Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030701 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 2001 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday March 7, 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 Chairman Guerriero. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, and Chairman Guerriero. Commissioner Webster. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Thornsley, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 7, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 3, 2001 R:PlanComm/minute~030701 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. 3 Planning Application No. 00-0452 (Third Extension of Time) for Vestincl Tentative Tract Map 25004 located at the north of Nicolas Road, east of Seraphina Road and south of Murrieta Hot Sprinc~s Road: Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0452 A THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 25004. This Agenda Item was withdrawn. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Plannincl Application 00-0427 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc. to desi(~n and construct two adioininq industrial buildinc~s on two separate lots with the buildin(~ on lot 6 totalinc~ 18,787 s(~uare feet on 1.08 acres, and the building on lot 7 totalinq 16,381 square feet on 1.01 acres located on the south side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Road across from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) [APN 909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310-007 (Lot 7)]. -Thomas Thornslev, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0427 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:\plaNCOMM~inutes~2001L3-7-01 .doc 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON LOT 6 TOTALING t8,787 SQUARE FEET ON 1.08 ACRES, AND THE BUILDING ON LOT 7 TOTALING t6,381 SQUARE FEET ON 1.01 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER ROAD, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-3'10-006 (LOT 6) & 909-310-007 (LOT 7). Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the location, the building sizes, the access, the landscaping, the loading dock area, and the building elevations; noted staff's recommendation to add additional accenting on the sides of the building; for Commissioner Mathewson, specified the location of the loading docks, and the four roll-up doors; relayed that the rendering does not reflect the additional landscaping the project had been conditioned to add; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted the restrictions included in Condition No. 5 (regarding any outside wall-mounted lighting); for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that this project was seen by the Planning Commission in 1996, noting that the plan and layout had not been modified, advising that staff had initially relayed to the applicant that having the loading docks visible was not consistent with the intent of the Design Guidelines, while relaying that the City's Development Code does allow for the docks to be located on the sides of a building if they can be screened, or if there was not an alternative site layout feasible, noting that after further review, staff was of the opinion that the doors would not be noticeable; relayed that staff did not request a line-of-site diagram, providing additional information regarding the view from the street; noted that the replaced trees would be 15~gallon minimum size; and relayed that there were no revised elevations reflecting the recommended additional amhitectural relief on the east and west elevations, clarifying staffs recommendation to add either a relief color, or a texture variation. Mr. David Wakefield, representing the applicant, noted that most of the proximate properties in the Westside Business Park on one-acre lots were configured in the same way; relayed the difficulties with the site layouts in conjunction with the lot sizes; with respect to the east and west elevations, noted the applicant's desire to add additional glass to accent both sides of the building which would enhance those elevations; with respect to Commissioner Chiniaeffs queries regarding outside lighting, noted that there would be free-standing lights posts in front of the buildings, relaying the plan to add few wall-packs (which would meet the City standards) in this area due to the great distance; for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the loading dock area; and relayed that each building would have unique features differentiating the two buildings. R:\plaNCOMIv~minutes~2001 ~3 -7-01 .doc 3 Commissioner Chiniaeff noted his concern with the view from Winchester Road, noting his recommendation to have no wall-packs (lighting) on the front of the building. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Wakefield relayed a willingness to add a window on both sides of the building on the window band at the truck dock elevations. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended, additionally, that there be trees on the sides of the truck docks large enough to somewhat screen the trucks sitting in the wells, in response, the applicant's representative relayed agreement. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding the proposed landscaping plan. Commissioner Mathewson recommended upsizing the three purple leaf plum trees in front of the dock. In response, the applicant relayed agreement to this recommendation. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Wakefield clarified the truck access to the ramp. Chairman Guerriero relayed his concern with trucks backing up on the street, noting his opposition to the location of the ramps, recommending relocating the ramps to the back of the building unless there was assurance that this area would be screened, and a line- of-sight diagram was provided; and noted a desire for a revised elevation plan with the added windows in place. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Wakefield advised that relocating the truck docks at the rear of the site was nearly impossible. Chairman Guerriero reiterated a desire for a line-of-site diagram. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Phil Lewis, the applicant, relayed that most of the shipping was conducted via UPS or FedEx, advising that there would be truck deliveries every one-two months, providing additional information regarding the type of business occupying the building, noting that last year there were approximately two large truck deliveries. In response, Chairman Guerriero relayed that in light of the proposed loading dock, it would be his supposition that there would be truck deliveries. Since the applicant relayed that there would be minimal truck deliveries (i.e., approximately two a year), Commissioner Mathewson queried why there were proposed loading docks. In response, Mr. Lewis noted that the inclusion of the docks aided in making the building more functional, relaying that there would be no need for a forklift with the docks. Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether the off-loading of the trucks could occur closer to the street. In response, Mr. Lewis noted that the offices were located in this area. Additional discussion ensued regarding relocating the truck ramps. Commissioner Mathewson suggested adding extensive trelliswork above and over the loading dock that could be tied into a wall covered with vines in order to screen the docks. R:\plaNCOMM~minutcs~2001 ~3-7-01 .doc 4 Commissioner Telesio clarified that even if there were few deliveries, there was concern regarding the view of the door and the ramp on each side of the building, reiterating Commissioner Mathewson's query regarding the proposal to include loading docks with the minimal need for truck deliveries. In response, Mr. Wakefield relayed that truck docks were a critical need for these types of buildings even for future tenants, noting that ultimately on each side of the building there would be potential development, relaying that once this development occurs the visibility would be extremely limited; and advised that a larger landscape buffer could be provided at the street. Commissioner Telesio concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's suggestion that the ramps be moved up, and that the trucks back in from the rear. Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding his recommendation to revise the ramp location. Chairman Guerriero recommended that the applicant work with staff regarding the Planning Commission's recommendations, and that the project be brought back to the Commission at a future meeting. The Planninq Commission relayed the followinq closing remarks: Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated his recommendation for no wall-packs (lighting) to be located on the front of the building; and recommended that the applicant investigate relocating the ramps. Commissioner Mathewson relayed a desire for information regarding why the loading docks could not be located in the back, or why the loading ramp design could not be reversed on the side of the building; and recommended that if the docks could not be relocated, that there be adequate screening, upsizing the landscaping in front of the docks. Commissioner Telesio concurred with the previous recommendations; and noted that he would support either locating the loading docks on the side if the ramps were reversed (as recommended by Commissioner Chiniaeff), or if the docks were relocated to the rear. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this item to the March 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to address the concerns outlined by the by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who was absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Telesio relayed regret due to missing the last two meetings, noting that it was good to be back. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hazen updated the Planning Commission regarding the Cosco use, noting that he had received a firm commitment that the sign contractor would begin sandblasting the signs on March 24th; and advised that the City's Landscape Engineer has reviewed and approved the landscape enhancements being done on site. R:\plaNCOMM'aninutes~2001 ~3-7-01 .doc 5 In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske updated the Planning Commission regarding the Bel Villaggio Project appeal, noting that after further investigation, Project Planner Naaseh discovered that the Development Agreement for the mall also covered this project, noting that this data was forwarded to the City Attorney, relaying that the information addressed what issues would be appealable; advised that the item had been pulled from the City Council Agenda on March 6, 2001, relaying that there still was a potential for the project to be appealed, but that it was not likely, advising that Councilman Naggar's concerns were based on traffic and the cumulative impacts. Chairman Guerriero noted that at a National Convention he attended a couple of years ago there had been a two-hour session that addressed the cumulative impact section that was added to CEQA, advising that the attorneys had relayed that this issue was within a gray area, and subject to legal challenge; and queried where the City stood with respect to cumulative impacts. Attorney Curley confirmed that the issues related to cumulative impacts were in the gray area; and noted that additional information could be provided to the Planning Commission regarding this matter. Chairman Guerriero noted that in the General Plan and other City documents there was a strong emphasis in maintaining the natural terrain of properties, relaying that it would not be his desire for future projects to grade down the existing rolling hills. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that at the March 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Roripaugh Land Use Plan would be presented to the Commission in order for the applicant to gather input. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the American Planning Association (APA) was conducting a tour of Brea's downtown area on the 17th which was a Saturday, noting that it would be extremely informative; encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend, and to let her know if there was interest in taking this tour; and for Chairman Guerriero, noted that the City could provide transportation via the van or carpooling. Attorney Curley provided information regarding the process of developing Old Town Brea. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she had numerous shirt samples, requesting the Planning Commission make a decision on the type of shirt desired in order for the shirts to be ready for the upcoming conference. Per a previous Commission request, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she had data for the Planning Commission regarding the scope of work for the General Plan consultants. R:\plaNCOMM~minutes~2001 ~3-7-01 .doc 6 ADJOURNMENT At 6:59 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next reflular adiourned meetinQ to be held on Wednesday, March 28, 200'1 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:\plaNCOMM~inutes~200 B3-7-01 .doc 7