Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020602 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, February 6, 2002, 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 Guerriero. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Thornsley, Associate Planner Urbina, Project Planner McCoy, Project Planner Rush, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 2 A,qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 6, 2002. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of January 16, 2002. 3 Director's Hearinq Update for January- For the month of January 2002 - No Hearinqs. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and file. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1- 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained with respect to Item No. 2. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEMS 4 Planning Application No. 01-0196 (Conditional Use Permit); Development Plan) - Rick Rush, Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice ~)f Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0196 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0196, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A SEVENTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED MONOPINE WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO BAPTIST CHURCH SITE AT 40440 RANCHO SANTIAGO ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-130-017 Via overheads, Project Planner Rush presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the proposed height [of 75 feet (75')] of the proposed unmanned wireless telecommunications facility, the specific location, the General Plan designation (Very Low Density Residential), the existing zoning (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan No. 180), the access, the limited visibility of the proposed monopine from the 1-15 freeway, the stealth design of the monopine which will resemble a typical pine tree; provided a material board with a sample of the simulated bark and pine needles which would be utilized; and noted staff's requirement that the applicant plant additional eucalyptus and pine trees west of the monopine in order for the facility to more effectively blend with the surrounding area. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Rush specified the exhibits which represented the view of the facility from the 1-15 freeway, specifying the location where the visibility of the monopine would be limited, and where the monopine would not be R: PlanComm/minutes/020602 2 visible; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that this proposed monopine will be an exact replica of the tree located on Margarita Road, noting that the antennas will be installed within the foliage of the tree. Commissioner Telesio relayed that it would be helpful for future applications if the locations from the freeway where the monopine was visible would be presented to the Planning Commission. Chairman Chiniaeff recommended adding additional variety to the foliage so as to not create a symmetrical appearance, advising that it was his recollection that when the monopine project on Margarita Road was presented, the Planning Commission required the applicant to add additional foliage in order for that particular facility to be more similar in appearance to a regular pine tree. Concurring with Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Mathewson noted that from the south and north elevations the array of the antennas would be visible. In response, Project Planner Rush relayed that staff could require the applicant to exceed the amount of foliage denoted on the exhibit in order to ensure that the antennas were camouflaged by the foliage of the monopine. For Chairman Chiniaeff, and Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Rush noted that the elevations presented were similar to the previously presented exhibits of the monopine facility location on Margarita Road, noting that the Planning Commission's added condition associated with the previous monopine application (specifically that additional foliage be added), had not been taken into consideration; and clarified that it was staff's goal to duplicate the previously approved facility located at the water tower site. For informational purposes, Project Planner Rush presented an aerial view of the project location; and for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that the additional trees planted at the site wi[l be 24-inch box. Ms. Barbara Saito, representing Nextel Communications, thanked Project Planner Rush for his diligent efforts associated with the project; provided assurance that this proposed monopine will be the same as the facility at the water tank site on Margarita Road, advising that the applicant would be utilizing the same vendor to construct the tree; noted that adding additional branches to the tree would be agreeable to the applicant, relaying that the monopine will have more of a cylinder shape, as opposed to a conical one; advised that this monopine was being constructed so as to allow co-location for a future carrier; for Commissioner Telesio, specified that the project had been noticed per the City requirements; and for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that typically through the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant would be responsible for maintaining the vegetation at the site. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation subject to this particular monopine antenna being constructed to duplicate the existing monopine located at 41520 Margarita Road (Planning Application No. 00-0257). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:PlanComm/minutesl020602 3 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero commended staff for addressing the outside storage issues in the City; and relayed kudos to staff, noting that per his recent travels to other cities it was clear that Temecula was a well-planned City. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information regarding Code Enforcement's efforts to address the furniture use located adjacent to the freeway due to outside storage issues. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the no parking on Solana Way issue (which the Planning Commission had expressed concerned about) was addressed at the January Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting, noting that the Commission's recommendation to the City Council was that the street be red-curbed, restricting on-street parking. 5 A Representative from Rancho California Water District will brief the Planninq Commission on a new water bill that was recently passed. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Receive and File Mr. Andy Webster, representing California Water District, provided an update regarding laws recently enacted regarding water supply, as follows: With respect to SB 221, noted that when approving parcel maps of 200 or more residential units, this law required the City to obtain written verification from the water district that sufficient water supply was available, advising that this law would not significantly impact Temecula due to the exemption in the law that this requirement does not apply to urban in-fill projects, to areas contiguous to urban areas, or to Iow-income housing development which encompasses the majority of the City's projects. With respect to SB 610, noted that this law required provision of a water supply assessment by the water distdct prior to taking a CEQA action on a project, relaying that this law was related to large-scale projects; noted that this law (SB 610) came out of an e~isting law, SB 901, which was incurred in 1995, advising that SB 610 was more enforceable; advised that this particular law (SB 610), additionally requires the water district to provide additional enhancements to the Urban Water Management Plan, noting that compliance to the law would entail a certification letter with a 10-20 page document, and would be an attachment to the applicant's CEQA document, advising that since this law just recently went into effect (in January of 2002), efforts were being made to prepare the documentation; with respect to the water supply assessment, noted the requirement for provision of proof for sufficient water supply; and provided additional information regarding the lack of an absolute guarantee from the water district for water supply due to the inability to control rain and snow (i.e., en extended drought period), while noting R: PlanComm/minutes/020602 4 that proof could be provided stating that under certain circumstances water would be available. With respect to the water supply available for future development, advised that this information was identified in the Water Facility's Master Plan (which was updated on an as-needed basis), as well as in the Urban Water Management Plan (which was required to be updated every five years), noting that data from the General Plans of the cities and counties was utilized to project water demands at build out. Noted an anticipated decrease in demand within the service area, relaying that the increase in density in the French Valley would not impact Rancho California Water District since this district did not supply water to this area, advising that it was projected that additional property within the district would be designated as Open Space or Conservation property, ergo the projected reduced demand. Provided additional information regarding the diversified sources of water supply, which aids in maintaining Iow water rates. Noted that the Lake Skinner Treatment Plan (which provides treated water to Rancho California Water District, as well as to San Diego) was scheduled for an expansion in the year 2007; and Advised that the supplemental agenda material provided data regarding the capacity of existing water supplies, projected water supplies for next year, and ultimate projects at build out. Answering the queries of the Planning Commission, for Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Webster further specified the projected water demands at build out, noting the water duties associated with the land uses; noted that the district's imported water supply was provided by Lake Skinner, advising that Diamond Valley Lake provides emergency water supply to Lake Skinner and to San Diego; for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that water supply in the district was dependent on factors external to Rancho California Water District; relayed that a few years ago, Metropolitan Water District (MWD) adopted an agreement which included a commitment to provide the water needed for development, noting the past efforts to rework their Integrated Resource Plan, relaying the aim towards water conservation projects, and groundwater-use-type projects; provided additional information regarding the State's water supply; noted that the City of Temecula still needed to pass a Recycled Water Ordinance per compliance with State law; relayed that since, typically, fifty percent (50%) of water usage was for landscaping irrigation, that there would be vast benefits if conservation methods were implemented for this use; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the district controlled the majority of the groundwater pumping in the district, noting that drier years would impact the amount of groundwater pumping; for Commissioner Telesio, advised that when one signs up for a water meter through the district, water rights are signed over, noting that there were few areas within the district which did not have agency agreements, relaying that there are no significant negative groundwater issues existing at this time; and for Commissioner Olhasso, advised that Metropolitan Water District still provides educational tours. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske, Mr. Webster noted that district staff was still in the process of developing the documentation associated with SB 610, advising that the body of the document would most likely be similar for all projects, with an R: Pla n Co mm/minute s/020602 5 attached certification letter which would be project specific; relayed that after the documentation program is implemented the process would not be significantly timely. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley confirmed that the Water Supply Assessment will be made a CEQA finding, noting that the obligation will be drafted into the conditions under the maps act; confirmed that there could be litigation issues based on the use of imported supplies due to the fact that the supply could be interrupted via uncontrolled factors, while relaying that it was more likely to be based on when the exemption to the law was applicable. Chairman Chiniaeff thanked Mr. Webster for his informative presentation. The Planning Commission received and filed this report. 6 Staff briefinq and photo presentation on recent field trips RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Receive and File. Querying the Planning Commission for input regarding design standards, specifically whether it was the Planning Commission's desire to maintain the status quo with respect to the quality of development in the City of Temecula, or to raise the bar, Senior Planner Hazen provided a photograph presentation of examples of exceptional architectural design cited during staff's visits to the Cities of Carlsbad and Riverside, and via overheads, provided examples of the following: · an industrial complex · corporate centers · enhanced architectural features · an interior loading zone · industrial buildings with landscaping and sidewalks · an entry with a landscaped median and circular drive · employee dining areas · interesting use of bollards for handicapped parking designation, ·window treatments (with reveals) · verti(~,al plantings placed along walls to soften the massing · an office building with enhanced architectural design · examples of retail development, enhanced design of corporate chain uses (i.e., Jack in the Box) · pedestrian elements incorporated into design plans · courtyard elements · examples of signage · concrete treatments · meandering sidewalks · outdoor patio areas · storefront designs with single door entries · a multi-family residential project with varied roof heights, a recreation center, a combination of carports and garages, and a varied use of paint · incorporation of bike racks and boxed planters along curbing · a pedestrian-oriented plaza · an example of a tower structure, and · an artistically painted underpass treatment. Senior Planner Hazen noted that the photographs represented the first two trips staff has taken to investigate design elements in other cities, noting that staff would be creating a photo library with the data. R:PlanComm/minute~020602 6 For Chairman Chiniaeff, Senior Planner Hazen noted that the photograph depicting the interior loading zone had been part of a large-box-type warehouse building which was approximately 50,000-100,000 square feet. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that many of the presented design treatments could be implemented at Iow costs (i.e., the added reveals on window treatments) while greatly enhancing the overall appearance of a project. For informational purposes, Chairman Chiniaeff noted his negative experience (at the Pechangas site) with a decorative concrete treatment at a main entry site created by laying a vinyl or soft rubber material in the concrete to create a stone pattern which was then stained in varying colors, advising that the stain fades with wear, tires traveling over the treatment leave black markings the surface, but more importantly the surface was extremely slick (especially if wet); and relayed that while this treatment would work well on the interior of a project, it did not work well on exterior courtyard areas. Referencing the photographs of University Plaza in the City of Riverside, Commissioner Olhasso noted that while this center was successful due to the traffic the center experienced, that the layout of this project was too linear, Senior Planner Hazen additionally relaying the lack of synergy with the alternate buildings. Commenting on key elements contributing to the success of commercial centers, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the high density of the surrounding housing would significantly impact the amount of business attracted to a center. In light of the typical opposition to apartment complex projects in the City of Temecula, Commissioner Olhasso suggested that staff investigate the concepts developed for apartment projects by Lewis Commercial which is located in the City of Upland, noting that these particular projects were higher-end units, with offices, wiring for fiber, professional conference rooms, and had been constructed in the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga, and Ontario, additionally relaying that:these complexes were in high demand. Senior Planner Hazen noted staff's plans to visit development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's querying the Planning Commission for feedback regarding design issues, specifically whether it was the desire of the Commission to raise the bar with respect to standards, and whether it would be helpful to conduct a follow-up study regarding Design Guidelines, Commissioner Mathewson noted his commitment to excellence in design, opining that with a stucco finish an enhanced visual appearance would be limited, recommending that exterior treatments be encouraged (i.e., river rock, flagstone, and brick), relaying that there was a center in the City of Fullerton which would serve as an example of a variety of enhanced exterior treatments, advising that he would provide staff with additional information regarding the specific location; additionally noted that a project in, Columbus, Ohio, exemplified a well- designed Village Center concept, with high density.residential built around it, and the use of actual cobblestones in the driveways at the Hilton Hotel located in this Village Center; and with respect to the examples of high-end office designs presented during the photograph presentation from the City of Carlsbad,.advised that expecting this level of architecture would need to be balanced with the particular scale of development. R: PlanComm/minutes/020602 7 Posing a situation which comes up in the Planning Department at times, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff makes recommendations to an applicant regarding a proposed project during the review process, requesting the applicant to implement certain changes which would enhance the project, subsequently when the applicant is not willing to make the changes which staff has recommended, and if the changes are substantial, staff brings these particular projects before the Planning Commission for feedback regarding good design elements(due to the Planning Commission's earlier direction); and desirous of clarification, requested direction from the Planning Commission regarding the Commission's view at this time regarding these types of issues. Senior Planner Hazen clarified that after staff has provided direction to an applicant, there may be agreement (between the applicant and staff) to disagree, to present the project before the Planning Commission and seek the guidance of the Commission for direction on how to guide future applicants. With respect to corporate chain operations and the representatives of these uses claiming that it was necessary to maintain the operation's corporate identity with the design of the project, Commissioner Guerriero noted that he had seen chain operations with drastic variations from the typical corporate design, relaying the City's great success with the Mimi's, and Marie Callender's restaurant uses, advising that this was the type of quality he was seeking in development, rather than concentrating on enhancements for tilt-up projects. Commenting on the proposals presented before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Mathewson noted that by that time in the project's process, the architectural theme has been developed, relaying that although the Planning Commission may make recommendations for minor changes, it was not likely at this stage the Planning Commission would direct the applicant to redesign the entire project, noting the importance of addressing high design standards at an earlier phase in the developmental process. In order for the Planning Commission to get a clear picture of the issues of disagreement between staff and the applicant, Commissioner OIhasso recommended that a staff member of a senior level explain to the Commission the differences of staff and the applicant, and note alternatives that have been explored. Concurring with Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Commissioner Telesio noted that it was important that the Planning Commission have a clear knowledge of what options would be feasible from an engineering perspective, prior to giving direction to an applicant; additionally relayed that in his opinion the type of use, itself, would effect the design directives, advising that with a radiator shop there would be limits as to how high the design standards would need to be, relaying that there needed to be a balance between the particular use's economics and the setting; opined that although the standard for acceptable architectural design could be raised from existing projects, that the surrounding development should be a factor in the determination of how high those standards should be elevated; further suggested that staff's viewpoint be made clear to the Planning Commission (when a project was presented), specifically regarding necessary elements which were not included in the project's proposal. R:PlanComnVminute¢020602 8 In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that in the future staff could better clarify (with the Planning Commission) the project's process with staff (i.e., alternatives that have been discussed); and advised that when an applicant made significant changes after approval of a project plan, staff sought the City Attorney's advisement as to whether the matter was substantial enough to warrant bringing back to the Planning Commission. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified the type of direction staff typically provided to applicants, which generally encompassed minor revisions (i.e., adding additional articulation, color variations, reveals, and/or landscaping). In response, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that typically every applicant will be presenting similar design standards, if the process continues whereby generally an application is not revised dramatically, either at the staff level, or the Planning Commission level; and recommended that if the City is going to explore other cities for exemplary design concepts with the plan to incorporate these elements in development in the City of Temecula, that there should be communication with the development community, clarifying that the bar has been raised regarding design standards, encouraging proposals that are above the norm, "outside the box." For Chairman Chiniaeff, Senior Planner Hazen provided additional information regarding staff's discussions with the applicant who had been proceeding with the construction process while deviating from the approved project plan (which was addressed at the January 16th Planning Commission meeting.) Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that as the standards for architectural design are raised, it was important to take into consideration the setting of the project (i.e., the surrounding development, and the type of property where the project site was located.) Additional discussion ensued regarding the consensual goal of the Planning Commission and staff to raise the level of design standards in development in Temecula, Director of Planning Ubnoske advising that revising the Design Guidelines would aid in the implementation of a higher standard. Concurring with Chairman Chiniaeffs comments, Commissioner Olhasso recommended that in areas that are economically viable (i.e., property located on Jefferson Avenue between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road), these projects should be transitionally elevated, with respect to design standards. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed Assistant Manager O'Grady's goal in terms of stimulating economic development, attracting high- technical industry to Temecula; and noted that development, as a whole, was welcome in the City of Temecula. Senior Planner Hazen noted staffs aim to curb the development of speculative buildings, and to raise the standards with respect to these types of projects. Chairman Chiniaeff concurred, advising that development on Winchester Road should begin including elements characteristic of a City's showpiece-type development. Due to the importance of economic development strategy in the context of the Inland Empire and San Diego County, Commissioner Olhasso volunteered to work on this portion of the General Plan; and noted that utilizing the expertise of Mr. Husing would be beneficial. The Planning Commission received and filed this report. ADJOURNMENT At 7:51 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjoumed this meeting to the next reRular meeting! to be held on Wednesday, February 20, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. hairman Ch~niaeff, ~ Chairman ' / Debbie~bnoske, '.~ Director of Planning.