Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 10-9-07_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, October 9, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: Gary Miller, Vice Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Carol Dyer, Commissioner Paul Foster, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF Jeffrey Shaw, Director PRESENT: Michael Reiter, Assistant City Attorney Christopher Boatman, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Vice Chairman Miller Masdenald called the meeting to order. All Commissioners were present with the exception of Chairman Macdonald. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. YOCOM BALDWIN, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) Planning Commission to consider approval of COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 333 a Uniform Sign Program for a multiple tenant office/warehouse building with 29,660 square feet on 2.1 acres in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. B. YOCOM BALDWIN, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) Planning Commission to consider approval of COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 335 for a 15 square foot freestanding monument sign that is four (4) feet in height for a multiple tenant office/warehouse building on 2.1 acres in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. C. Planning Commission review of application for the person to person transfer of an Off- Sale General Alcohol Beverage License for Food 4 Less store to be located at the northwest corner of Lugonia Avenue and Wabash Avenue. D. Planning Commission review of application for the person to person transfer of an On- Sale Beer and Wine License for The Gourmet Pizza Shoppe located at 120 E. State Street. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote to approve the Consent Calendar. III. OLD BUSINESS- NONE Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2007 Page 1 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. OVERBROOK PARK INVESTMENTS, LLC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRISTOPHER BOATMAN) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 2. Planning Commission to consider COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 855 for the re-construction of a two-story, 8,130 square foot brick commercial building originally built in 1906 located at 360 Orange Street on a 4,406 square foot lot in the TC-H, Town Center Historic District of Specific Plan No. 45. Project Planner Chris Boatman gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of Commission Review and Approval No. 855 subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Dyer asked why the project was not reviewed by the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission. Director Shaw indicated that the building did not require a mandatory review by the Historic Commission since it was not a locally designated resource. Mr. Shaw stated that the project could be presented to the Historic Commission for their review. Commissioner Miller opened the public hearing. Gary Stegemann, Architect for the project, was available for questions. Commissioner Dyer asked how the mechanical equipment on the roof would be screened. Mr. Stegemann addressed Commissioner Dyer's question. Commissioner Shamp asked if the applicant intended to match the existing brick. Mr. Stegemann indicated that it would be difficult to do but would try to match the existing brick as close as possible. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant was open to the idea of a using a hand molded brick in lieu of a manufactured brick. Mr. Stegemann indicated that they would be open to using a hand molded type brick if they could locate a supplier. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant would object to two additional conditions indicating that the mechanical enclosure would be finished in a color to match the existing brick and that the brick used would have an aged appearance. Mr. Stegemann indicated that he did not object to the two added conditions of approval. Commissioner Miller closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission find that Commission Review and Approval 855 is considered a Class 31 Exception under the provisions of Section 15331 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 2007 Page 2 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 855. It is recommended 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 James, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried ona 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 855 subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. All applicable development standards are being met by the project. 2. That the site properly relates to adjacent streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 855 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. The project will restore a historic structure in the downtown area of the City. 5. The proposed project will establish a restaurant and office space which is consistent with the existing Commercial designation of the General Plan. This includes the addition of conditions of approval numbers seventeen (17), eighteen (18) and nineteen (19)as follows: 17. The project shall be reviewed by the Historical Commission for the purpose of making recommendations prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. The new brick facade shall be of a color, design, and aged appearance to match existing original brick as close as possible. 19. The mechanical screening shall be colored to match the original brick as close as possible. V. ADDENDA A. REPORT ON GATEWAY PLAZA PROJECT LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PEARL AVENUE AND EUREKA STREET. Director Shaw addressed the concerns that were brought forward at the September 25, 2007 Planning Commission relative to the window moldings and the lack of planter boxes along Eureka Street. Director Shaw referred to an e-mail received from Investwest Companies Managing Manager, Joseph Donati, addressing the reasons for the modifications. Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2007 Page 3 Commissioner Cook indicated that what was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission did not happen and the modifications should have been brought back to the Planning Commission for their review. Director Shaw addressed Commissioner Cook's concerns. Commissioner Dyer commented on the project modifications and the number of dead street trees on Eureka and Pearl Street and asked if there were bonds that the developer had to post to maintain the trees. Commissioner Dyer also indicated that the planters on Pearl Street did not appear to be complete. Director Shaw addressed Commissioner Dyer's concerns. Commissioner Cook commented on Mr. Donati's remarks relative to the City turning on the water to the Eureka Street planter and redo the landscaping and asked if he was referring to the median in front of the project area and if the water was turned off. Director Shaw addressed Commissioner Cook's concerns indicating that there are on-going issues with respects to maintenance of the median. Commissioner Shamp indicated that significant changes should be brought back to the Planning Commission for their review. Commissioner Cook concurred with Commissioner Shamp's comments. Commissioner Miller commented that projects that abut the sidewalks should have precise grading plans presented to the Planning Commission in lieu of preliminary grading plans. Commissioner Cook indicated that the applicant needs to address the landscaping issues. Director Shaw concurred that the applicant needs to address both the street trees and landscaping proposed for the site and needs to resolve those particular issues. Commissioner Miller commented that the renderings showed some pots along various places in the front of the project on Pearl Street that are currently not there and should be brought back in place by the applicant. B. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION PERTAINING TO SETTING RULES PLACING REASONABLE TIME LIMITS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS. Director Jeff Shaw gave an overview of the placing reasonable time limits for participation at meetings. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he wanted to keep the participation at meetings flexible. Commissioner James commented that the three minute rule is very valuable in allowing people equal time to address their opinions. Commissioner James stated that he is looking for language that will encourage combined presentations and discourage the adding of minutes by turning to the audience to defer their minutes. Commissioner Dyer supports Commissioner James comments indicating that she likes the encouragement and discouragement factor and agrees that a focus presentation by a group is much more effective than hearing fifteen individual presentations which may result in the same information. Commissioner Dyer had difficulty with speakers reading long letters at the podium. Commissioner Cook concurred with Commissioner Dyer's comments relative to listening to people reading long letters Commissioner Foster commented that he did not disagree with the Commissions comments and feels that having uniform presentation by a group representative is a positive thing but has concerns that it would not prevent people from getting up and repeating things that their spokesperson has already presented. Commissioner Foster indicated that the Commission has to adopt a style in addressing people when they are speaking before the Commission and would rather hold the speakers to the three minute rule and that the motion recommended in the staff report does that. Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Miller concurred with Commissioner James that we should avoid people ad-hocing at the last minute. His thoughts are to: 1. To encourage the yielding of time but in an organized fashion and ask people to fill out a speaker slip with their intention and staple those speaker slips to the back of the speaker slip of the individual that will address the Commission. 2. When there is going to be an emotional topic, tell people not to repeat themselves. Encourage them to submit the letter and summarize and not give them more than three minutes. 3. There are occasions where an opponent has experts that need to be heard beyond the three minutes allowed. Commissioner Miller indicated that there are people that have an opposing view who have useful information and suggested a control that would require that a report be submitted to staff that could be made part of the Planning Commission packet. Commissioner Miller indicated that he could not support the motion exactly as written since he wants people to be able to combine their time. Commissioner Foster disagreed with Commissioner Miller's recommendation in allowing people to combine their time. If people cannot get their message across in five or six minutes then they have gone beyond what is reasonable. Director Shaw indicated that staff has no control in getting information from a speaker in time to incorporate it into the Planning Commission packet. Commissioner James asked if adding the following language at the end of the proposed motion could be considered as follows: "Combined presentations by a spokesman of a group are encouraged and such presentations may be granted time in excess of three minutes at the discretion of the Chairman". Commissioner Miller asked if Commissioner James recommendations would put the Chairman, Commissioner, or the City in a position of being accused of showing some degree of favoritism. Assistant Attorney Reiter responded to Commissioner Miller's concerns. Assistant Attorney Reiter indicated that he and the City Attorney would look at the situation and report back to the Commission relative to what needs to be done to the motion. He indicated that the Commission could adopt a minute motion and then advise staff to come up with a more in depth policy along with suggesting some options. Commissioner Dyer supported Commissioner James compromise indicating that the Chairman needs to be able to read the audience and give them the flexibility and encouragement that the speaking is focused in the best manner possible. She indicated that the proposed motion is too restrictive now and would prefer that it be more generously worded to give the Chairman more control. Commissioner Foster stated that the Assistant Attorney Reiter is proposing to adopt the motion as is and direct staff to come back to the Commission with a broader recommendation. Assistant Attorney Reiter indicated that the Commission can adopt the current motion but could also amend it now to make it less restrictive for the next meeting, and let staff draft a future resolution for the Commission to review. Commissioner James indicated that he would like staff to come back with a formalized policy or motion. Commissioner Foster supported Commissioner James recommendation. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 6-0 vote to adopt a policy for conducting public meetings at the Planning Commission to limit the time of speakers to three (3) minutes each and that a speaker may not obtain additional time to speak by obtaining time from another member of the audience. Combined presentations by a spokesman of a group are encouraged and such presentations may be granted time in excess of three minutes at the discretion of the Chairman. Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2007 Page 5 In addition, the Planning Commission directed staff to come back with a more detailed policy regarding speaker entitlements. Commissioner Miller stated that he felt that there was a contradictory direction. One is that we are allowing extra time by groups of people combining and ahead of that we say "may not obtain additional time by obtaining time from another member. VI. MINUTES A. September 25, 2007 MOTION The minutes of September 25, 2007 were tabled to the meeting of October 23, 2007. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF OCTOBER 2, 2007 Director Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council Actions of October 2, 2007. Commissioner James recommended adding items to future agendas when the meetings are light such as discussion on architectural guidelines. Commissioner Foster and Cook concurred with Commissioner James recommendation. Commissioner Dyer asked what the status was on the Art Ordinance and the discussion of revising the landscape parking ordinance. Director Shaw indicated that staff is trying to get a mutual date determined with the landscape architect to come and speak with the Planning Commission. Director Shaw stated that discussion on architectural guidelines can be added to the agenda along with discussion with the Cultural Arts Commission once a mutual date has been determined. VIII. ADJOURN TO OCTOBER 23, 2007 Commissioner Miller adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m. to October 23, 2007. Christine Szilva Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2007 Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes of October 9, 2007 Page 7