeza stated that staff recommended the architecture return to the Planning Commission for final approval. Staff had concerns with building materials, such as the lack of siding, stone, brick or roofing materials. Chairman Webber stated there is a consensus from the Commission that the roofing tile should be changed. Commissioner Macdonald stated the building does not look right and it looks cheap. Commissioner Cook concurred stating it needs to look dressier. Chairman Webber asked if something could be done to the facade to help the appearance. Commissioner Miller stated there is opportunity to add detail and variety of materials in a more creative way;the project looks bland. Commissioner Miller stated there is an opportunity for additional landscaping along the south side of the property. Commissioner Miller stated some of the windows are randomly placed,and he concurred with staff's suggestions. Commissioner Miller stated the project has a sense of being "really jammed in." Commissioner Miller stated that using an "attached situation" to get around the setback requirements enables the applicant to get density needed, but it gives it a crowded feel. Commissioner Miller stated it may be difficult for the project to get the required points when going through the Residential Development Allocation (RDA) process. Commissioner Miller stated the open space through the middle of the project is nice. Commissioner Miller stated he generally supports the project but there are some refinements in the architecture and landscaping needed. Commissioner Miller noted that the base for the decks lacks detail. Chairman Webber noted the project will return to the Commission for architectural and landscaping approval. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 845 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17253, and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 7 individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Conditional Use Permit No. 845 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17253. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or over burden public services in the community,and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.845,subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; A. The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City. The project is a multiple family development in an area designated for medium density residential development; B. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare. The project is designed with adequate street access and will meet all building codes; C. The proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, and applicable zoning district and the City's development standards.The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential and meets development standards of the R-2, Multiple Family Residential District; D. The proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17253 subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential and R-2, Multiple Family Residential District and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; 5. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to accommodate thirty-seven (37) condominiums; Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 8 6. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a thirty-seven (37) unit condominium development. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential and Zoning allow for thirty- seven (37) dwelling units; 7. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resources or within a wildlife corridor; 8. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems, aside from temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in the project's Mitigation Measures. 9. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; 10. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4, of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The property is not in an agricultural preserve. C. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 788 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and Consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to develop two (2) office buildings each with a building area of 4,623 square feet on approximately 0.97 acres located on the north side of Plum Lane immediately east of the northern terminus of Idaho Street and west of Alabama Street in Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan No. 25. Request submitted by PENCE CONSTRUCTION. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Commissioner Miller recused himself at 3:14 p.m. due to a conflict of interest. No action was taken due to a lack of a quorum. Commissioner Miller returned at 3:14 p.m. D. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 748 (REVISION 2) -A request for the Planning Commission to consider revisions to an approved office/industrial development which includes architectural revisions, a decrease in the approved square footage and an increase in parking for buildings one and two of the Redlands Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 9 Business Park located at the southeastern corner of Park Avenue and Alabama Street within the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan in the Industrial/Commercial zoning district. Request submitted by R.P.WAGES. (Project Planner: David Jump) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant,stated they concur with the staff report and Conditions of Approval. Mr. Meyer stated the building as originally proposed was intended to be an industrial building, but there was more interest in commercial use. Mr. Meyer stated the building size was reduced and additional parking was added to give the building a more commercial look. Mr. Meyer stated the applicant agreed to bring the landscape plan back to the Commission for final approval. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller stated there was some concern about the quality of the architecture, however the floor plan and Mr. Jump's explanation of the free standing wall indicates that the building has more relief than the elevation implies. Commissioner Miller stated, generally speaking, the architecture is good. Chairman Webber stated he wants the roof line to be broken up architecturally to make it look less like a warehouse. Commissioner Miller stated the center element could be made higher and larger. Commissioner Miller drew a sketch depicting how the building could have three (3) height elements. Chairman Webber reopened the public hearing. Chairman Webb stated he wants the building facade to return to the Commission for final approval. Mr. Meyer stated the building does not have a flat elevation;the building steps three times for a total of 11-14 feet per step. Commissioner Miller stated he felt it would be slightly better if the center element was raised. Mr. Meyer stated he would look at the center element. Commissioners Miller, Macdonald, and Cook reached a consensus they were comfortable with the project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the architectural revisions,the decrease in the approved square footage,and the increase in parking for Commission Review and Approval 748 do not require further environmental processing, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, based on the following findings: Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 10 A. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; the proposed buildings are for similar types of uses as the previously approved uses and will have a smaller building footprint than the previously approved buildings which were located on the same parcels. B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken; the project will be constructed and operated in the same manner as the previously approved project and, C. There is no new information of substantial importance with respect to this project's environmental consequences that was not known at the time the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted; no new information is available that would have an impact on the proposed project's environmental consequences. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the architectural revisions, the decrease in the approved square footage, and the increase in parking for Commission Review and Approval 748. E. VARIANCE NO. 704 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Section 18.36.100 regarding the side yard setback to reduce the required 10-foot side yard setback to 5 feet along the western property boundary adjacent to an existing alley for property located at 1339 La Loma Drive in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by ELLIE O'BRIEN. (Project Planner: David Jump) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Hickey, representing the applicant, stated he was available to answer questions. Mr. Hickey commented on the excellent staff report and he requested a revision to Condition of Approval 8, which requires the applicant to relocate existing palms to the front of the residence. Mr. Hickey stated that would like other options as to the type of tree to be planted as opposed to relocating the palms. Commissioner Miller stated it is disconcerting to him to grant the variance and have someone profit from the removal and sale of the palms. Mr. Hickey stated the owner would like flexibility in determining what should be planted ; she wants to go with something that is more in character with the architecture of the site. Commissioner Miller stated if the Condition was revised to reflect that the palms be planted elsewhere on the property, it would give the property owner some flexibility. Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 11 Mr. Jump stated a neighbor called and stated she does not like palm trees,therefore she is not opposed to the removal of the palm trees. Mr. Hickey stated there are other neighbors who support the removal of the palm trees. Mr. Bill Cunningham stated he is not a palm enthusiast and if another type of tree that provides cooling and beauty can be planted, he supports it. Chairman Webber concurred with Mr. Cunningham. Commissioner Cook suggested wording that "some trees will be replanted." Commissioner Miller suggest the wording that trees" may be replanted or replaced with another tree." Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 704 subject to the following findings and attached conditions of approval: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions, applicable to the property or the intended use, that do not apply generally to other properties, or uses, in the same vicinity and zone due to the existing lots not conforming with R-E, Residential Estate District standards relating to setbacks and lot size. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to the property in question, such as those identified in the staff report. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity, as no increase in the current side yard setback would occur, and sufficient distance exists to ensure aesthetic and safety issues are minimized. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands, with a revision to Condition of Approval 8 to read: The existing mature palms shall be removed prior to demolition of the carport and Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 12 replanted at an alternate location or replaced with two additional trees of the applicant's choice. F. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 273 - Planning Commission to consider a Commission Sign Review for a 120 square foot freeway oriented pole sign at a height of 90 feet for the Slim Pign's Restaurant located at 1635 Industrial Park Avenue in the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, General Commercial (EV/CG) District. Request submitted by SIGNTECH ELECTRICAL ADVERTISING, INC. (Project Planner: David Jump) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Jump stated the debatable issue for the project is the ultimate height of the freeway sign. Mr. Jump stated if a greater height is needed for visibility from one of the two off-ramp approaches, the Planning Commission may permit a greater height if it is determined that visibility from that direction is needed. Mr. Jump stated that is the reason for the request for a ninety(90)foot tall sign. Commissioner Macdonald stated the flag test indicated the need for an eighty-five(85)foot tall sign for traffic westbound on the freeway. During the course of the flag test, Mr. Jump stated there were a number of obstacles that prevented them from seeing the flag such as mature vegetation. Mr. Jump stated he was not on the freeway at the time of the flag test; per Sign Code directions, he was on the transition road adjacent to the freeway fence. Commissioner Macdonald stated having had a business that is freeway oriented, he knows the value of visibility. Chairman Webber requested input from the applicant's representative. Ms. Diane (no last name given), Signtech Electric, stated the sign is a beautiful sign for Redlands and she distributed a sheet that documents the benefits of signs. Commissioner Cook stated that she did like the sign. Chairman Webber asked for a consensus on the height of the sign. Commissioners Cook and Macdonald expressed support for the eighty-five(85)foot tall sign. Commissioner Miller asked if the sign were to be placed at the southern end of the property, would it make the condition better or worse. Mr. Jump stated the flag test was conducted at the exact location proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Jump why the staff recommendation is for a fifty-five (55)foot tall sign when the applicant proposes a ninety(90)foot tall sign. Mr. Jaquess stated the Code gives the Commission the authority to consider visibility from both directions, although staff's recommendation is limited to the first point at which the flag test is visible from either direction on the freeway at a distance of .3 mile. Commissioner Miller stated he agrees with the value of freeway oriented signage and he would seek a freeway oriented sign if he was Redlands Nissan. Mr. Shaw stated the Nissan dealership is going to replace the current sign with a new sign for Hyundai that falls under the provisions of auto dealerships. Commissioner Miller expressed concern that we are going to have a "forest of eighty-five (85)foot tall signs. Mr. Shaw noted that they are limited to freeway oriented businesses Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 13 within a radius of the freeway off-ramp. Commissioner Macdonald noted they are limited to restaurants, service stations, lodging businesses, and auto dealerships. Commissioner Miller stated he would be more comfortable with the fifty-five(55)foot tall sign, but he would go with the consensus of the Commission. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Sign Review No. 273 subject to the Conditions of Approval with a revision to Condition of Approval 2 to read: The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed ninety (90) feet. VI. ADDENDA A. REPORT BACK ON R. P. WAGES PROJECT Assistant Director Jaquess stated the report on the R. P. Wages project was no longer necessary, as item IV-D (R. P. Wages project) was discussed earlier in the meeting. B. INVITATION TO ATTEND THE JULY 18, 2005 VISIONING COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER, 7:00 P.M. (1 TO 3 MEMBERS) Mr. Shaw introduced Mr. Mario Saucedo and Mr. Joe Gonzalez, of the North Redlands Visioning Committee who were seated in the audience. Mr. Shaw stated the Visioning Committee extended an invitation to their next regularly scheduled meeting to discuss important issues and allow the Commission to see their work in progress. Mr. Shaw stated the Committee would like Commission members to attend although they have to be careful not to have more than three (3) members, which would be a quorum. Mr. Saucedo stated it is the hope of the North Redlands Visioning Committee to give the Commission a flavor of the mandate that has been given to them by the City Council. Mr. Saucedo stated they would like to familiarize the Commission on the type of development they would like to see in north Redlands. Commissioner Cook indicated that she would like to attend. Mr. Jaquess stated the three Commission members who are absent should be advised of the meeting. Mr. Miller indicated he also would like to attend. It was decided that the Planning Commission secretary would coordinate the Commission's attendance at the meeting. VII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 14 B. May 24, 2005 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 24, 2005. C. June 14, 2005 The minutes of June 14, 2005, were tabled due to a lack of quorum. VIII. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL LAND USE ACTIONS OF JUNE 21, 2005 Mr. Shaw stated the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Walton project was certified by the City Council earlier that day. Mr. Shaw stated the Airport Advisory Board indicated that they are opposed to the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald asked what goes forward to the City Council, relative to the Planning Commission's actions. Mr. Shaw stated a Planning Commission action sheet is given to the City Council. Mr. Shaw stated when a recommendation goes forward to the City Council the main issues are identified in the staff report. Mr. Jaquess stated the Department prepares a bi-weekly report which summarizes issues that have happened within the Department, discussion of items that have come before environmental review, and a background on what is going on in the department. IX. ADJOURN MEETING TO JULY 12TH Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to July 12th at 4:25 p.m. Patti Ortiz Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of June 28, 2005 Page 15