03/13/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Milton Solomon, representing the Sign Company, reiterated his statements that the rationale for the ____ J___ •1 _ L •L_• .L~ !~ • .....1..•...1 .. .1:1C..-..-.• ,w....1«... •.k ..~.~....n w. tin.. 1~.nk ..r{.~r{. Mr. Milton Solomon, representing the Sign Company, reiterated his statements that the rationale for the variance was due to the fact that the Center mandated a different sign treatment program than that which would be permitted under the City's current zoning standards. Commissioners Mondo, Solorio, and Verino provided several comments relative to the maintenance and sign conditions at the existing Home Depot Center and expressed concern that the lack of attention to the Commission's concern at that site may manifest themselves at the Home Depot Edinger site. Discussion focused upon a strong concern that the same maintenance issues may be repeated at the proposed project site. Motion to adopt a resolution denying Variance No. 00-O1. ' Commissioner Solorio expressed discomfort in supporting all of the components of the variance. Commissioner Verino requested comparison to the sign variance granted to the Riverview West shopping center. Commissioner Mondo expressed a lack of confidence in Home Depot's ability to maintain a maintenance program commensurate with the City's expectations. MOTION: Solorio SECONDED: Mondo AYES: Mondo, Solorio, Verino, and Cribb OPPOSED: None ABSENT: Nalle, Doughty, and Richardson ABSTAINED: None 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-29 AND APPEAL OF THE PLANNING MANAGER'S Filed by Ms. Barbara Saito, Nextel Communication, Inc. to allow an increase in height of an existing monopole and to appeal the Planning Manager's decision regarding site improvements located at 1234 South Main Street in the General Commercial (C1) zoning district. PUBLISHED IN THE REGISTER: February 4, 2000 ' PUBLICLY NOTICED: February 4, 2000 (Continued by the Planning Commission February 28, 2000 to March I3, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive and file the Categorical Exemption for Environmental Review No. 99-38. 2. Adopt a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 99-29. 3. Deny Appeal of the Planning Manager's Decision No. 00-O1. (Action only necessary if Planning Commission approves the conditional use permit) Ms. Lynnette Perry, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the activities and discussions that occurred during the two week continuance period. She indicated that the applicant had modified her request regarding the tree planting requirement, however, did not wish to address any of the additional on-site requirements. Mr. Tim Kendricks, Wilshire Square Neighborhood Association, spoke in against the application request based on the fact that no serious negotiations occurred between the applicant and the neighborhood group. Mr. John White, Merchant's Association, stated that the Association had a neutral position but expressed concern regarding the potential environmental impacts of a proliferation of 60 foot telecommunication poles along the South Main corridor. ' Ms. Bazbara Saito, representing the applicant, reaffirmed her request for support to the project as part of the evolution of the telecommunication industry. She offered to provide two new palm trees comparable with the sizes accepted by the City at other monopalm sites. Several of the Commissioners raised questions regarding the maintenance of the site, specifically, weeds and debris that appeared on several of the photographs. Motion to adopt a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 99-29. Several of the Commissioners expressed that the proximity of the monopalm was too close to the existing neighborhood. 5