Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090303 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:05 P.M., on Wednesday, September 3, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso and Telesio Absent: Chairman Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 3, 2003. 2. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of August 6, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who abstained from Item No. 2 and Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's request, the Commission unanimously agreed to move Item No. 3 as the first item on the agenda. COMMISSION BUSINESS Design Guidelines Workshop to be discussed after Item No. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NEWITEMS Planninq Application No. PA03-0226 a Development Plan to desi.qn and construct an eleven buildinq liqht industrial complex in two phases totalinq 127,162 square feet on 8.91 acres located on the south side of Remin.qton Avenue, approximately 900 feet west of Diaz Road, Stuart Fisk, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA03-0226 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0A03-0226, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT AN ELEVEN BUILDING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN TWO PHASES TOTALING 127,162 SQUARE FEET ON 8.91 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF REMINGTON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 909-370-012 AND 909-370-016 Assistant Planner Fisk provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: That this planning application is a request to design and construct, in two phases, an eleven-building, light industrial complex, totaling 127,162 square feet on 8.91 acres and to be located on the south side of Remington Avenue, approximately 900 feet west of Diaz Road; That the proposed project will be consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Light Industrial (LI) zone; that the building setbacks meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Development Code; that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .33 will be below the target ratio of .4 for this zoning district; That access to the site will be provided at three locations off Remington Avenue with parking being provided throughout the site; that the drive aisle layout will allow for circulation of emergency vehicles as well as multiple routes through the site. Architecture That the proposed architecture will include painted concrete tilt-up buildings, the use of glass, bull-nosed cornice entry panels, accent tiles, cast V reveals, wrought iron gates, and trellis structures; that the proposed building entries will include bull-nosed cornice panels and glass door ways that recess behind the main wall; that the roofline has varied parapet heights at the office entry locations; that many of the entries will feature painted metal canopies; that the buildings will include various breaks and angles in the wall planes which provide for screening of the loading areas as well as breaking up building mass from street view; That the front set back will include trellis patio cover structures at the front of three of the five buildings along Remington Avenue which will as well serve to provide visual offsets and add interest to the street facing facades. LandscapinR That the landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and Design Guidelines; that the tree and shrub placement will serve to effectively screen onsite parking areas and effectively soften building elevations; that the landscaping also serves to tie the site together in that the landscaping along Remington Avenue will provide strong visual identification of the street frontage associated with the project; and that the landscape scheme presented along the street frontage will be carried throughout the project; That the project proposes a total of 337 trees and 4,572 shrubs located throughout the project site, which will establish a height standard for future development on surrounding parcels. Site Plan That two phases of development are proposed for the project; that phase one may be developed as a stand-alone project; that required screening will be provided for all loading and trash enclosure areas; that circulation requirements (including Fire Department access requirements) will be met; that full landscaping of all of the phase one portion of the project will be provided; that the timeframe of phase two has not been determined and would not be anticipated to be within six months of completion of phase one; and that the project has been conditioned to temporarily seed and irrigate phase two for dust and soil erosion control in accordance with the Development Code. Environmental Determination That the project will be larger than five acres in size and will not qualify for an exemption from CEQA and, therefore, an Initial Environmental study was prepared; that staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project; That staff had determined that the proposed eleven-building, light industrial complex, as conditioned, will be consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all applicable ordinances, standards, guidelines, and polices; that staff also would recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Plan. For Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen explained that when the construction plans are submitted, staff will not sign off on the project unless the air conditioning has been properly screened, as per the standard conditions of approval. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John Bragg, 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, #510, applicant, stated that he would agree with the recommended conditions and would be available for any questions. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Commissioners Telesio, Mathewson, and Olhasso relayed their support of the proposed project. ALthough agreeing with his fellows Commissioners' support, Commissioner Guerriero expressed his disappointment with the cornice elements. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Item No. 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS By way of a PowerPoint, Senior Planner Naaseh reviewed the process of hiring the firm RRM to update the Design Guidelines and introduced Mr. Mark Brodeur, representing RRM Development Group. Advising that he was the original author of the City's current Design Guidelines, Mr. Brodeur explained that tonight's goal would be to gauge the Commission's and public input in order to make the Design Guidelines more specific and understandable by the community and, at the same time, raising the bar for quality. Mr. Brodeur provided an overview of steps undertaken to date, noting the following: Conducted a kick-off meeting with staff in order to determine what has worked and what does not work; Reviewed and commented on the existing Design Guidelines; · Current Design Guidelines were given to an RRM Development Review Team for comments; · Staff identified the problem areas of the Design Guidelines. By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Brodeur reviewed the reasoning for a City having Design Guidelines; commented on the necessary changes to the current Design Guideline; presented various examples of types of homes and buildings; reviewed the standards of each type of home and buildings; clarified the changes necessary to the current Design Guideline in an effort to achieve a certain type of development quality; reviewed examples of various types of architecture for shopping centers, highlighting parking, lighting, and landscaping; and stated that the ensure the most effective Design Guidelines, staff would recommend developing more standards and fewer guidelines, commenting on requiring particular material pallets and prohibiting franchise architecture. Mr. Brodeur suggested the development of a visual document by providing pictures of actual buildings with a list of standards for each type of architecture. Because of the constraints standards may impose on a project, Mr. James Horecka, 32902 Haddock Street, architect, urged the Commission to create a balance and suggested the development of tiers within the Design Guidelines; recommended streamlining the application process by staff; requested a copy of the draft Development Guidelines for review. 4 Mr. Carlos Madrid, 515 S. Flower, DMJM Architecture, requested that the Commission consider adding sustainability, environmental issues, and lighting designs into the Design Guidelines. Mr. Walt Allen, 28441 Rancho California Road, complimented and echoed Mr. Horecka's vision of development; stated that each design should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis; and requested to be included on the Committee that would be reviewing the draft Design Guidelines. Relaying her preference with the consultant's recommendation to not restrict to define the Design Guidelines, Commissioner OIhasso reviewed different types of development around the County and requested to receive suggestions from staff. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske addressed the labeling of types of homes and buildings. Commissioner Mathewson requested that the neighborhood scale in the residential neighborhoods be studied; concurred with Commissioner Olhasso on not restricting but defining the Design Guidelines; and noted the importance of staff training. Commissioner Guerriero relayed his desire for a more animated monumentation at the larger intersections such as a waterfall or fountain shows; suggested that the minimum landscaping standard be raised from 20% to 25%; requested that development of more single-story structures; and recommended the use of environmental materials. Noting that more landscaping is not always better, Mr. Vincent Di Donato, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, landscape architect, stated that the importance is the location of the landscaping and expressed concern with constraints on the standards of development. Viewing balance as a very important part of a project, Mr. Horecka relayed his concurrence with creating a signature element for the community. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that an amendment has been discussed with regard to the Old Town Design Guidelines; that the amendment will be forwarded to the Old Town Local Review Board; and that it would then be forwarded to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council for final review. Commissioner Telesio expressed concern with having too much constraint on the standards and, thereby, eliminating creativity. Commissioner OIhasso advised that Mr. David Salawitz, a former analysist for the City of Ontario, reviewed products proposed and pricing structures; advised that he had provided an analysis, stating that the City of Ontario was under building for its community; and requested whether a residential or commercial developer may be required to submit this type of analysis. In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that although specific measures would require exploration, a developer might be required to provide such information. Commissioner Mathewson suggested that both the landscape and building design should be submitted at the beginning of the project and that a specific landscape theme, compatible with the architectural style, be emphasized in the Design Guidelines. For Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen stated that a terminology/definitions section would be added to the Design Guidelines. Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified the difference between the adoption of an ordinance and the approval of guidelines, noting that an ordinance is a penal statute of the City or jurisdiction that adopts it; that the adoption of an ordinance would be City law; and that guidelines have more flexibility because they are not law. With additional Commission discussion ensuing, it was agreed to incorporate more authentic designs; that it is important for staff and the architects to work as a team; that the statement creating a good sense of entry to any type of business in the Design Guidelines must be addressed; that defining the elements that assist staff in establishing quality projects will be critical; that signage should be addressed; that single-story homes should be clustered to avoid the skyscraper syndrome which, depending on its orientation, would take away natural sunlight; that hardscaped areas be incorporated into landscaped areas; and that the proposed guidelines should be developed in a fashion so that the applicants/architects are fully aware of the minimum requirements. Mr. Bredeur stated, for Commissioner Telesio, that because it would not be possible to define every type of architecture, he would recommend to establish a criterion of preferences versus defining particular architecture. Mr. Roger Ziemer, 30367 Via Camada, requested that the Commission review the book that was formulated from a consumer survey and was issued at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference, clarifying buyer's expectations and noted that the younger population is no longer desirous of the standard two-story residence. Mr. Horecka commented on the danger of legislative style and expressed concern with the use of the word authentic. Associate Planner Long stated that a priority list should be established to reflect what the Committee and what staff would envision in a typical commemial center. Senior Planner Naaseh explained that staff and the consultant will further review the matter after which the item would be readdressed by the Commission. Planning Director Ubnoske suggested first bringing forward the industrial section of the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the architect and development community for the input and attendance at the meeting. The Commissioners complimented the Planning Department staff for their associated efforts. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Mathewson stated concern with the placement of a coming soon banner on a fence at the Bel Villagio Plaza and questioned whether Public Works Director Hughes would be addressing streetscape issues. 6 For Commissioner Mathewson. Planning Director Ubnoske advised that staff has determined that the utility boxes have been incorrectly placed and that staff is currently having several other issues with Harveston. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Ubnoske thanked the Commission for its support and words of support to staff; advised that staff may bring forth Development Code amendments regarding the Design Guidelines; and noted that she would as well like to review the consumer survey from the Pacific Coast Builders Conference. ADJOURNMENT At 9:00 P.M., Vice Chairman Telesio formally adjourned the meeting to the next reclular meetinR to be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 6:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 e~.s W. Chiniaeff [.,~alrman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning 7