Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 1-13-10_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, December 9, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: Jim Macdonald, Chairman Paul Foster, Vice Chairman Gary Miller, Commissioner Ruth Cook, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Carol Dyer, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF Oscar Orci, Director PRESENT: Robert Dalquest, Assistant Director Michael Reiter, Assistant City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Principal Planner Sergio Madera, Associate Planner Tabitha Kevari, Associate 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. II. CONSENT ITEMS A. MARK STANSON, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) PARCEL MAP NO. 19065 - Request to approve Final Parcel Map No. 19065 (Minor Subdivision No. 326), located between Barton Road and Brookside Avenue, west of Lakeside Avenue, in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller, 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. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 2. Consideration of COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 773 (REVISION NO. 2) to expand an existing commercial center with the development of a two-story, 18,200 square foot commercial building 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 gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of Commission Review and Approval No. 773 (Revision No. 2) subject to the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 1 Joe Donati, Investwest Partners, gave an overview of the project site and indicated that the one main change was the one foot contour due to the flood zone. Mr. Donati stated that the rest of the site was consistent with what was previously seen by the Commission. Mr. Donati indicated that the current street trees on Pearl Avenue and Eureka Street were not living due to the small tree wells. Commissioner Dyer indicated that an Eastern Redbud may be appropriate for the area. Mr. Baeza indicated that a condition of approval could be added requiring an Eastern Redbud or another type tree to be approved by staff. Commissioner Dyer concurred with Mr. Baeza and stated that the applicant could contact an arborist for a recommendation of a tree that would be suitable for the area. Commissioner Miller commented on the electrical room indicating that the electrical panel could be placed on the back part of the wall if the door was moved to the left side where the indented vestibule area was located. Mr. Donati stated that he would take Commissioner Miller's suggestion under consideration. Commissioner Miller recommended adding windows to the second story to give it a more balanced look. Commissioner Shamp asked Mr. Donati if they were pursuing getting LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Designation). Mr. Donati indicated that they currently qualify for a Silver LEED certification stating it was gained by adding a shower facility on the second floor. Commissioner Miller asked what material was being used for the planter boxes. Mr. Donati indicated that they were looking at using a combination of pre-cast and a faux metal look and alternating them so that there was a consistency among the windows. Commissioner Miller asked if it would be agreeable to add a condition of approval that stated that there will be a minimum of four(4) inches of relief from the main wall surface of the planter box and the building wall surface. Mr. Donati was agreeable with the added condition of approval. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 773 (R-2.) It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the parking plan for the Gateway Plaza subject to the following findings: 1. The requirements of all other applicable provisions of Chapter 18.164 are met; and 2. The reduction allowed under this Section provides sufficient parking to serve the intended and potential use of the proposed mixed use project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 2 to Commission Review and Approval No. 773, 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 the development standards of the Town Center District of Specific Plan No. 45 including setbacks and coverage limitations; Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 2 2. The site properly relates to adjoining streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development; Eureka Street and Pearl Avenue are both wide enough to accommodate traffic generated by the project; 3. The conditions of approval proposed for the revision to the Commission Review and Approval No. 773 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; the project is not likely to cause any serious public health problems, aside from temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in the project's environmental document. This includes the addition of conditions of approval numbers thirty-seven (37), thirty-eight(38) and thirty- nine (39)as follows: 37. Eastern Redbud trees shall be provided for the existing tree wells on Eureka Street and Pearl Avenue. 38. Windows shall be added to the second story at the east and north elevation at the northeast corner and the northwest corner of the building. 39. There shall be a minimum of 4" of relief between the surface of the planter box and the building wall surface. B. SHAHAB NOURANI, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TABITHA KEVARI) 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3 PUBLIC HEARING to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 930 to construct a 4,800 square foot self service car wash on a 1.5-acre lot located on the south side of Redlands Boulevard, west of Kansas Street at 1417 West Redlands Boulevard in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Project Planner Tabitha Kevari indicated that the applicant and staff needed additional time to work out several site design and landscaping requirement issues. Staff recommended continuance to the meeting of January 13, 2009. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Public Hearings on the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and Conditional Use Permit No. 930 to the meeting of January 13, 2009. C. ESRI, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) 1. Consideration of a Negative Declaration. 2. Consideration of COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 861 to construct an automobile parking lot containing 87 parking spaces on 1.03 acres Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 3 located on the south side of Plum Lane, approximately 200 feet east of Idaho Street in the Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan 25. Commissioner Miller recused himself from the meeting at 2:25 p.m. due to a conflict of interest. Project Planner Chris Boatman indicated that the applicant requested a continuance to the meeting of January 13, 2009 to allow additional time to complete the notifications that staff has requested and initiating contact directly with their adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 2:26 p.m. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote, (Commissioner Miller recused), that the Planning Commission continue consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 861 to January 13, 2009. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. MOUNTAINVIEW POWER LLC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: CHRIS BOATMAN) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 863 (REVISION 1) to construct an 18,000 square foot maintenance shop within the Mountainview Power Plant located on the northeast corner of Mountain View Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue in the M-2, General Industrial District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Chris Boatman gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval. Steve Johnson, Technical Manager for Mountain View Power, indicated that he was available to address questions from the Commission. No comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 863 (Revision 1) and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 863 (Revision 1). 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. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 4 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 863 (Revision 1) subject to the following findings and 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 all development standards established by, the M-2, General Industrial District; 2. 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; adjoining streets have been widened to their ultimate half width to accommodate projected staff within the vicinity of the project; 3. The Conditions of Approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 863 (Revision 1) are necessary to protect health, safety and welfare; the project is not likely to cause any serious public health problems as it is located entirely within the existing facility; 4. The use is desirable for the overall development of the community; the project will support a facility which provides energy to the surrounding region; 5. The proposed project will provide a support structure for an existing power generation facility which is consistent with the existing Light Industrial designation of the General Plan. B. MEDIAFLO USA, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: SERGIO MADERA) 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 940 to install a wireless telecommunication facility and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) broadcast antenna on an existing one hundred and fifty-four (154) foot tall tower located at 351 Alabama Street in the EV/IC, Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Sergio Madera gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Shamp indicated that there is a bird's nest at the top of the tower and asked if there was any discussion relative to getting a biologists recommendation on how to handle the nest. Mr. Madera indicated that staff was not aware of an existing bird's nest at the top of the tower. Jaime Hall, Outside Council for MediaFLO USA, gave an overview of the new service that MediaFLO USA will provide to its customers. Mr. Hall commented on Commissioner Shamp's concerns relative to the bird's nest indicating that the tower is owned by American Tower Corporation who has a specialist on staff who deals with situations relative to nesting. He indicated that before they can proceed with the construction of the project, they would need to get a Notice to Proceed from American Tower to ensure that they meet their standards. Commissioner Shamp asked if the applicant would be willing to accept a condition of approval indicating protection of any potential raptor nest on the tower. Mr. Hall commented that if there were any violations, Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 5 federal regulations would prohibit them from constructing the tower. He indicated that their proposed installation would be consistent with federal regulations. Commissioner Dyer asked if a condition of approval could be added that requires that a biologist ascertain that there is a viable nest on the existing tower and that federal regulations are met. Director Oscar Orci indicated that it can be required that the applicant have a biologist do an analysis to see if there are any raptor species on site. Mr. Hall indicated that a condition of approval could be added that indicates that there would be some due diligence to determine whether or not that there was a raptor on site prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant would provide evidence of compliance with federal regulations. Mr. Orci recommended that before taking an action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration, that the raptor issue be resolved and continue the project to the January 13, 2009 meeting. Mr. Hall was agreeable to the continuance. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Public Hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 940 to the meeting of January 13, 2009. C. OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS LLC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: SERGIO MADERA) 1. Consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 937 to install a sixty-five (65)foot high tower for a wireless telecommunication facility within an existing commercial center located at 1550 Orange Street in the C-2, Neighborhood Convenience Center District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Sergio Madera gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 937 subject to the conditions of approval. Mr. Madera stated that correspondence was received from the North Redlands Visioning Committee indicating their opposition to the wireless telecommunication facility. Commissioner Miller commented that the project site is in relatively poor condition relative to the landscaping and did not feel that the owner should be rewarded with new projects until they demonstrate some pride in what they already own. Commissioner Miller recommended adding a condition of approval that would assure ongoing maintenance of the center including the landscaping as a condition of continued use of the proposed tower. Chairman Macdonald asked is it was legal to add Commissioner Miller's recommended condition of approval. Assistant Attorney Michael Reiter stated he would research the situation. Commissioner Foster concurred with Commissioner Miller's concerns and recommended continuing the project until a clear answer relative to the maintenance of the center could be clarified. Commissioner James concurred with Commissioner Foster. Tim Miller, T-Mobile Representative, indicated that there also was a representative from Verizon Wireless present. Mr. Miller commented on the maintenance of the property and indicated that they have a letter of authorization that this entitlement goes to the property owner. Mr. Miller was agreeable to adding a Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 6 condition of approval relative to the maintenance of the site. He also gave an overview of the improved service that the cell tower would afford and of the proposed clock tower. Commissioner Miller commented that there were two carriers on the proposed tower and asked who would be the responsible party in ensuring that the landscaping would be maintained. Mr. Miller stated that they would find a way to share the cost between both carriers. He indicated that they would work with the owner in coming up with an abatement on the lease to recoup some of the costs in the event that it became too costly. Commissioner Miller commented that there would be complexities relative to how the maintenance would get done and how it would relate to the lease that they have with the owner. He indicated that the layout and landscaping plan would need to be finalized with the owner before moving forward with the project. Assistant City Attorney Michael Reiter stated that the existing center may be better handled in a Code Enforcement setting for failing to meet the standards of the code versus adding a condition of approval. He indicated that if applicant agreed to do the maintenance, he did not see a problem with it. Mr. Miller indicated that the situation would have to be worked out with the property owner. He stated they would do abatement to the lease and supply the plants and return to the site to ensure that it is maintained because they do not want to jeopardize their permit. Chairman Macdonald stated that the Commission would like to see the landscape plans prior to approving this project and see something formal between T-Mobile, Verizon and the property owner relative to who is responsible for maintaining this property. Mr. Miller stated that the installation would be their concern and that the maintenance would be taken care of by the property owner. However, he ensured the Commission that the maintenance would be taken care of by T-Mobile in the event it fell by the wayside. Commissioner Dyer commented that the interstall parking in front of the building was a big issue indicating that the diamond planters have nothing planted in them. She indicated that the paved area in the front needed to be improved where the rows of parking are located. Mr. Miller stated that they have a landscape architect looking into what would be appropriate for the planters. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was any discussion with staff relative to using a faux tree stealth treatment with a grove around it. Chairman Macdonald commented that the clock tower was out of place and did not look good. Mr. Madera indicated that the applicant originally proposed a faux pine stealth treatment but that staff suggested using a different type of stealth treatment since there were no trees of the scale required. Chairman Macdonald stated that a Eucalyptus tree stealth treatment would be more appropriate for the location with additional Eucalyptus trees around it. Mr. Madera indicated that there was not sufficient room to plant a substantial grove that would integrate the tower with real trees. Commissioner James asked if it was appropriate to apply a condition of approval requesting that Code Enforcement visit the site for conformance. In addition, he asked if the Conditional Use Permit can be withheld until the property owner gets the site into conformance and ensure that they are conforming before allowing other projects on the property. Assistant City Attorney Reiter indicated that he would like to research Commissioner James concerns. Director Orci indicated that staff could see if there was sufficient nexus to require these improvements on the site or if it would be considered a pre-existing condition where Code Enforcement needs to step in. Commissioner Dyer stated that the applicant could provide the Commission with information ensuring that they agree to do the improvements and maintain them which would be a better way to handle this rather than going through Code Enforcement. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Miller indicated that conditioning the permit would be the best way to handle the situation since it goes back to the owner. Commissioner Miller commented on his concerns relative to the design of the clock tower. He indicated that he would like to see the specific callout on the material being used for the roof and asked that there be some relief added to the tower. Commissioner Miller asked if the hands of the clock would move. Mr. Miller stated that the hands of the clock would move and indicated that the tower would not have a flat type surface. Commissioner Miller stated that it would be helpful if their architect would do a vertical section so that they could see the amount of relief that would be provided on the tower. Commissioner Miller asked about the equipment canopy indicating that it appeared to be a corrugated roof. Randi Newton, Verizon Wireless Representative, indicated that the canopy was corrugated metal which would be painted to match the wrought iron fence or the building. Commissioner Miller commented that there was something wrong with the drawing because it showed corrugated metal spanning from column to column and felt that there needed to be some beams for support and indicated that he would like to see some clarification. Commissioner Cook asked if the applicant had talked with the surrounding residents relative to the project. Mr. Miller indicated that they had not talked to the residents. Mr. Madera indicated that a letter had been received from the North Redlands Visioning Committee that indicated their concerns relative to the height of the tower. Commissioner Foster indicated that he wanted a consensus from the Commission as to whether the clock tower was appropriate. Commissioner Shamp stated that the tower was lackluster architecturally and indicated that the location and height was not appropriate for the area. Commissioner Miller stated that he was alright with the tower with some improvements on the design. Commissioner James indicated that he was not opposed to the cell tower or the height of the proposed structure but stated that the clock tower had a lot of mass. He stated that he would prefer some other design such as a Pine or Eucalyptus tree that could be complimented by other larger trees within the parking lot. Commissioner Dyer commented that the tower could be made more acceptable if there was adequate tree screening along the property line. Commissioner Dyer had concerns about the size of the tower but was in support of the project with adequate landscaping. Commissioner Cook commented that the architecture needs to be improved with more relief but indicated that the neighborhood would benefit from this tower if it was conditioned that the center would be better maintained. Commissioner Foster stated that he did not have an objection to the clock tower concept. He indicated that a fake tree in that location would look worse than the proposed clock tower which is more conducive to the overall aesthetic of the plaza. Commissioner Foster would be more interested in the comments from the neighbors than he would be from the North Redlands Visioning Committee. He would be willing to support the project with some of the changes that Commissioner Miller proposed on the architecture of the tower. Chairman Macdonald commented that the clock tower is inappropriate for the location indicating that it is out of proportion and out of place. He indicated that he was firmly in opposition not only to the clock tower but to the fake trees as well. Chairman Macdonald indicated that the project should be continued to Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 8 the January 13, 2009 meeting so that some of the issues can be addressed. He would like to see a survey conducted of the neighborhood where the residents are actually talked to rather than having a letter sent out. Commissioner Foster concurred with Chairman Macdonald indicating that he would also like to hear from the neighbors which may sway his decision in a different way. Mr. Miller stated that he did not have a problem meeting with the neighbors to get their input on the clock tower. Commissioner James stated that he was in favor of co-location but indicated that the tower looked like a box and was too massive. Commissioner Macdonald commented that two simulated fifty (50) foot trees would look better than the single tower. Mr. Miller stated that he would look at Commissioner Miller's designs for the clock tower and would make a few trips to the neighbors for their input on the project. Commissioner Cook asked Mr. Miller if he could bring a photo simulation to the next meeting showing what two large trees would look like at the proposed location. Mr. Miller indicated that they had a photo simulation available that showed an actual Pine tree stealth treatment. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Public Hearing to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 937 to the meeting of January 13, 2009. V. ADDENDA- None VI. MINUTES A. November 25, 2008 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the minutes of November 25, 2008. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF DECEMBER 2, 2008 Director Oscar Orci gave a brief presentation on the City Council Actions of December 2, 2008. VIII. ADJOURN TO JANUARY 13, 2009 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting at 3:56 p.m. to January 13, 2009. Christine Szilva Oscar Orci, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 9 Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2008 Page 10