Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 6-10-08_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: Jim Macdonald, Chairman Paul Foster, Vice Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Carol Dyer, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner John James, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF Oscar Orci, Director PRESENT: Robert Dalquest, Assistant Director Dan McHugh, City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Principal Planner Tabitha Kevari, Assistant Planner Chris Boatman, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Macdonald called the meeting to order. All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Miller. II. CONSENT ITEMS A. NATIONAL SIGN & MARKETING, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) 1. Consideration of approval of COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 324 (REVISION NO. 1) to relocate the placement of an approved 55 foot tall, 98.26 square foot freeway-oriented pole sign within the Carl's Jr. Restaurant site located at 1205 W. Colton Avenue, in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. 2. Consideration of approval of COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 338 to construct a new 4 foot tall, 24 square foot monument sign on the northeast corner of the parking lot of the Carl's Jr. Restaurant site located at 1205 W. Colton Avenue, in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 6-0 vote to approve Commission Sign Review No. 324 (Revision 1) and Commission Sign Review No. 338 subject to the attached conditions of approval. B. FLYNN SIGNS &GRAPHICS, INC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TABITHA KEVARI) Consideration of approval of COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 354 to construct a pedestal sign that is 7' in height with a sign area of 46 square feet for the Southern California Edison Mountainview Generating Station located at 2492 West San Bernardino Avenue in the M-2, General Industrial District. Commissioner Dyer questioned the difference between a pedestal and monument sign. Project Planner Tabitha Kevari gave an explanation of the difference between a pedestal and monument sign. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 1 It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-0 vote to approve Commission Sign Review No. 354 subject to the conditions of approval. III. OLD BUSINESS A. RASPBERRY INVESTMENTS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TABITHA KEVARI) 1. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 821 (REVISION No. 1) to expand the existing bakery business by 586 square feet, existing lodge facility by 1,426 square feet and to construct a 672 square foot covered patio structure used for the ceremony area at the Tennessee Gardens Center located at 615 & 619 Tennessee Street in the C-M, Commercial Industrial District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Tabitha Kevari indicated that the applicant requested a continuance due to the involvement of obtaining a joint use parking agreement with adjacent property owners. Ms. Kevari indicated that available on site parking did not support the applicant's desired amount of permitted guests on site for event services. Staff recommended continuance of the project to the June 24, 2008 meeting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and Conditional Use Permit No. 821 Revision 1 to the meeting of June 24, 2008. B. SHIV TALWAR, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TABITHA KEVARI) PUBLIC HEARING to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 931 to establish a Subway Sandwich Shop (eating establishment) within a 1,035 square foot tenant space in an office and commercial development within the Administrative and Professional Office District of Specific Plan 23 located at 1325 Ford Street Suite No. 101. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Tabitha Kevari indicated that the project was continued from the May 27, 2008 meeting in order for the applicant to address issues relative to parking and traffic concerns. Ms. Kevari gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the project and addressed the parking and traffic concerns. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Shiv Talwar, Architect, stated that he was available for questions. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Foster stated that he appreciated the analysis that was done on the project but still had concerns relative to the traffic situation cumulatively in the area. Commissioner Foster indicated that he would vote against the project. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 2 It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 5-1 vote, (Commissioner Foster opposed), that the Planning Commission determine that Conditional Use Permit No. 931 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 5-1 vote, (Commissioner Foster opposed), that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 931 subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval. 1. The proposed Subway Sandwich Shop (eating establishment) applied for at this location will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City because it is a permitted use in the Administrative and Professional Office District of Specific Plan No. 23 , subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; 2. The proposed Subway Sandwich Shop (eating establishment) will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare because it is a conditionally permitted use within the zoning district and it will meet the applicable development standards of the zone; 3. The proposed Subway Sandwich Shop (eating establishment) will comply with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards because the proposed project is adequate in size to accommodate the use, setbacks, and parking requirements for the proposed use. In addition, it is a permitted use with the approval of a conditional use permit and conditions of approval have been applied to the project to ensure that development standards are met; 4. The Subway Sandwich Shop (eating establishment) is appropriate at the proposed location in that the use is permitted with a conditional use permit within the Administrative and Professional Office District of Specific Plan No. 23. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. ESRI, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Consideration of COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 825 (REVISION NO. 3) to modify the design of a parking lot over a portion of the Mission flood channel located immediately north of the ESRI Campus, between New York Street and Tennessee Street in the M-2, General Industrial District which was approved in conjunction with a three- story office building with an area of 81,635 square feet within the ESRI Campus. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Dan Hobbs, City of Redlands Redevelopment Agency Director, indicated that ESRI does have parking issues and encouraged the Commission's approval on any project which would assist the applicant in dealing with their parking needs. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 3 It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt the Addenda to the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration for Revision No. 3 to Commission Review and Approval No. 825. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 3 to Commission Review and Approval No. 825, 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; the project will meet setback and coverage limitations of the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District; 2. That the site properly relates to neighboring 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 Revision No. 3 to Commission Review and Approval No. 825 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; Mitigation measures are included in the Conditions of Approval 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 provide new employment opportunities to City residents; 5. The proposed office building and parking lot will be consistent with the Office Designation of the General Plan. B. HARRY ODOM, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) PUBLIC HEARING to consider STREET VACATION NO. 148 to vacate approximately 2,500 square feet of dedicated alley located on the northwest corner of Rossmont Drive and Sunset Drive in the R-A, Residential Estate District. Project was withdrawn. C. UNIVERSITY OF REDLANDS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) PUBLIC HEARING to consider REVISION NO. 1 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 922 to modify the existing conditions of approval to establish a Phasing Plan for required public improvements for the Center for the Arts and addition to the Glen Wallichs Theater located at the southeast corner of Sylvan Boulevard and University Street on the campus of the University of Redlands in the E, Educational District. Commissioner Shamp recused himself from the meeting at 2:25 p.m. due to a conflict of interest. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Von Senk, University of Redlands Director of Construction Management, indicated that he was available for questions. Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 4 Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 5-0 vote, (Commissioner Shamp recused), that Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 922 does not require further environmental processing, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, based on the following findings: 1. The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; 2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken; and, 3. 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. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 5-0 vote, (Commissioner Shamp recused), that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 922 based on the following findings: 1. That the proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City; The project continues to be consistent with existing development found at the University of Redlands; 2. That the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; The project will continue to include Mitigation Measures designed to address concerns of public health and safety; 3. That the proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, and the E, Educational District; 4. That the proposed Cultural Arts facility is appropriate at the University of Redlands. Commissioner Shamp returned to the meeting at 2:30 p.m. V. ADDENDA A. TUTTLE ENGINEERING, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) Consideration of 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 General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Project Planner Chris Boatman indicated that the project was brought before the Commission on March 11, 2008 and was continued three times to allow the applicant and his architect time to provide staff with revised elevations. Mr. Boatman passed around a material board for the Commission's review and gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed changes. Staff recommended approval of the changes subject to the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Dyer commented that the original design had contemporary style metal awnings and an aqua colored trim on the windows but that the proposed plan shows anodized aluminum trim and would like to discuss this issue. Commissioner Dyer stated that the residential type roll-up door on the south elevation did not add to the appeal of the building. Mr. Boatman stated that staff was aware that the roll-up doors were not as proposed and discussed the situation with the applicant who expressed that he would like approval for what was installed. Commissioner James mentioned that no awnings were proposed for the north side of the building and asked staff if they were comfortable with that situation. Mr. Boatman stated that staff is recommending awnings over all the windows and on all sides of the elevations. Commissioner Dyer stated that she supported staff's recommendation on the awnings and indicated that the original wood materials were substandard looking and do not add to the building. Director Oscar Orci commented that a written communication was received and passed out to the Commissioners from Planning Commissioner Gary Miller who was unable to attend today's meeting. The communication was for the Commission's review and comment relative to the Tuttle Engineering project. Commissioner Cook commented that this project would never have been approved in the state that it is in now and feels reluctant to approve something that would be an eventual eyesore. Commissioner Macdonald gave an overview of Commissioner Miller's comments relative to the color of the window frames, awnings, and dimension's. Commissioner Macdonald stated that the deviations from the approved project are significant and the comments from the Commissioner's support that. Chairman Macdonald asked Leon Armantrout, Project Architect, why the applicant deviated from what was originally approved. Leon Armantrout, Project Architect, indicated that there was no need for awnings on the north side of the building. He stated that the applicant would like to remove the rough wood entirely and paint the building according to the revised plan and place more emphasis on landscaping the site. Mr. Armantrout stated that the window frames are now an anodized aluminum that would go well with the overall color scheme and that painting the aluminum a color would not last ten years. Commissioner James concurred with Commissioner Miller's comments that the original design had more elements and design and that detail is missing in the current elevation. Commissioner James indicated that he would be in favor of the changes with some of the refining that Mr. Armantrout suggested but with more detail on the northern elevation. Commissioner Dyer asked if Mr. Tuttle wanted to remove the awnings on all four sides of the building. Mr. Armantrout indicated that his proposal today is to remove the rough sawn wood and paint according to the revised elevations. Mr. Armantrout stated that Mr. Tuttle would rather see the money go towards the landscaping. Commissioner Dyer commented that she supports the landscaping but did not want a vanilla building with limited detail shrouded by landscaping. Commissioner Dyer asked about the rear roll-up door and asked how the door could be improved. Mr. Armantrout indicated that the door would have to be discussed with Mr. Tuttle but that he did not see the door as being out of place. He stated that the building would be fine if the rough sawn wood was removed and carefully painted. Chairman Macdonald read Commissioner Miller's comments relative to the awnings which indicated that the awnings served as an aesthetic purpose and that the revised proposal removes the only elements that gave the front and most visible elevation any character. Chairman Macdonald supported Commissioner Miller's comments. Mr. Armantrout understood Chairman Macdonald's concerns but Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 6 would still prefer to see the more simple building as represented in the revised drawings than what was originally proposed. Commissioner Shamp indicated that the color scheme was quite nice but had concerns about the color differentiation between the background wall color and the pop outs. Mr. Armantrout concurred with Commissioner Shamp that there should be a greater difference in the value of the colors. Commissioner Shamp commented that he was not unhappy with the revised design but that more work is needed. Commissioner Shamp concurred with Mr. Armantrout that an awning is not necessary on the north side of the building and that a more focused treatment of landscaping on the north elevation would be appropriate. He did not agree that removing all the awnings was the right approach and that there needs to be some color, and some awnings for solar protection. Commissioner Shamp agreed that all the wood needs to be removed but is not bothered with the rear roll-up door since no one will see it. Chairman Macdonald asked Commissioner Shamp for his opinion on the awnings. Commissioner Shamp indicated that there needs to be something on the windows for solar protection and color. He does not believe that they need to be on the north side. The north side can be addressed with texture, color and depth with landscaping. Commissioner Shamp stated that the proposed preferred aluminum tubular awnings are appropriate. Commissioner Foster stated that he did not care for the new design and reiterated that he would vote against changing the project. Commissioner Cook agreed that more landscaping was desirable but that it would have been nice to have a landscape plan on what was proposed. Commissioner Cook indicated that all the wood needs to be removed, there needs to be some kind of awnings and that there was not enough variation in the colors. Commissioner Dyer indicated that the color scheme is reasonable but needs more contrast; the parapet situation does help to anchor the building better but does not want the wood on the building. Commissioner Dyer stated that staff's suggestion on the metal support on the awnings is good and that she would settle for the existing roll-up door since it is in the rear of the building. She is supportive to the changes being made for the compromises on the building but does not like the idea of getting a redesign after an earlier Commission approval. Commissioner Cook stated that she was not comfortable approving this project today and indicated that this needs to come back to the Commission with more detailed elevations and a landscaping plan. Commissioner James was in agreement with Commissioner's Shamp, Dyer and Cook's comments and indicated that this needs to return to the Commission with more details. Commissioner James stated that he can be talked out of the awnings on the north side of the building but that there should be awnings around the rest of the building. He indicated that a new color board needs to return to the Commission for review and that the added landscaping is an excellent alternative. Commissioner Foster concurred with Commissioner Cook that the Commission should not consider any alternative without seeing something very specific from the applicant. Chairman Macdonald indicated that it appears that a continuance is in order and that the applicant is aware that something more specific is needed relative to everything that was discussed. Director Orci commented that the Commission has agreed that landscaping is something that is desired and that plans should be brought back to show the additional landscaping. Director Orci asked for clarification on the treatment for the north elevation. Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 7 Commissioner James indicated that he would accept the landscaping in lieu of an awning on the north elevation. Commissioner Shamp concurred with Commissioner James. Chairman Macdonald indicated that Commissioner Miller's comments show that an awning type treatment is necessary on the north side of the structure to enhance the aesthetics of the building. He supported Commissioner Miller's recommendation and indicated that he would like to see all the wood removed. Chairman Macdonald was not concerned with the roll-up door or paint and did not believe that the additional landscaping would offset what is being lost in the aesthetics of the architectural treatments of the awnings. Commissioner Dyer supported Chairman Macdonald's comments. Commissioner Cook stated that she would like to see views with and without the awnings and would like to see a perspective of the east elevation. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 5-1 vote, (Commissioner Foster opposed), that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review No. 790 to the July 22, 2008 meeting. B. OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) Consideration of architectural changes to CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 892 for the installation of an approved 50-foot tall cellular telecommunications facility designed as a church tower at Christ the King Church on 4.57 acres located at 1505 Ford Street in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Project Planner Chris Boatman indicated that the installation of the cellular telecommunications church tower was not consistent with prior Planning Commission approval. Mr. Boatman gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the facility. Staff recommended approval of the proposed architectural changes subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Dyer commented that the door to the equipment shelter was not done correctly and that the cross was missing. Mr. Boatman stated that the applicant is intending to install the cross and will add a condition that it be installed as originally proposed. Mr. Boatman indicated that the door was shown as a decorative element in the rendering and asked for the Commission's direction on how to proceed with the door. Commissioner Dyer supported staff's position in using the T1-11 in the center and the masonry on the edges. Commissioner Shamp commented that the soffet fascia height in the photographs appears to be lower than the original and that it is not clear that the tower height is the same. Mr. Boatman indicated that the tower height is as originally proposed but staff did not verify the height of the equipment structure to the tower and that the applicant could comment on how it was constructed. Monica Moretta, Omnipoint Communications, indicated that there were discrepancies relative to the drawings and photo simulations during the construction process that caused this issue. Ms. Moretta stated that T-Mobile agreed in adding the T1-11 material and the texture. Ms. Moretta stated that there is an issue with being able to find a vendor that can match the exact brick veneer that is on the church. Ms. Moretta would like the Commission to word the condition of approval to state that the brick veneer will be close in matching what is on the church. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he wanted to get some verification relative to the soffet height and asked who was responsible for maintaining the tower. Ms. Moretta stated that T-Mobile is responsible for Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 8 maintaining the facility. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he wanted some assurance that the tower would be maintained if the T1-11 is approved. Chairman Macdonald asked Commissioner Shamp if his request for maintenance was relative to painting the tower. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he would like the maintenance added as a condition of approval but was not prepared to move forward with any kind of approval until he gets verification regarding the fascia height. Commissioner Cook concurred with Commissioner Shamp and indicated that the Commission would not have originally approved the tower with T1-11 siding and need to find something better that the Commission could approve now. Commissioner Foster commented that the applicant did not build what was promised to the community and to build anything else is a travesty. Commissioner Foster stated that he is strongly opposed to doing anything to make this easier on the applicant. Commissioner James commented that is was not comfortable with the project as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Dyer stated that the T1-11 siding was a red flag due to the maintenance issue and supports the other Commissioner's in denying the project as proposed. Commissioner Cook indicated that she did not like the project and stated that either the applicant brings back a project that looks better or build it the way it was originally proposed. Chairman Macdonald asked about the symmetry of the tower. Director Orci indicated that the proportions can be checked. Director Orci commented that there was no reason to deny the project and that staff can work with the applicant to have the design modified per the Commission's recommendations that were made today. Commissioner Shamp had additional concerns relative to the equipment located on the side of the equipment shelter and indicated that it was highly exposed. He stated that the originally proposed tower sits on top of a base and that the new design has a low concrete curb which is less elegant and needs to go back to the original design. Chairman Macdonald asked for a continuance date. Mr. Boatman indicated that the project would be continued to the July 22nd Planning Commission meeting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 892 to the July 22, 2008 meeting. VI. MINUTES A. MAY 27, 2008 It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 4-0 vote, (Chairman Macdonald and Commissioner Shamp recused)to approve the minutes of May 27, 2008. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF MAY 20, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 9 Director Oscar Orci gave a brief presentation on the City Council Actions of June 3, 2008. VIII. ADJOURN TO JUNE 24, 2008 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting at 3:46 p.m. to June 24, 2008. Christine Szilva Oscar W. Orci, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of June 10, 2008 Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes of May 13, 2008 Page 11