HomeMy WebLinkAbout022101 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 2t, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday February 21, 2001, in the. City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff,
Chairman Guerriero.
Mathewson, Webster, and
Absent:
Commissioner Telesio.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz,
Project Planner Rush, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 ARenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 21, 2001.
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of December 6, 2000.
2.2 Approve the minutes of December 20, 2000.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and
2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent, Commissioner
Chiniaeff who abstained with regard to Item No. 2.1, and Commissioner Webster who
abstained with regard to Item No. 2.2.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
3 Director's Hearing Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and File
It was noted that due to this Item being a receive and file matter that the Planning
Commission took no formal action with respect to this item.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4
Planning Application 00-0257 (Conditional Use Permit) - Sprint PCS Unmanned
Cellular Facility to design, construct and operate an unmanned Sprint wireless
communication facility located at the Rancho California Water District's Norma
Marsha Reservoir site located at 41520 Margarita Road - Rolfe Preisendanz,
Assistant Planner - continued from February 7, 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0257, A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE AN
UNMANNED SPRINT WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA
WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR
SITE LOCATED AT 4'1520 MARGARITA ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 940-230-002
Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the
revisions to the plan since this matter was continued from the January 31, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting; relayed that the applicant has modified the rendering to be
consistent with the design which will actually be constructed, that additional branches
have been added to the monopine, that the size of the antenna has been reduced which
would now be tighter to the tree trunk; and confirmed that the antenna will be the same
color as the foliage.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding Condition No. 18
(regarding compliance with the conditions prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this
permit), Assistant Planner Preisendanz confirmed that compliance with the conditions
would be inclusive of adequate camouflaging of the antenna.
Mr. Steve Stackhouse, representing the applicant, relayed that the monopine would be
dense, adequately camouflaging the antenna; noted that at a future point there could be
a second carrier located on this monopine; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that
the materials utilized in the construction of the monopine are UV treated in order for the
materials to retain their color, advising that the expected life of the manufactured
needles was approximately 15-20 years, and that the simulated bark had a life
expectation of approximately 30 years with basic maintenance (i.e., painting every 10-15
years).
Commissioner Mathewson relayed appreciation to the applicant and staff for addressing
the concerns of the Planning Commission (i.e., creating a monopine that appeared more
similar to an actual tree).
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was
absent, and Commissioner Webster who abstained.
Planning Application 00-0416 (Development Plan) - Scott Electric Building, to desi.qn
and construct a 13,550 square foot office/warehouse building on a 1.06 acre lot
located at the north side of Roick [third pad (APN 909-282-013)] - Rick Rush,
Planner I - continued from February 7, 2001.
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0416 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CiTY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0416 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 13,550
SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING
(SCOTT'S ELECTRIC BUILDING), ON A 1.06 ACRE LOT
LOCATED AT THE NORTH SIDE OF ROICK (THIRD
PAD), KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-
047.
Project Planner Rush provided an overview of the project plan (per agenda material),
highlighting the location, the General Plan designation (Business Park), the zoning (Light
Industrial), the dimensions of the site, the building area, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the
building height, the access, the parking area, the trash enclosure, the loading zone, the
employee lunch area, the landscape plan (which far exceeds the requirements), and the
proposed retaining wall; presented the elevation plans, relaying the materials which
would be utilized, the entry statement design elements, the gray roll-up doors, the
parapet which would screen the roof-mounted equipment; and noted that staff was
recommending that there be a slight color variation utilized in addition to the texture
variation, requesting the Planning Commission's input regarding this recommendation.
For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Rush relayed that there was no proposed 6-
foot chain-linked fencing on the north side of the project; and for Commissioner Webster,
confirmed that staff was recommending that there be a color variation on the single band
block, relaying that staff was not recommending a specific color be utilized for this
variation.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. David Wakefield, representing the applicant, relayed
that the applicant was willing to add the color variation recommended by staff, noting no
preference with respect to the specific color added.
Commissioner Webster concurred with staff's recommendation to add a slight color
variation in addition to the proposed texture variation, recommending that staff work with
the applicant regarding the details of the modification.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation inclusive of staff working with the applicant regarding adding
color variation above the first floor windows. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Telesio who was absent.
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the applicant for Agenda Item No. 6 would be
delayed due to traffic, requesting the Planning Commission to consider Agenda Item No.
7 next.
It was noted that the meeting recessed at 6:45 P.M., reconvening at 6:53 P.M.
6
Plannin.q Application 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) - Scoffs
Manufacturin.q Facility- Kearny Real Estate Lot Split, to subdivide 31 + net acres of
industrially zoned property into two (2) lots. Proposed Parcel 1 is the Scotts
Manufacturing Facility site, currently under construction. Proposed Parcel z is the
area oriRinally desi.qnated for the expansion of the Scoffs facility located at the
southeast corner of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of
Winchester Road - Carole Donahoe, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Reaffirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-05'13 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 30044), THE SUBDIVISION OF 3'1+ NET ACRES
INTO TWO (2) INDUSTRIAL LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF
DENDY PARK~NAY AND THE EXTENSION OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 909-370-022, -025, -026 AND -027
This Agenda Item was considered out of order, subsequent to consideration of
Agenda Item No. 7; see pages 8-10.
It was noted that the Planning Commission now considered Agenda item No. 7 out
of order.
7 Plannin.q Application 00-0110 (Development Plan) - Tres D. LLC to desi.qn and
construct a industrial storage facility comprised of ei.qht buildings with a total Ol
64,073 square feet on 1.82 acres - Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0110 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-0110 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN
INDUSTRIAL STORAGE FACILITY (WESTSlDE
STORAGE) COMPRISED OF EIGHT BUILDINGS WITH
A TOTAL OF 64,073 SQUARE FEET, ON 1.82 ACRES
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
WINCHESTER ROAD WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-056, 909-3'10-
063, & 909-3'10-065.
Via overheads, Senior Planner Hazen presented the staff report (or record), noting that
the proposed plan was for the development of eight (8) storage buildings on a 1.82-acre
site, specifying the location, the zoning (Light Industrial), the access point, the location of
the office, the parking provisions, and the landscaping plan; relayed the materials which
would be utilized; and presented a rendering of the front setback from Winchester Road.
For Commissioner Webster, Senior Planner Hazen specified that this project would have
a forty-five-and-a-half percent (45.5%) lot coverage, relaying that this data was reflected
in the table on page 2 of the staff report; clarified that with the upper level floor this
proposal exceeded the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), relaying that the finding justifying this
increase would be based on to the architectural quality of the project; and noted that the
FAR increase was governed by the Light Industrial Standards which was a maximum
increase of 1.0, advising the requirement for a finding to justify the increase.
Commissioner Webster relayed that typically there was additional data in the staff report
regarding a request for a FAR increase.
For informational purposes, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the bougainvillea
denoted on the landscape plan typically did not grow well in this area.
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the London plane trees along the frontage
be increased in size.
Mr. Ron Wylie, representing the applicant, noted the efforts expended on the plan to
create the aesthetic qualities this project proposes.
The Commission relayed the following closing comments:
With respect to the FAR increase, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that for the findings
for the FAR increase this particular use was appropriate for this site due to the fact that
this area had a fault line traversing through it; and reiterated his recommendations
regarding the landscaping.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he was pleased with the architectural
treatment proposed on this particular project.
With respect to the FAR findings, Commissioner Webster relayed that he did not
concur with staff regarding this project proposing excellent architecture, advising that in
his opinion, this project did not qualify for the FAR increase, recommending that there
either be additional landscaping or that the FAR be reduced; and recommended
replacing the eucalyptus trees with an alternate evergreen tree.
Concurring with Commissioner Webster, Chairman Guerriero relayed a desire for
additional landscaping and that the eucalyptus trees be replaced with an alternate
evergreen tree; and noted that in his opinion the architecture was great, and that this use
would satisfy a need in the area.
With respect to the eucalyptus trees, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this type of
tree provided height against the building, noting the need for balance with taller trees. In
response, Commissioner Webster relayed that the negative issues associated with
eucalyptus trees was regarding the maintenance of trees (i.e., the trees being drastically
cut back) which restricted the tree from serving aesthetic purposes, advising that an
alternate fast-growing evergreen would be better-suited in this area.
Senior Planner Hazen queried whether the Planning Commission had specific
recommendations regarding adding additional landscaping; queried whether the
Planning Commission would concur with adding additional landscaping at the rear of the
project. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the back of the property was
adjacent to no other development.
MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion failed.) Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to
close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation subject to the following:
Add-
That the London plane trees be increased in both size (to a 24-inched box
minimum), and number (to be worked out with staff), and that there be
investigation as to whether the number of the podocarpus trees should be
increased in number.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected denial
of the motion due to Commissioner Telesio being absent, and Chairman Guerriero and
Commissioner Webster voting no.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that he would prefer to have additional information
regarding Senior Planner Hazen's comments associated with wrapping additional
landscaping around the back of the site.
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that his rationale for not requiring additional
landscaping at the rear of the site was due to there being no development adjacent to
the property. In response, Chairman Guerriero relayed that he would recommend
installation of additional landscaping on the corner area since it was not known when the
adjacent site would be developed.
Mr. Wylie relayed that the applicant would be willing to reduce the size of the front
building in order to wrap landscaping around the corner. In response, Chairman
Guerriero advised that he would not require the applicant to reduce the building size
due to the need for storage use space in the community.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that an alternative concept would be to set the
building on Winchester Road further back, to eliminate the two parking spaces (noting
that the project was over-parked), and to provide additional landscaping up front. The
applicant relayed agreement with this recommendation.
MOTION: (Ultimately the following motion was amended.) Commissioner Chiniaeff
moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation subject to the
following:
Add-
That the London plane trees be increased in both size (to a 24-inched box
minimum), and number (to be worked out with staff), and that there be
investigation as to whether the number of the podocarpus trees should be
increased in number.
That [he single small building on Winchester Road be moved farther back,
the two parking spaces be eliminated, and that the same landscape palette
be installed in this area.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson.
Commissioner Webster queried whether this motion included the replacing of the
eucalyptus trees with an alternate evergreen tree.
Chairman Guerriero advised that staff could investigate as to whether there was a
feasible alternate tree that would provide an equitable height.
FINAL MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to
approve staff's recommendation subject to the following:
Add-
That the London plane trees be increased in both size (to a 24-inched box
minimum), and number (to be worked out with staff), and that there be
investigation as to whether the number of the podocarpus trees should be
increased in number.
That the single small building on Winchester Road be moved farther back,
the two parking spaces be eliminated, and that the same landscape palette
be installed in this area.
· That the applicant work with staff to investigate whether there was a
suitable replacement tree for the eucalyptus trees which would provide an
equitable height.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote approval with
the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent.
At this time the Planning Commission considered Agenda Item No. 6.
6 Planning Application 00-0513 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 30044) - Scotts
Manufacturing Facility- Kearny Real Estate Lot Split, to subdivide 31 + [~et acres of
industrially zoned property into two (2) lots. Proposed Parcel 1 is the Scotts
Manufacturin,q Facility site, currently under construction. Proposed Parcel z is the
area ori.qinally designated for the expansion of the Scotts facility located at the
southeast corner of the extension of Dendy Parkway and the extension of
Winchester Road - Carole Donahoe, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Reaffirm the Mitigated Negative Declaration previously adopted;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 00-05'13 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 30044), THE SUBDIVISION OF 31+_ NET ACRES
INTO '1~/O (2) INDUSTRIAL LOTS, LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXTENSION OF
DENDY PARKWAY AND THE EXTENSION OF
WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NOS. 909-370-022, -025, -026 AND -027
Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (per agenda material), noting that
the Planning Commission approved PA No. 00-0335 on November 15, 2000 which was
a Fast Track Development Plan for Scoffs Manufacturing Facility, specifying the location
of the site, advising that since that approval the property owner informed staff that the
Scoffs Manufacturing Facility would not be leasing the entire 31 acres and that the
property owner planned on subdividing the property in order to utilize the remaining
acreage; noted that due to the lot split, the Scoffs Manufacturing Facility would now
exceed the target FAR, ergo the matter was being brought before the Planning
Commission for consideration; relayed that the FAR would now be .42 while the zoning
requires .40, relaying that staff supported the applicant's request for a FAR increase
based on the following items: 1) the increase would not exceed the maximum density
range, 2) the City Engineer has determined that the impacts resulting from the increase
have been mitigated (per the Conditions of Approval for PA Nos. 00-0335, and 00-0296),
3) the facility will provide exceptional employment opportunities, 4) this particular project
was designed with exceptional architecture and landscape amenities, and 5) the Scoffs
Manufacturing Facility is providing enhanced public facilities (which exceed those
required as part of the mitigation measures for the project); and advised that staff was
recommending adding Condition No. 61 (per supplemental agenda material) which
addresses compliance with the recommendations setforth in the Riverside County Flood
Control & Conservation District's transmittal, dated February 16, 2001.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Curley advised that although Commissioner
Mathewson was not present at the original hearing when this issue was approved, that
he could participate in taking action on this item due to the data being new.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that initially Parcel
No. 2 was identified as a future expansion area and was required to be hydroseeded
and landscaped; and noted that this map has been conditioned to provide perimeter
landscaping along both Dendy Parkway and Remington Avenue, advising that the Scotts
Manufacturing Facility would be adding landscaping, as required, along the perimeter of
their site.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Donahoe specified where the
landscaping would be located, confirming that the landscaping would be installed around
the perimeter of the new parcel if the parcel map records, noting that if the map did not
record the Development Plan for Scotts Manufacturing Facility would require the
applicant to comply with that associated landscape plan; and confirmed that this matter
was before the Planning Commission due to the request for a FAR increase.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that staff opted to
bring this issue before the Planning Commission, acknowledging that the modification
was insignificant, due to the project being initially approved by the Planning Commission;
and noted that in the future, if it was the Planning Commission's desire, this type of
matter could be addressed at a Director's Hearing rather than at the Planning
Commission level.
Commissioner Mathewson noted appreciation for staff bringing the matter to the
Planning Commission, advising that the cimumstances warranted consideration by the
Commission.
Mr. John Bragg, representing the applicant, relayed that the Scotts Manufacturing
Facility had opted not to utilize the entire site; provided additional information regarding
the existing surrounding buildings' FAR; noted that the remaining lot was a significant
parcel at 8.5 acres, advising that large parcels were rare in the City of Temecula; relayed
that the applicant was in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval; for Commissioner
Chiniaeff, noted that the Scotts Manufacturing Facility has not determined whether at a
future point the additional acres would be utilized by this use; confirmed that there were
no proposed revisions in the number of employees Scotts Manufacturing Facility would
employ at this site; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that if the FAR was not
increased, the adjacent site would need to be reduced by 1.2 acres, providing additional
information regarding the circulation issues associated with this reduction; and noted
that the Scotts Manufacturing Facility informed the property owner of the desire to not
utilize the 8.5 acres at the 11th hour of negotiations, advising that the decision was based
on financial issues.
Commissioner Webster relayed that his sole concern with respect to the original
approval (on November 15, 2000) was regarding adequate parking provisions; and
noted that since that issue was not affected by this proposal, he was in support of the
proposal, inclusive of the request for a slight FAR increase.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation with the addition of Condition No. 61 (regarding compliance with
Riverside County Flood Control & Conservation District issues) as presented in the
supplemental agenda material. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson
and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was
absent.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Commissioners Webster and Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed
that she would further investigate the zoning map in the Notice of Public Hearing
included in the Planning Commission's agenda packets.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's queries regarding proximity to the
Water District property, Commissioner Webster provided additional information.
Chairman Guerriero noted that Councilman Naggar had appealed the Planning
Commission's action regarding the Bel ¥illaggio Project based on the rationale
that a project of this magnitude needs to be considered by the City Council;
queried what magnitude of projects should come before the Planning
Commission for approval; and relayed that in his opinion the Planning
Commission was wasting its time.
In response, Attorney Curley noted that there may or may not be an
augmentation for this particular appeal which may respond to Chairman
Guerriere's concerns; acknowledged Chairman Guerriero's comments regarding
the charge given the Planning Commission with respect to Land Use jurisdiction;
advised that it was not uncommon when a Councilmember believes that while an
issue is worthy of the Planning Commission that it was additionally worthy of City
Council consideration due to the consequences and implications of the project;
and noted that the appeal had no reflection on the Planning Commission.
Chairman Guerriero relayed that three approvals of the Planning Commission
had been appealed by Councilman Naggar; and queried whether the parameters
of the Planning Commission's authority should be re-explored.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she would relay to the City Council that
if there was a desire to modify the approval authority matrix, that the City Council
provided that direction to staff, advising that in her opinion it was unfair to
applicants when the approval authority matrix standard was challenged, while
acknowledging that any Councilmember has the right to appeal any project.
For Chairman Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Councilman
Naggar had specific queries regarding the traffic study, noting that the appeal
would provide him an opportunity to address these issues.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that he was on the original City
Council when the parameters for the appeal process were put in place, noting the
concern at that time regarding individuals not having the financial resources to
appeal a project, ergo, the decision to allow any one Councilmember the ability to
appeal a decision of the Planning Commission; relayed that under those same
guidelines it was established that it took four votes for an individual to be
appointed to a Commission; noted that in the past year, the City Council revised
the process of appointing a Commissioner to a requirement of three votes; and
relayed that the Planning Commission should not take this appeal personally,
noting that there were dynamics that needed to be addressed at the City Council
level.
Chairman Guerriero reiterated that his concern was regarding the information
that stated the reason for appeal was due to the magnitude of the project.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the cumulative traffic was an issue of
concern; and for Chairman Guerriero, noted that there have been discussions
regarding the feasibility of conducting focused traffic studies on Highway 79
South, and Winchester Road.
Chairman Guerriero reiterated his past recommendation to place a tollbooth at
Murrieta Hot Springs Road/VVinchester Road.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that staff met with
Cosco representatives to detail the issues regarding landscaping, advising that
the applicant had responded with proposals; noted that unfortunately the
timeframe for the City's Landscape Engineer's contract had lapsed and staff had
to wait for the City Council to renew that contract; advised that Cosco did submit
a permanent sign plan to the City, noting that a permit was issued on February 7,
2001, relaying the staff communication lapses regarding the timeframe required
for installing the sign; advised that he had notified the Cosco representatives that
the sign needs to be installed in 14 days; relayed that the City's Landscape
Architect was back on contract, and that staff would update the Planning
Commission regarding the Cosco use at a subsequent meeting; provided a
history of the dealings with the Cosco representatives, and the recent installation
of the bollards; and for Chairman Guerriero, noted that the City's Landscape
Architect had relayed that with respect to the plantings in the planter proximate to
the gas station area, that this area may have been over-planted, while noting that
the dead trees would be replaced.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that staff could indicate to the Cosco
representatives that there was one Planning Commissioner who was irate at their
inappropriate timing in addressing the previously discussed issues.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske
provided an update regarding the process of the General Plan Update, noting
that a firm has been selected and that the scope of work has been defined; and
confirmed that she would provided additional information in terms of the scope of
the work and the schedule for completion.
With respect to requests for FAR increases, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried
whether the Planning Commission desired to have insignificant increase requests
brought before the Planning Commission. In response, Chairman Guerriero
concurred that issues similar to the two percent (2%) increase presented earlier
in the meeting did not need to be brought before the Commission.
Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that parameters (in terms of a specified
percentage) should be set regarding the requests for Far increases as to whether
the requests would be dealt with at a Director's Hearing or at the Planning
Commission level.
Chairman Guerriero noted that if the issues were addressed at a Director's
Hearing, a Planning Commissioner could appeal a decision if there was concern.
In response, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would concur, as long as
there was adequate notification.
Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that at times exhibits provided in the staff report
were so miniscule that they were illegible, noting that typically the full set of plans
were additionally provided; and queried whether in an effort to save paper these
illegible exhibits should be eliminated from the agenda material.
In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if it was the Planning
Commission's desire these exhibits could be omitted.
For Commissioner Webster, Attorney Curley relayed that staff would investigate
as to when the Planning Commission would receive their annual Conflict of
Interests statements to complete.
For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that
reservations have been made for the Planning Commissioners to attend the
Planners' Institute, advising that Administrative Secretary Wimberly would be
providing the Planning Commission with additional data.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's queries as to re-scheduling the
March 21, 2001 Planning Commission meeting (due to the Planning
Commissioners being out of town at the Planners' Institute Conference), it was
the general consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule the second
March Planning Commission meeting for March 28, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:40 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next reRular
~ to be held on Wednesdayt March 7, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Chairman
DebbCe Ubnoske,
Director of Planning