APPROVED CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER Chair Stone called the meeting to order at 7:01PM. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Present: Cox, Fox, Dawson, Doyle, Lagomarsino, Stone Commission Absent: Gross Staff Present: Becker, Bermudez, Hicks, Ramsay, Sherman 3. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Dawson led the flag salute. 4. ELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Albert Fox was nominated for Planning Commission Chair. The vote passed unanimously. Rick Doyle was nominated for Planning Commission vice Chair. The vote passed unanimously. 5. PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Fox opened the public comment. Resident, Gerald Kumpp spoke in opposition to the proposed Creek Trail Corridor project and said many people are upset about the project and are concerned with loss of privacy and crime issues. Resident, Ron Pierce spoke in opposition to Phase II only of the proposed Creek Trail Corridor project due to the interruption of wildlife, safety and privacy issues and flooding concerns. Resident Mike Byrd spoke in opposition to the proposed Creek Trail Corridor and said he would like to see a wildlife impact study done and would like to know how security would be enforced. Mr. Byrd also voiced concerns regarding how the project would negatively affect property values. Resident, Sharon Van Maren voiced concerns regarding the proposed Creek Trail Corridor project being built on private land and suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to come up with an alternative plan to use public land instead of private land.
Resident, Michael Bullington spoke in opposition to the proposed Creek Trail Corridor project and said that there are many issues that are upsetting to the residents. They would need to clear oak trees and other issues that destroy the functionality of what he and other residents have purchased their homes for. Resident, Craig Rust spoke in opposition to the proposed Creek Trail Corridor project. Chair Fox closed the public comment. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 12, 2013 as amended. Leah Cox requested that her comment regarding the color of the crosswalk for the Tupelo Parking/Retail Building project be added to the Commission comments to read the proposed colors for the crosswalk are not contrasting colors M/S: Stone/Doyle AYES: 6 (Cox, Dawson, Doyle, Fox, Lagomarsino, Stone) ABSENT: 1 (Gross) 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. FREEWAY ORIENTATED SIGN - FILE # UP-13-04 6510 ANTELOPE ROAD. Project Planner Bermudez presented a request for approval of a Use Permit for the installation of a 60-foot freeway orientated sign for Stones Gambling Hall & Tavern. The sign has space that would allow for freeway identification of other tenants within the Antelope Crossing Business Area. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Associate Planner Bermudez presented video clips of the drive test that was performed on January 8, 2014 which provided a visualization representation of a 30, 40, 50 and 60 foot high sign and addressed the Commission s questions. Staff provided the Commission a copy of a letter they received from Michael Garabedian and an email they received from Tonya Wagner. There was Planning Commission and staff discussion. Chair Fox opened the public hearing. Michael Garabedian said this is an excellent project for the area but he has issues with the sign and concerns that it does not properly represent the area. Gerry Vinson spoke in opposition to the sign due to the proposed height. 2
Applicant Masis Kevorkian addressed the commission s comments and concerns. Chair Fox closed the public hearing. Commission Comments Commissioner Cox said this doesn t look like something you would see going down the street in Citrus Heights, but the height makes sense and it does meet code. Commissioner Lagomarsino said he would have liked more time to review the letter submitted by Michael Garabedian. Vice Chair Doyle spoke in favor of the project and said that the sign will attract attention but it is not flashy or blinding. Commissioner Stone said that staff did an excellent job and also complemented Mr. Garabedian on his well-written letter. Commissioner Dawson spoke in favor of this project and said that she is involved with the Chamber of Commerce from a business owner s point of view and this is what businesses desire and she applauds this group for financing the sign and helping out the businesses. Chair Fox spoke in favor of the project and said that 60 feet gives enough warning for people transitioning off the freeway. Motion to Approve the Use Permit for the installation of a 60-foot tall freeway orientated sign, based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in the staff report as amended. M/S: Stone/Lagomarsino AYES: 6 (Cox, Dawson, Doyle, Fox, Lagomarsino, Stone) ABSENT: 1 (Gross) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT The site cannot be adequately identified by other signs permitted within the Special Planning Area. The proposed sign is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and Municipal Code. The proposed sign is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 3
The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the sign are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The site is physically suitable for the sign, including access, utilities, and is absent of physical constraints. Granting the permit would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the proposed sign is located. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - USE PERMIT 1. The applicant shall comply with all City of Citrus Heights Codes and Regulations, including but not limited to the Citrus Heights Municipal Code and Zoning Code, Uniform Building Code; and Uniform Fire Code. 2. The development approved by this action is described herein as the installation of a freeway orientated sign as shown in Exhibit A. Minor modifications to the project, may be approved by Community and Economic Development Department staff, provided such changes are consistent with the overall project as approved herein. Major modifications will require Planning Commission approval. [Planning] 3. Any plans submitted to the Building Division for review and approval shall indicate all approved revisions/alterations as approved by the Planning Commission. [Planning] 4. The electronic sign portion of the sign shall only display time, temperature, or date. If at some point in time the City s Sign Ordinance is changed to allow electronic message boards the applicant is allowed to operate the electronic message board without modification to the Use Permit. All messages must be in conformance with the City regulations, the provisions of the California Outdoor Advertising Act and the California Code of Regulations. [Planning] 5. Landscaping is required to be installed around all sides of the base of the sign (minimum of 3-foot) to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. The applicant shall provide a final landscape plan to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the building permit. If necessary, no more than two parking spaces may be removed to adjust the size of the landscape planter to accommodate the base of the sign. [Planning] 6. The sign may not display off-site tenant signage. On-site tenants include businesses within the Antelope Crossing commercial area. [Planning] 4
a) The tenants within 6510 Antelope Road shall not occupy more than 275 square feet of signage per sign face (does not include electronic sign area. b) Identification signs #1 through #4 shall be installed and remain in place as an architectural element even if the sign does not have business identification copy.. [Planning] 7. The applicant is responsible the repair and maintenance of the sign including lighting, painting, graffiti removal, and nuisance bird removal, and other similar maintenance needs. [Planning] 8. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents and consultants from any and all administrative, legal or equitable actions or other proceedings instituted by any person not a party to this Permit challenging the validity of the Agreement or any Project Approval or any Subsequent Project Approval, or otherwise arising out of or stemming from this Agreement. Developer may select its own legal counsel to represent Developer s interests at Developer s sole cost and expense. The parties shall cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. Developer shall pay for City's costs of defense, whether directly or by timely reimbursement on a monthly basis. Such costs shall include, but not be limited to, all court costs and attorneys' fees expended by City in defense of any such action or other proceeding, plus staff and City Attorney time spent in regard to defense of the action or proceeding. The parties shall use best efforts to select mutually agreeable defense counsel but, if the parties cannot reach agreement, City may select its own legal counsel and Developer agrees to pay directly or timely reimburse on a monthly basis City for all such court costs, attorney fees, and time referenced herein. 8. REGULAR CALENDAR None 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM to the next meeting February 26, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, Karen Ramsay Planning Commission Secretary 5