Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 3-11-08_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, March 11, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: Jim Macdonald, Chairman Paul Foster, Vice Chairman Gary Miller, Commissioner Ruth Cook, Commissioner Carol Dyer, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner John James, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Robert Dalquest, Assistant Director Michael Reiter, Assistant City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Principal Planner Jeffrey L. Shaw, Planning Advisor Chris Boatman, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Macdonald called the meeting to order. All Commissioners were present. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. BONITA DEVELOPMENT,APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17265 (TIME EXTENSION) - Planning Commission to consider a request for an Extension of Time for an approved tentative tract map subdividing 60.06 gross acres into fifteen (15) residential lots and four (4) common area lots located on the north side of Live Oak Canyon Road approximately 1,100 feet south of Burns Lane in Specific Plan No. 59. It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the Consent Calendar. III. OLD BUSINESS A. INVESTWEST PARTNERS IV, LP, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on STREET VACATION NO. 145 to vacate a segment of the existing alley east of Eureka Street from Pearl Avenue southerly a length of approximately 163 feet, in the Town Center District of Specific Plan No. 45. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on STREET VACATION NO. 146 to vacate a segment of Ruiz Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 1 Street from Pearl Avenue southerly a length of approximately 195 feet to High Avenue, in the Town Center District of Specific Plan No. 45. 5. Planning Commission to consider COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 773 (REVISION NO. 1) to expand an existing commercial center with the development of a two-story commercial building with an area of 18,200 square feet and new parking lot areas generally located on the south side of Pearl Avenue between Eureka Street and 3rd Street in the Town Center District of Specific Plan No. 45. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza indicated that the applicant submitted additional information relative to turning radius concerns brought forward at the previous meeting but was not received in time for staff to review. Staff recommended continuance to the March 25, 2008 meeting. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Robert Salerno, 609 Third Street, had questions relative to the location of the project. Mr. Baeza addressed Mr. Salerno's concerns. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Hearing on Revision No. 1 to Commission Review and Approval No. 773, Street Vacations Nos. 145 and 146 and the Public Hearing for the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study to March 25, 2008. B. GREENWICH ENTERPRISES, INC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17128 - a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 2.66 acres into eight (8) residential lots and one (1) common area lot on property located on the west side of Ford Street, generally south of Farview Lane and north of Crestview Road in the R-S, Suburban Residential District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza Project Planner Manuel Baeza indicated that the project was continued from the January 22, 2008 meeting due to concerns regarding aesthetics and lot configuration. Staff gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the project. Staff recommended approval of the Socio- Economic Cost Benefit Study and denial of Tentative Tract No. 17128. Commissioner Miller indicated that the applicant did not adequately address aesthetic needs, lot density, particulate matter, and maintenance of the retention basin located behind the wall. Commissioner Miller Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 2 stated that his preference was to deny the project based on these reasons and would prefer that particulate matter not be made part of the motion. Commissioner James indicated that he had issues denying a project that meets General Plan standards and was in support of approving the project. Commissioner Dyer commented that the project site was narrow and oddly shaped with significant slopes. She indicated that the lots were reasonably sized and that the sound walls were required to mitigate the sounds of the freeway and that some of the landscape issues have been addressed. Commissioner Dyer indicated that she would vote to approve the project. Commissioner Shamp concurred with Commissioner James and Dyer and commented that his only objection to the project was its proximity to diesel exhaust and particulate matter. He indicated that he was not bothered by the aesthetics of the project and that the sound wall brings a great benefit to the houses in the proposed project. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he would be voting to approve the project. Commissioners Cook expressed that the project meets zoning and General Plan requirements and would vote to approve the project. Commissioner Foster concurred with Commissioner Miller's comments and indicated that he would vote to oppose the project due to the aesthetics. He indicated that the project was unattractive and would not be a benefit to the community. Chairman Macdonald stated that he was opposed to the project for the reasons that were expressed by Commissioner Foster. He had concerns with the high sound walls in the backyards of the homes and commented that it was not appropriate to have a home a hundred feet from a freeway with particulates from the diesel trucks. Chairman Macdonald expressed that the Commission needs to step in and show that this is an inappropriate location for a residential development. Commissioner Miller commented that he is not opposed to a residential subdivision on the property but that it could be a better project than what is presented today. Commissioner Shamp indicated that Chairman Macdonald's comments were compelling and reminded him why he previously brought up issues relative to particulate matter. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he is less concerned about diesel particulate emissions since he feels that people will choose to not live in these homes. His primary concern is over upcoming projects and that it is important to start setting precedence right away. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he was changing his mind and would be voting to deny the project based on air quality issues. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 6-1 vote (Commissioner Shamp opposed) that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Tentative Tract Map No. 17128 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 Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 4-3 vote (Commissioner's James, Dyer and Cook opposed) that the Planning Commission deny Tentative Tract Map No. 17128 based upon the following findings: Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 3 1. That the proposed map is inconsistent with the General Plan as the design of the subdivision and related development does not conform to the following General Plan policies: • Arterials, policy 5.31d. Maximize the carrying capacity of arterials by controlling the number of intersections and driveways, limiting residential access, and requiring sufficient on-site parking to meet the needs of the project. The subdivision creates one street intersection and two driveways onto Ford Street which is a minor arterial. This number of intersections and driveways is excessive for an eight lot subdivision. The number of intersections and driveways of this subdivision are made more significant by the steep grade of Ford Street. • Air Quality and Land Use, policy 8.14j. Locate and design new development in a manner that will minimize direct and indirect emission of air contaminants. The subdivision is located between the San Bernardino Interstate 10 freeway and Ford Street, a minor arterial. The location of the subdivision is located in such close proximity to these roadways and significant volumes of traffic that residents will be subjected to significant direct and indirect emission of air contaminants and is therefore inconsistent with this policy. • The site is not suitable for the proposed density; Proposed Lot 8 has an undesirable shape which requires the use of manufactured slopes to create a large unusable and inaccessible area on the lot. A reduction of density for the project through the elimination of a lot facing Ford Street would provide additional area to improve the design of the tract. • The design of the subdivision or type of improvements may cause serious public health problems to future residents of the subdivision. The project is located adjacent to the 1-10 Freeway and it has been reported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District that pollutant levels within 500 feet of Freeways are higher with regard to particulate matter which can cause an unhealthful and harmful condition; C. REDLANDS CENTER LLC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 838 to develop a commercial retail center consisting of an in-line set of retail businesses and one free standing restaurant with a combined floor area of 52,220 square feet on approximately 4.8 acres, located south of Interstate 10 Freeway on the west side of California Street in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 893 to establish a 2,330 square foot drive-thru food establishment within a proposed retail center located south of Interstate 10 Freeway on the west side of California Street in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 4 Project Planner Manuel Baeza indicated that the project was continued from the previous meeting to allow the applicant to make changes based on the recommendations from the Planning Commission with regard to architecture. Mr. Baeza stated that revisions were made to the plans and gave an overview of the changes. Staff recommended approval of the project with the possible inclusion of the additional changes made by the applicant for the realigned driveway for building four and the reduced office area for building three subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dyer Miller indicated that if would be helpful if the developer could tell the Commission more about the change on building three (3) and what the original square footage was for the second floor on building three. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Andre Ohanian, Redlands Center LLC, indicated that the square footage on the second floor of building three was one thousand square feet and was changed to approximately nine hundred (900) square feet. Commissioner Miller commented that there was a code issue relative to the office located on the second floor of building three (3) that is not allowed if there is no second entrance if there are more than ten occupants and a thousand (1000) square feet which is why the square footage was reduced to approximately 900 square feet. Commissioner Miller indicated that the cornice over the window of building one that was on the previous design was a nice detail and would like to keep it over the window with the added frames shown in the revised plan. Commissioner Miller stated that he would like to have a substantial piece of foam molding over the main arch of building one and requested that it be added as a condition of approval. Commissioner Miller commented on the rear elevation of building two stating that alternating between split face and precision block is uncreative and needs more enhancements. He indicated that he would support the project if there was a condition of approval that required an additional design to that side of the building that would be satisfactory to staff. Chairman Macdonald asked if a condition of approval was added relative to the having cornices over the windows. Mr. Baeza indicated that a condition of approval could be added for the cornices. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 838 and Conditional Use Permit No. 893. 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 Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 838 and Conditional Use Permit No. 893 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 5 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve a reduced LOS at the intersection of Alabama Street/Redlands Boulevard during the peak hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve a reduced LOS at the intersection of Redlands Boulevard/California Street during the peak hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 838, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use; the project complies with setbacks and floor area ratio limitations of the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. 2. The site properly relates to Redlands Boulevard and California Street which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development; 3. The conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 838 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; the project 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; 4. The use is desirable for the overall development of the community; the project will provide new retail space and offices for business located in the City; 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Commercial Designation of the General Plan. This includes the addition of conditions of approval numbers forty-eight (48), forty-nine (49), fifty (50) and fifty-one (51)as follows: 48. Cornice trim shall be added to the top as previously shown in the plans submitted for the February 26, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. 49. Trim shall be added for building B.1 at the center arch and arches of similar size in the project with an eight(8) inch minimum width. 50. Rear elevations for building number two (2)shall be revised to incorporate additional architectural interest as approved by staff. 51. Side and bottom trim shall be added to all project windows. Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 6 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 893 based on the following findings: 1. The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City; the drive through restaurant is consistent with existing commercial development found in this area of the City; 2. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; the project includes Mitigation Measures designed to address concerns of public health and safety; 3. The proposed drive through restaurant will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, and the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan; 4. The proposed drive through restaurant is appropriate on California Street. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REDLANDS LAND HOLDING L.L.C., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Development Agreement for the Redlands Promenade Project which is an approved 160,000 square foot commercial center on approximately 13.2 acres located south of the Interstate 10 Freeway and west of Eureka Street in the Town Center District of the Downtown Specific Plan. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner gave an overview of Development Agreement No. 19. Staff recommended approval to the City Council of Development Agreement No. 19 as proposed. Chairman Macdonald asked if a four (4) year term a normal length of time for a development agreement. Mr. Dalquest indicated that state law generally allows up to twenty (20) years. Planning Advisor Jeff Shaw gave an overview of the agreement term relative to the proposed development agreement. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that Development Agreement No. 19 requires no further environmental action as the project was previously reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report certified by the City on June 19, 2007. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1155, recommending that Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 7 the City Council approve Development Agreement No. 19, subject to the following findings and subject to staff's recommendations: 1. The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City's general plan and any applicable specific plan; the project for which the Development Agreement is proposed is designed in accordance with the design guidelines and development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan; 2. The proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the zoning district in which the real property is located; the proposed commercial/retail center for which the Development Agreement is proposed is a permitted use in the Town Center District of Downtown Specific Plan. 3. The proposed Development Agreement is in conformity with and will promote public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice; the proposed commercial/retail center for which the Development Agreement is proposed will redevelop an underutilized site in the downtown and will provide employment and shopping opportunities in the City; 4. The proposed Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; the project for which the development agreement is proposed will be required to adhere to all applicable code requirements for new construction; 5. The proposed Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values; the project for which the development agreement is proposed provides a comprehensive plan for the immediate area and will enhance the downtown. 6. The proposed Development Agreement will promote and encourage the development of the proposed project by providing a greater degree of requisite certainty; the agreement provides assurances to the developer with regard to impact fees, and off-site improvements and 7. That Development Agreement No. 17 therefore be recommended for APPROVAL. V. ADDENDA A. 2006 — 2007 Annual Report on the Redlands General Plan pursuant to 65400 of the State Planning, Zoning and Development Laws. Planning Advisor Jeff Shaw gave an overview of the 2006 — 2007 Annual Report on the Redlands General Plan. B. Planning Commission presentation by McShane Corporation for a proposed 879,162 square foot Industrial Park consisting of nine (9) buildings ranging in size from 176,967 square feet to 363,208 square feet on 50.53 acres located on the northeast corner of Research Drive and Lugonia Avenue in the Commercial Industrial District of Concept Plan No. 1. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief overview of the proposed project. He indicated that the project being presented exceeded the established threshold of 50,000 square feet and that the applicant was present to give an overview of the proposed industrial park. Pat Meyer, Urban Environs, gave a presentation on the proposed industrial park that will be located on the northeast corner of Research Drive and Lugonia Avenue. Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 8 Commissioner Dyer had concerns relative to the variable setbacks and commented that due to the massive sizes of the buildings indicated that it is very unreasonable to have minimal setbacks. She stated that there needs to be substantial berming and screening of the parking that is facing the street. Commissioner Miller stated that he was pleased with the architecture and supports the effort to combine driveways. He indicated that ten (10) feet up against the buildings is minimal for such large structures and could be mitigated by enlarging the ten foot setback or increase the number of peninsula planters where there can be some sizeable trees between the building and street. Commissioner Dyer commented on the architecture indicating that some of the buildings lack detailing with no plan differential, material variety or variation in color. She stated that the windows are what break up the articulated sides of the building. Mr. Meyer indicated that he would look into Commissioner Dyer's comments. Commissioner Miller referred to the east elevation of building 2.1 indicating that 120 feet of the more northerly portion would be visible to the public and needed more attention. C. REDLANDS LAND HOLDING L.L.C., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ROBERT DALQUEST) Final approval of recommended architectural changes, landscape plan, perimeter wall and pedestrian area amenities for the Redlands Promenade Project which is an approved 160,000 square foot commercial center on approximately 13.2 acres located south of the Interstate 10 Freeway and west of Eureka Street in the Town Center District of the Downtown Specific Plan. Assistant Director Bob Dalquest gave an overview of modifications relative to the building elevations, final landscape plan, lighting, the sound wall and pedestrian area amenities. Mr. Dalquest commented on the landscaping and indicated that Commissioner Dyer provided additional comments and recommendations to staff relative to the landscaping. Mr. Dalquest stated that the Commission had the option of adding conditions of approval to this addendum or require that the applicant provide detailed landscape plans which would come back to the Commission for final approval. Staff recommended approval of the proposed modifications subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Dyer recalled that neighboring business, Family Services, had concerns about the appearance of the wall and felt that equal treatment should be on both sides of the wall. Commissioner Dyer indicated that the median island was an important issue to both her and the Gateway project located across the street from the project. Commissioner Dyer would like to see the design of the median island in the revised landscape plans. Martin Vahtra, General Growth Properties and Mark Giles, architect for the project, indicated that they would be addressing some of the concerns. Mr. Giles indicated that they would flip the sound wall around so that the articulation faced neighbor, Family Services. Mr. Giles indicated that the Sweet Shade trees are shown on the landscape plan. Commissioner Dyer stated that the number of the Sweet Shade trees were lacking. Mr. Giles indicated that they will add the Sweet Shade trees as requested. Mr. Giles commented on some of the landscaping issues presented and did not have a problem switching out evergreen trees for deciduous. Chairman Macdonald stated that there is parking behind shop one with no indication of trees. Mr. Giles stated that there are trees all along the west property line with one tree for every twenty feet. Mr. Dalquest indicated that code allows reduced landscape requirements where parking areas are not visible from public streets. Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 9 Mr. Giles questioned the requirement for finger islands for every twenty (20) stalls indicating that they would end up losing fifteen (15) stalls in the project. Mr. Vahtra asked for the Commission's consideration stating that there would be a loss of leaseable area and that their income side needs to match their cost side. Mr. Vahtra asked for clarification on the median island on Eureka Street and asked if they would be contributing to the maintenance. Mr. Dalquest indicated that would be contributing to the CFD (Communities Facilities District)who would be maintaining the median island. Chairman Macdonald referred to the question relative to the finger planters and asked if it was a code requirement. Mr. Dalquest indicated that it was a code requirement. Commissioner Miller indicated that the project was excellent and that the applicant had done a good job in retaining a pedestrian fagade to the center. He referred to the A.2.18, elevation one, and indicated that he would like to see some additional articulation such a pattern in the stucco or other treatment appropriate for the style. Commissioner Miller commented that the four towers with the hip roofs appear to disappear as an architectural element and indicated that it would be nice if that could be a rhythm that repeats itself along Eureka Street. Mr. Vahtra indicated that the goal was to create the focal point at the corner at the intersection. Commissioner Miller indicated that there is another significant entrance at Stuart Street and that it would give that another sense of entry if something could be done that would be repeat that same theme. Mr. Dalquest indicated that an alternative motion may be needed since the landscape plan would need to return to the Commission for final approval. Mr. Dalquest stated that the motion could entail approving modifications to the building as proposed, the pedestrian area amenities, and the design of the sound wall but would delete the condition of approval number three (3) which pertains to the landscaping plan. Mr. Dalquest stated that condition of approval number three (3) could be replaced with a condition requiring the monuments be placed on the west side of the south wall. Commissioner Dyer indicated that the revised landscape plan should be more specific by showing the count, size and spacing of the ground cover and shrubs with a clear explanation of the type of ground cover being used. Mr. Giles asked if the landscape architect could meet with Commissioner Dyer and staff with the revised landscape plan instead of returning to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dyer stated that would be fine but would still expect to see a working drawing and indicated that the fingers planters with the percentage of landscaping also needed to be addressed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the modifications to the building elevations, pedestrian area amenities, lighting and the design of the sound wall covered under this Addendum to Conditional Use Permit No. 905, subject to the attached conditions of approval with the modification of condition of approval number three (3) requiring monuments to be placed on the west side of the west property line. Replace condition of approval number three (3)with the following: Monuments shall be placed on the west side of the wall. Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 10 D. TUTTLE ENGINEERING, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) Planning Commission to consider architectural changes to COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 790 an approved 3,182 square foot office building located at 1449 W. Redlands Blvd. in the East Valley Corridor Specific General Commercial Zone. Project Planner Chris Boatman handed out material boards to the Commission for their review. Mr. Boatman gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the architectural changes. Staff recommended denial of the proposed architectural changes with the exception of the change to the tan primary color. Keith McCann, representing Tuttle Engineering, gave a brief overview of the circumstances that the applicant encountered with the building materials distributor. Chairman Macdonald asked why the applicant did not approach staff when encountering the problems with the distributor instead of going forward with something that was not approved. Mr. McCann indicted that it was their mistake. Commissioner Dyer commented on several changes that were made and asked why they were so different from what was approved by the Commission. Mr. McCann indicated that an attempt was made to match the original plans as much as possible with the finances that were available. Warren Tuttle, applicant, indicated that he regrets the changes that were made and that he will make the necessary changes. Mr. Tuttle asked the Commission what they wanted him to do. Commissioner Dyer indicated that what was on the original design is what we should be expecting. Commissioner Miller stated that the awnings should be as originally depicted and that the supports need to be changed with a more decorative element. He indicated that the sill is another significant component that needs to be there. Commissioner Miller stated that when looking at the drawing, it appears that the element framing the windows are substantially less and asked that staff look at the full scale drawing that was originally approved. Commissioner Dyer mentioned that there were some missing control joints and indicated that the color change to the building was acceptable as long as all the other components were completed. She indicated that a new color board may need to come forward to the Commission for approval due to the color change of the building. Mr. Tuttle asked for a continuance so that he could work out issues with staff before returning to the Commission. Commissioner Foster had no objection to a continuance as long as what comes back to the Commission is consistent with the original approval. Mr. McCann asked if they would be allowed to work on the building during the continuance period. Commissioner Miller indicated that they would be adding the elements at their own risk since the items discussed today were significant. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the proposed architectural changes to Commission Review and Approval No. 790 to the meeting of March 25, 2008. Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 11 VI. MINUTES A. FEBRUARY 26, 2008 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the minutes of February 26, 2008. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF MARCH 4, 2008 Assistant Director Dalquest gave a brief presentation on the City Council Actions of March 4, 2008. VIII. ADJOURN TO MARCH 25, 2008 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting at 4:27 p.m. to March 25, 2008. Christine Szilva Robert Dalquest, Assistant Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of March 11, 2008 Page 12 Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2008 Page 13