Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-06_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, May 23, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: James Macdonald, Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Vice Chairman Eric Shamp, Commissioner ABSENT: Paul Foster, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Daniel Mc Hugh, City Attorney Asher Hartel, Senior Planner Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner David Jump, Associate Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Macdonald called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. All commissioners were present except Commissioners Foster and Osborne. II. CONSENT ITEM(S) A. HEEMSTRA SIGNS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. Planning Commission to consider COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 306 a four(4)foot tall, 20 square foot freestanding monument sign for the Westside Christian Church to be located at the front of the current chapel along the south side of the Olive Street Frontage approximately 200 feet east of the southeast corner of Bellevue Avenue and Olive Street in the R-S, Suburban Residential District. B. PLUM LANE PARTNERS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Parcel Map No. 17010- Request for Final Approval of Parcel Map No. 17010 (Minor Subdivision No. 284), located on the north side of Plum Lane west of Alabama Street and east of Idaho Street in the Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan No. 33. Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Pagel C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Person to Person License Transfer for Super Sushi located at 1502-4 Barton Road. D. Alcoholic Beverage Control Stock Transfer for the Olive Avenue Market located at 530 W. Olive Avenue. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the consent calendar. III. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner Osborne arrived at 2:01 p.m. A. HEEMSTRA SIGNS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL, AICP) 1. Planning Commission to consider Commission Sign Review No. 280, Revision No. 1,for a revision to Uniform Sign Program No. 25 for the Citrus Grove Business Park located at 310-390 Alabama Street in the I-C District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the proposed project was continued from May 9th for a redesign to a monument sign with channel letters on a precast background. Mr. Hartel stated the applicant is proposing a forty-four (44) square foot pedestal sign with a height of eleven (11)feet. Mr. Hartel stated the applicant requested further discussion and clarification and provided photos of similar pedestal signs in the City. Mr. Hartel gave a brief PowerPoint presentation and provided photos of monument signs along the general area of Redlands Boulevard. Mr. Dan Merritt, applicant,stated the proposed sign is nota business sign however, itwill identifythe complex as the Citrus Grove Business Park. Mr. Merritt stated there will be signs on the buildings that will identify the business park tenants. Commissioner Shamp asked Mr. Merritt if he is opposed to having a lower monument sign such as the sign shown at Lugonia Avenue and Research Drive. Mr. Merritt stated he has a similar sign at the Park Avenue Business Center that is not visible because of the shrubs that grow up around it. He stated the site address will be shown on the proposed sign which will be helpful for emergency vehicles and deliveries. Commissioner Osborne stated the Commission felt the proposed sign did not match the character of the building. He asked Mr. Merritt if he considered the Commission's suggestion to use pre-cast concrete as a basic building material. Mr. Merritt stated he believed the sign materials match the building and the stone that is used on the face of the building will be used for the base of the sign. Commissioner Osborne noted there is a lot of plastic on the proposed sign and it would be internally Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 2 illuminated. Commissioner Osborne stated the applicant could have a pedestal sign that looks like a monument sign but is illuminated by exterior lights from the ground. Mr. Merritt stated he wants an 11.5 foot tall sign so that it is visible. Commissioner Cook stated the proposed sign looks like a commercial sign. She stated the character of the sign does not match business park. Mr. Merritt agreed that it looks like a commercial sign and he asked if the Commission would consider a redesigned sign. Commissioner James stated the sign looks like a sign for a retail establishment rather than for a business park. He stated he would be interested in a redesign. Director Jeff Shaw stated due to time constraints,the applicant can withdraw his application and re- file a new application rather than have the sign denied by the Commission. City Attorney Dan McHugh asked if the applicant has used the 90-day extension that is allowed by the Permit Streamlining Act. Chairman Macdonald stated the proposed project can be continued to allow the applicant to redesign the sign. Commissioner Cook questioned the reason for an eleven (11) foot tall sign. Mr. Merritt responded the street trees and shrubs will affect the visibility of the sign. Commissioner Cook suggested a sign with a heavier base. Chairman Macdonald polled the Commission as to preference of a monument sign versus a pedestal sign. Commissioner Shamp stated he prefers a monument sign. He stated the pedestal signs on Redlands Boulevard (provided by the applicant)are in competition with a lot of visual clutter, more signage, and high speed traffic, however that is not the case on Alabama Street which has slower traffic. Commissioner Shamp stated it might be to the applicant's advantage to have a monument sign below the tree canopy where it can be seen. Commissioner Shamp stated there are many ways to provide landscaping around a sign without blocking its visibility. Commissioner Miller asked what is the tallest monument sign height permitted by the Code. Mr. Hartel responded a four (4)foot tall sign. Mr. Merritt stated he would not put up a four (4)foot tall sign. Commissioner Miller concurred with Commissioner James stating he believes Alabama Street is a transitional area, where Redlands Boulevard promotes retail. Commissioner Miller stated he is inclined to go with a monument sign, and he suggested the applicant berm the parkways up to 18 inches and then add the four (4)foot tall sign on top. Commissioner James stated he is in favor of a monument sign for a business park. Commissioner Osborne stated he prefers a monument sign; he suggested the applicant use a solid Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 3 base with the sign placed above. Commissioner Osborne suggested a maximum eight(8)foot tall monument-type sign. He stated the applicant could have a pedestal sign higher than four(4)feet that looks like a monument sign. Commissioner Cook concurred with Commissioner Osborne. Commissioner James concurred with Commissioner's Cook and Osborne. Chairman Macdonald stated he prefers a monument sign. He noted the signs shown in the photos are older signs that might not be approved today based upon the current feeling of the Commission. Commissioner Shamp stated he prefers a traditional monument sign because it would set a precedent for Alabama Street. Commissioners Miller and James concurred with Commissioner Shamp. Chairman Macdonald advised Mr. Merritt that he can request a continuance of the proposed sign to allow for a redesign or ask the Commission to take a vote at this time. Mr. Merritt requested a continuance of the proposed project. Mr. Shaw clarified that the applicant requested a continuance and extension of time for the proposed project. The applicant indicated that he agrees to the extension of time under the Permit Streamlining Act and would have the revised plans back to staff within a week. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Sign Review No. 280, Revision No. 1 to the June 13th Planning Commission meeting. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. YOCUM-BALDWIN DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) 2. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 817 for construction of one (1) building with 29,660 square feet and 3,726 square feet at mezzanine level for twelve(12)manufacturing/warehouse/office units on 2.1 acres, located on the east side of New York Street between Colton Avenue and Brockton Avenue in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. Commissioner Miller recused himself due to a conflict of interest at 2:27 p.m. Project Planner Asher Hartel requested the proposed project be continued to June 13th Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 4 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 5-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused) that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 817 to June 13, 2006. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 2:30 p.m. B. TIM PHELPS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 3. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 5. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No.818 forthe development of two (2) buildings having a cumulative area of 7,440 square feet on a vacant parcel totaling 28,750 square feet located on the south side of Barton Road just to the west of the intersection of Barton Road and Brookside Avenue (APN: 0172-481-02) in the A-P, Administrative Professional District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr.Altopp stated the proposed project has two frontages, one along Brookside Avenue and one on Barton Road. Mr. Altopp stated the applicant is deficient in the amount of trees required by Code,therefore the project has been conditioned to the provide the required number of trees. Mr.Altopp stated staff feels the applicant should have seven (7) tree wells as shown on the site grading plans. Mr.Altopp stated the building represents a Craftsman-like style with stone veneers,stucco,exposed wood beams,wood trellises above the windows,covered walkway arcades and concrete tile roofing. Mr. Altopp stated staff is pleased with the architecture as proposed. Mr. Richard Sigmund, Sigland and Associates, concurred with staff's recommendations and Conditions of Approval with the exception of Municipal Utilities Department Condition of Approval 1 (Sewer Section). Mr. Sigmund stated he believes it is appropriate to pay one frontage fee even though the proposed project fronts on two streets. Mr. Sigmund stated he did not discussed this issue with staff. Mr.Altopp noted that staff received the Municipal Utilities Department Conditions of Approval late on Thursday prior to being mailed to the applicant. Mr. Shaw suggested the Municipal Utilities Department be contacted to send a representative to the meeting who could clarify this matter. Commissioner Miller asked what size foam would be used on the top of the wall, underneath the eve. Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 5 Mr.Tim Phelps, applicant, stated he believes it would be a 12-inch decorative foam,similar to crown molding. Commissioner Miller requested a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to provide detailed information on the decorative foam treatment. Commissioner Miller complimented the applicant on the architecture. He asked Mr. Phelps if he would consider adding trim around the windows that face the street. Mr. Phelps agreed. Commissioner Shamp stated there is very little in the design that reflects the "Craftsman" style; in particular the slope of the roof and the lack of substantial roof overhangs. Commissioner Shamp asked Mr. Phelps if there is a reason for the added slope on the roof. Mr. Phelps stated a lower roof provides less appeal. Commissioner Shamp disagreed with Mr. Phelps stating he is disappointed in the design of the building;the materials, scale, roof lines,arches, and keystone detail over the front entry are not"Craftsman." Commissioner Shamp stated he was hoping for a higher quality design especially since it is an entry site to the City from the City of Loma Linda. Mr. Lonny Young, Municipal Utilities Department, stated the frontage fee is based on the Municipal Code. It was determined that Municipal Utilities Department Condition of Approval 1 (Sewer Section)could be revised to read as follows: Pay the Sewer Capital Improvement Charge at$2,070 per 100 gpd additional estimated flow stream as a condition of issuance of a building permit as determined by the Municipal Utilities Department Director. Commissioner Osborne noted that the trash enclosure is built over an easement. Planner Altopp explained that the trash enclosure walls would be built with precast removable walls should it be necessary to have access to the easement. The Public Works Department finds the trash enclosure location acceptable. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner James,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review &Approval No. 818 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined this project will not 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 James,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review&Approval No. 818 as it has been determined that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner James,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review & Approval No. 818 subject to the Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 6 following findings and attached Conditions of Approval. 1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the office use because it complies with all property development standards for the A-P zoning district; 2. The site properly relates to Barton Road and Brookside Avenue which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development because both streets will be constructed to city prescribed standards to their ultimate half widths through compliance with project conditions of approval; 3. The Conditions of Approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 818 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; 4. The use is desirable for the overall development of the community because the proposed project conforms with both the General Plan Designation and Municipal Code requirements with a revision to Municipal Utilities Department (Sewer Section) Condition of Approval 1 to read: Pay the Sewer Capital Improvement Charge at $2,070 per 100 gpd additional estimated flow stream as a condition of issuance of a building permit as determined by the Municipal Utilities Department Director, and the addition of Planning Division Condition of Approval 33 to read: Applicant will provide a detail showing the rendering of the molding for under the eaves of the building to be approved by Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit, and the addition of Planning Division Condition of Approval 34 to read: The applicant will ad foam molding around the exterior of the windows that face Barton Road and Brookside Avenue. The molding will be a minimum of 5" and stuccoed to match the exterior of the building. To be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. C. BULLDOG COMMONS LLC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Environmental Impact Report. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 7 recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Conditional Use Permit No.836 to develop a forty(40) unit apartment complex on a 3.07 acre property located at the southeast corner of Grove Street and Sylvan Boulevard in the R-2, Multiple Family Residential District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Shamp asked where the improved section of the Zanja starts. Mr. Baeza stated the improved sections vary. Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the applicant has a presentation and might be able to answer Commissioner Shamp's question. Commissioner Miller asked if there was any information on the Metrolink; specifically, where will it stop. Mr. Shaw stated an area between Grove Street and University has been identified as a possible Metrolink stop. Mr. Rich Feenstra, RAFCO Development, stated he has worked on the project since 2003. Mr. Feenstra gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Feenstra stated none of the improved sections of the Zanja qualify for storm drain quality. Mr. Feenstra stated he does not object to making improvements along the Zanja. Mr. Jaquess asked if there is a way to save the trees along the Zanja and provide flood control. Mr. Phil Doolittle,Vice President of Finance and Administration, University of Redlands, stated they have a great deal of interest in the proposed project. Mr. Doolittle introduced Ms. Jennifer La Fond Chavez. Ms. Chavez, 600 W. Broadway, San Diego, stated she submitted comments on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)that was completed for the proposed project. Ms. Chavez stated she has not received a response to those comments. Ms. Chavez stated the EIR failed as an information document and should be revised and supplemented with additional information, analysis data. Ms. Chavez stated the traffic analysis draws conclusions that are unsupported by facts or analysis. Ms. Chavez stated a draft EIR should be re-circulated for additional public review. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Doolittle if the University of Redlands has formed an opinion on the proposed project. Mr. Doolittle responded there has not been sufficient information for them to form a full opinion. Mr. Brad Easter, 608 Ryan Street,stated improvements to the street would be welcome. Mr. Easter stated the area between University and Grove Street is the most dangerous and he welcomes the Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 8 widening of Sylvan Boulevard which would assist in making travel safer. Mr. Feenstra stated the study that was completed was a focused EIR. Mr. Feenstra summarized the studies that were conducted for his project: Traffic Study, Koonzman and Associates (May 2003) Preliminary Grading Study (July 2003) Topographical and Aerial Study (July 2003) Cultural Resources Study (October 2003) CEQA Initial Study, Dotson and Associates (November 2003) Jurisdictional Delineation Habitat Assessment Soils Report Zanja Modification Study, ECORP Draft Focused EIR Preliminary Water Quality Control Noise Remediation Study Site Hydrology Study Stream Alteration Permit Study Water Quality Certification Study Downstream Impact Study Mr. Feenstra stated the last five studies were in direct response to comments made by the University of Redlands. Mr. Feenstra stated the hydrologist and engineers agree that the downstream impacts of their project will be minimal. Mr. Jaquess noted that ECORP was hired by the City to conduct the EIR. Mr. Jaquess stated Mr. Feenstra had a number of special studies conducted to supplement and support the analysis done by the consultant. Mr. Bill Cunningham stated he was part of an effort to save the Zanja; he urged the Commission to preserve its character. Commissioner James stated he appreciates Mr. Feenstra's historical overview and review of the Zanja. He stated he likes the character of Sylvan Street with its large trees and the smaller Zanja. Commissioner James stated he is not supportive of a large improvement to the Zanja. Commissioner Shamp stated he believes the Zanja along that stretch is a critical historical artifact and the City should make every effort to retain it. Commissioner Shamp stated there are a number of alternatives that should be explored to allow the Zanja to remain. Commissioner Miller indicated that a fundamental question is whether we are going to have the Zanja carry flood water or are we going to respect what it was designed for historically and leave it in its current state? Commissioner Osborne stated he supports maintaining and preserving historical features, landmarks and buildings. Commissioner Osborne stated the Zanja was constructed in the 1800's to Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 9 carry irrigation water and has since been built up. Commissioner Osborne stated if we are going to retain the Zanja as a historical feature for the City, we need to look at other alternatives for proper drainage for the area. Commissioner Shamp stated he is in favor of allowing time for the University of Redlands to review any additional documentation. Chairman Macdonald stated he concurs with the speakers who feel the area should be maintained as it is. Chairman Macdonald stated preservation of the one-hundred year old trees and channel while improving Sylvan Boulevard is a step in the right direction. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, Environmental Impact Report, and Conditional Use Permit No. 836 to the meeting of June 13, 2006. Chairman Macdonald recessed the meeting at 3:44 p.m. Commissioner Cook left the meeting. Chairman Macdonald reconvened the meeting at 3:50 p.m. D. RYLAND HOMES, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) 1. A recommendation to the City Council for the approval of points for RDA 2006-II-01 for Tentative Tract No. 17502, an approved 26 unit single-family Planned Residential Development project on a 10.37 acre site located south of Pioneer Avenue, north of San Bernardino Avenue and east of Hanford Street in the R-E, Residential Estate District. (Note: This request is for 26 allocations; No allocations have been previously awarded for this tract.) Project Planner David Jump reviewed the Residential Development Allocation categories. Atotal of 32 points were recommended to City Council. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant,stated he believes the Commission made a grave error in the interpretation of the Airport Land Use Plan and the zoning for the property. He stated points were deducted based on a comment on the Airport Land Use Plan, which were not appropriate in his estimation. Mr. Meyer stated the project exceeded the required open space in the R-E Zone,yet the Commission deducted points because of an Airport Master Plan Issue. Mr. Meyer stated points were deducted from the project based on a comment made by Commissioner James. Mr. Meyer stated he will make that point before the City Council. Mr. Meyer wanted it noted for the record that there were several categories where that interpretation was made. Commissioner James stated he made his recommendation based on his interpretation that there Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 10 would have been open space set aside in a normal PRD, however in this case the Airport Land Use Plan designated a specific amount and he did not believe the applicant should get credit for the open space required as a result of the Airport Land Use Plan. Chairman Macdonald stated he recalled the discussion on this matter when the project came before the Commission, however he did not believe it was ever resolved.The Commission recommended denial of the project. Mr. Meyer stated the issue was resolved by the City Council's approval of the zoning and the tract. Mr. Meyer stated he wanted it noted for the record that they feel there was a misinterpretation of the RDA allocation. Chairman Macdonald stated the City Council will listen to the argument and make a good determination. V. ADDENDA A. North Redlands Vision Plan Presentation Mr. Mario Saucedo gave a summary of the North Redlands Visioning Committee's North Redlands Vision Plan. B. Status of Major Projects (May 10, 2005) Mr. Shaw stated a copy of the Status of Major Projects report was included in the Planning Commission packet. He stated if the Commissioners have any questions on a specific project, he would be happy to report back to the Commission on that project. VI. MINUTES A. May 9, 2006 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Osborne excused himself from the evening session of the minutes)that the Planning Commission approve the Planning Commission minutes of May 9th VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF MAY 16, 2006 Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council actions of May 16, 2006. VIII. ADJOURN TO JUNE 13, 2006 Commissioner Macdonald adjourned the meeting at 5:06 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 11 Patti Ortiz Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2006 Page 12