Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080702 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 7, 2002 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 7, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Mathewson. Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Fire Captain McBride, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Rush, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, Senior Planner Hogan, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 7, 2002. Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update For July 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Planninq Application No. PA00-0507-Hampton Inn, for the desiqn and construction of a 70-room four story hotel buildinq on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located to the adiacent west of the Winchester freeway off ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza. - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Continue to August 21, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the August 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Planninq Application No. PA01-01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Appeal. An Appeal of the Planninq Director's decision to deny Plannin.q Application PA01-0601 a proposal for a Cinqular Unmanned Wireless Telecommunication Facility consistinq of replacinq two existin.q wood poles with two identical metal poles (painted a wood qrain finish to match existinq poles) and a 10' x 20' BTS equipment enclosure. The proposed metal poles will internally house 6 antennas, located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Marqarita Road in Temeku Hills Golf Course. - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0601 (Minor Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved); 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0120 - A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF AN UNMANNED CELLULAR ANTENNA FACILITY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA. ROAD AND RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 953-340-015. Staff presents the proposed proiect By way of overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz provided an overview of the project plan (of record), relaying the applicant's plan to replace two existing wood poles with two new metal poles which will house the antennas, noting the equipment shelter the applicant is proposing to be located north of the antenna; presented the applicant's photo simulation of a view of the equipment shelter and the landscapin.~ from inside the golf course advised that when this project was presented at the May 9"' Director s Hearing numerous residents spoke in opposition of the proposal, expressing that the project was not appropriate in a master planned golf community, recommending that the applicant explore other sites; noted that after hearing all thecomments, the Hearing Officer requested a continuance in order to obtain additional information; relayed that at the subsequent hearing staff was not satisfied with the proposed paint on the metal poles, recommending a wood-simulated finish; advised that ultimately the Hearing Officer denied approval of the project due to the applicant not providing sufficient justification for the location, nor exploring alternate sites as required by the Telecommunication Ordinance, as well as the Hearing Officer not being convinced that alternative non-residential sites were not feasible; cited the findings for denial (per the staff report); noted the three correspondences staff recently received which were submitted to the Planning Commission via supplemental agenda material; and relayed that if it was the Commission's desire to approve the project, staff was recommending that the item be continued in order to for staff to prepare the associated findings. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries regarding staff's recommendation for approval going into the Director's Hearing, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that as the Hearing Officer he had disagreed with the staff report, advising that it was his opinion that additional information was needed prior to making a determination. For informational purposes, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the Telecommunication Ordinance, noting the intent for the applicant to demonstrate the justification for locating in a certain area in order to balance the need for technology while minimizing the burden on the community. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Assistant City Attorney Curley referenced the Telecommunication Ordinance, noting the applicant's burden to demonstrate a clear need for the facility, and to stealth the antenna as much as possible if it was deemed not feasible to co-locate the antenna or locate the facility on a multiuse site. For Commissioner Guerdero, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that he knew of no City employees who were having trouble with their Cingular cellular reception when in this particular location; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the antennas would be mounted inside the pole; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that this site was designated as Open Space. Senior Planner Hazen noted that the design of the proposed painted poles was not similar to the existing telephone poles; and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the proposed pole design did not have a wood grain texture but was a smooth-faced painted galvanized pole. The applicant provides a project overview Mr. Marc Myers, representing the applicant, presented the proposed project plan, relaying that the facility would be completely stealth, removed from view, that there would be no visible change at the site from what is existing with the exception of the wall which was designed to be consistent with the appearance of the existing wall, and that the proposed plan met the requirements of the City's Municipal Code, the Antenna Ordinance, and the property owner; specified the proposed location for the poles, and the equipment enclosure; noted that per submitted data, the applicant has provided assurance that the paint would match the existing poles, relaying that a letter had been submitted to staff from the manufacturer stating that the pole could be painted to match the existing wooden pole; noted that the equipment area will be enclosed with a block wall (consistent with the existing wall), and landscaped; provided additional information regarding the view of the project from various locations, noting that the facility would not be visible, specifying that the nearest home was approximately 250 feet away; relayed the applicant's efforts to locate the facility at alternate locations, additionally noting the project's process with staff; advised that although over 200 residences were noticed, the applicant only received three letters from residents with concerns; noted that the site analysis documents were provided to staff at the time of the initial submittal, noting that at no time during the hearing process was the applicant requested to provide additional site alternative information which was part of the basis for the denial (per the findings); relayed the benefits of this particular project for the community due to the improved cellular service; and advised that an alternate finding had stated that the project was proposing a commercial facility in a residential area, reiterating that this site was designated Open Space. The applicant addresses the queries of the Commission For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Myers noted that the applicant had previously proposed an installation to be located at the Jiffy Lube site, relaying that staff was not pleased with the location due to the visibility of the site, additionally noting that after investigation, it was determined that there would be difficulty locating the equipment at the Jiffy Lube 'site; relayed that although .the apartment complex across from the post office was never identified, the post office and the water tank sites, as well as the Jiffy Lube site were investigated; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed the process of developing a site for location of a facility; and noted that the applicant did not provide a sample design of the painted pole at the Director's Hearing, but paint chips and a cross section of the pole. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he had not seen the site analysis data. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Myers specified the justification for the need for a facility in this particular area to improve cellular coverage; relayed that the post office was not interested in leasing to the cellular company, noting that he was not certain as to what height would be necessary for an installation at that location; relayed that maintenance of the poles would be addressed in the Conditions of Approval; confirmed that the proposed stucco wall would be the same height as the existing wail; and with respect to the shrubs, relayed that the applicant would be willing to install 1- gallon or 5-gallon sized shrubs. R: Pla nComm/minute s/080702 4 Commissioner Guerriero advised that in his opinion it was important that the Planning Commission review a sample design of the proposed pole, which was echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff. Commenting on other sites, which may be feasible for locating the facility, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that it appeared that the antennas could be aimed from the north side of the water tank and cover the same area, that the facility could be located proximate to Starlight Ridge Apartments site on the southwest corner, or the Margarita Apartments site. Mr. Myers clarified that the applicant provided all that was requested by staff at the hearing, e.g., paint chips, the computerized photo simulation, and the sample of the pole material; and with respect to the suggestion to locate the facility at an apartment complex, relayed that there would most likely be a conflict due to the residents located on site. Mr. James Herman, representing the property owner of the golf course site, provided an overview of working with the applicant's representatives and developing the proposed plan, noting the applicant's cooperativeness; and for Commissioner Olhasso, advised that the netting with the poles was the only product he had knowledge of which could restrict stray golf balls from going into the street. The public is invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Mr. Carl Merritt Mr. John Shablow Mr. David Hughes Mr. Harold N. Ritter Mr. Bill Miller Mr. Tom Rabuczewski 30753 Links Court 30791 Links Court 30709 Links Court 30725 Links Court 30743 Links Court 30749 Links Court The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: · Questioned the need for the facility; · Fear that this project would set a precedent regarding co-location at this site, and other facilities opting to locate in areas proximate to residences; · That the property values would depreciate; · Maintenance issues, specifically concern regarding the appearance of the poles in five to ten years; · That the proposed site was inappropriate due to the proximity of the residents; · That the applicant was proposing to locate at this site based on the lower costs; · Commended the Hearing Officer for his professionalism at the Director's Hearing; · Noted that at the Director's Hearing there were questions regarding alternate sites, as well as line of sight issues which the applicant had denied; · That even if the project was stealth, it was not satisfactory; · That there were health risks associated with radio wave frequencies; · Fear that when selling homes in this area, there would be a requirement to disclose the location of the antenna; · McMillin and not the homeowners would benefit financially from leasing the site to the cellular company; · Recommended that the Planning Commission deny approval of the project; That the facility would be better located in areas where there were other equipment enclosures or industrial infrastructure, i.e., in front of the Jiffy Lube use, on the easement on the west side of Margarita Road, or at one of the water tower sites; and · That the antenna should be co-located with existing antennas. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Merritt opined that there would be negative visual impacts associated with this project; for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that even if the poles were required to be maintained there would be visual impacts due to the inconsistency with a few poles being wooden and others metal; and confirmed that the impacts would be lessened if all of the wooden poles were replaced with metal rather than just two. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Shablow opined that the project would have negative visual impacts. The applicant provides rebuttal In response to the comments expressed, Mr. Myers relayed the following: · For Mr. Rabuczewski, and Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the antenna would be concealed within the pole, and would be completely internal; For clarification, relayed that alternate site information was discussed at the hearing because he included it in his presentation, noting that although one of the findings for the denial was based on a lack of alternate site analysis, staff had not requested additional data regarding site analysis or he would have provided it at the hearing; With respect to the line-of-sight issues, noted that although the antenna could not be blocked directly, e.g., a tree placed directly next to the antenna, that the antennas do not communicate directly with an alternate site via line-of-sight transmissions; Regarding mainienance, relayed that the project would be required to maintain the pole via the Conditions of Approval associated with the project, as well as in accordance requirements of the property owner; With respect to rents offered, relayed that a formal submittal was made regarding the Jiffy Lube site and the property owner had agreed to lease the site, clarifying that money was not the determining factor in choosing a location; · Regarding co-location, noted that co-locating was the cellular company's preference since the costs were lower and cites prefer it; · Clarified that no existing antenna site could meet the needs of coverage for this particular cellular service; · Confirmed that there was a possibility that if this project was approved, a second antenna may co-locate per the property owner's and another facility's determination; For Commissioner Guerriero, Fire Captain McBride relayed that the Fire Department's opinion regarding this matter would be neutral, and that there was support regarding telecommunications in general. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff closed the public hearing. The Planninq Commission offers closinq remarks Commissioner Guerriero advised that in order to determine whether the facility would be aesthetically pleasing the applicant should present a model replica of the proposed poles; noted his concern regarding maintenance; relayed that co-location was the preference due to reducing the number of facilities, and thereby the impacts, specifying that he would desire additional analysis data regarding the justification for not co- ' locating; and noted that he would not support the proposed project at this time. Concurring with Commissioner Guerriero, Commissioner Mathewson noted his desire for provision of a more in-depth analysis regarding not being able to co-locate and the rationale for the need to locate at this particular site; with respect to maintenance issues, relayed a desire for a letter from the manufacturer providing assurance that there would be no fading, advising that it would be his hope that the conditions associated with the project would require maintenance during the life of the facility; with respect to aesthetics, opined that there was nothing the applicant could add to create a more stealth appearance; and concluded that it would be his recommendation that the applicant bring back additional information regarding the maintenance and alternate site location data, recommending that locating at apartment complex sites not be pursued. Commissioner Telesio echoed the previous comments regarding maintenance issues, advising that the contract/agreement would most likely best address this matter; with respect to site location, concurred with the desire for the applicant to provide analysis regarding the need to locate at this particular location; with respect to the concerns of the adjacent residents, clarified that this proposed site was not zoned residential, that a minimum distance of 250 feet to the nearest residence may be adequate, that he had difficulty understanding the concerns regarding the visual impacts of the project, and that the Planning Commission could not address concerns regarding radio waves; and concurred with the recommendation to continue this item in order for the applicant to provide additional information regarding the alternate sites, which were investigated, as well as material samples with a prognosis from the manufacturer regarding the appearance and durability of the painted poles. R: Plan Comrn/min ut es/O 80702 7 Since the easement proximate to the apartment complexes would not be feasible, Commissioner Olhasso concurred with not pursuing the investigation of apartment complex locations; queried whether this particular antenna could be installed in the flagpole at the Burger King use proximate to the Jiffy Lube site, or an alternate location in Palomar Village, advising that the facility would be better suited further from residential; and noted that she concurred with staff regarding the recommendation to deny the project, as proposed. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that if the existing wooden poles were replaced with metal poles with a similar appearance that the facility would not be visibly noticeable; with respect to the homeowners' concerns, noted the difficulties which have arisen due to the golf course being owned by McMillin instead of the HOA at this time; referencing the associated ordinance, relayed that provisions have been made for these types of facilities; advised that metal poles would most likely be more durable on a long-term basis than wooden poles; opined that if an antenna was needed in this particular area, the proposed plan would most likely be the most appropriate; concurred that the project should not move forward until the applicant has clarified the paint treatment on the poles, advising that the are specialty artists that are able to paint in a manner that resembles wood, e.g., at the Pechanga site; noted that the applicant should provide additional information regarding the alternate site location analysis, and the alternate wave length patterns in order for the Planning Commission to determine if this was the best location for the installation. With respect to the applicant providing additional data regarding alternate site locations, Commissioner Mathewson requested that the information include the proximity to residential areas, noting that Palomar Village (a recommended location to be investigated) was proximate to residential areas. Regarding the proximity to residential areas, Commissioner Telesio, echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the proposed location would most likely provide the greatest distance from residences. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Antenna Ordinance addressed maintenance of the facilities, noting that via a Maintenance Facility Removal Agreement or enforceable provisions in a signed lease this issue would be addressed, Assistant City Attorney Curley advising that not only would the project be conditioned as such, but a separate enforceable contractual document would address the maintenance elements; and for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that the maintenance of the facility would be the telecommunication entity's responsibility. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that typically the City did not hire an outside consultant, or require the applicant to do so, in order that the Planning Commission would be provided an unbiased analysis of the applicant's data. In response to Assistant City Attorney Curley, Mr. Myers relayed that the applicant would be willing to utilize an engineer recommended by the City in order to eliminate concerns regarding a bias. R: Pla n ComrrVmin ut es,/080702 8 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the September 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide additional information regarding the need to place the facility at this location, the rationale for not being able to co-locate the facility at an alternate location, a sample model of the treated pole, as well as an analysis engineer recommended by City staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) In order to provide clear direction to the applicant, Commissioner Telesio specified that the Planning Commission was requesting that the applicant provide data regarding the need to install the facility at the proposed location, and a sample of the painted pole in order to alleviate concerns regarding the visual appearance. For Mr. Myers, Chairman Chiniaeff confirmed that if the justification for not locating at various sites was due to the property owners not granting permission that it would be helpful, if feasible, to obtain data (i.e., a letter, an e-mail), demonstrating the property owner's unwillingness to allow installation of the facility. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. At 7:51 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:01 P.M. 5 Planninq Application No. PA 02-0252 (Development Plan) - to desiqn, construct, and operate a 61,200 square foot expansion to the existinq 132,883 square feet Milqard Windows buildinq located at the southwest corner of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway - Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0252 (Development Plan); 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0252, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 61,200 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING 132,883 SQUARE FOOT MILGARD WINDOWS BUILDING ON 15.83 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF DIAZ ROAD AND DENDY PARKWAY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-031 Via overheads, Associate Planner Rush provided an overview of the project plan (of record), highlighting the location, the zoning (Light Industrial), the access to the site, the expansion design plan, and the parking provisions (which would exceed the requirements); noted that the applicant has agreed to add shrubs at a five-foot height (and to maintain the shrubs at this height) in order to aid in screening the bay doors; relayed that while the project has been conditioned to provide drought tolerant plantings on the undeveloped west podion of the site in Condition No. 5, the applicant has expressed opposition to this condition, proposing to hydroseed this area which is not adequate in staffs opinion nor does the plan meet City ordinances regarding undeveloped pads; advised that staff was requesting a revision to the initial study due to the incorrect tables being utilized which was pointed out to staff via a letter from the Air Quality Management District (AQMD), specifying that the site will still have less than significant impacts with the new tables; and noted that staff was additionally recommending that Condition No. 2 be revised to read All outdoor staging areas shall be fully screened from public view. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Rush specified that staff was requesting the applicant to install shrubs (which were drought tolerant) 0n the undeveloped pad rather than hydroseeding due to the long-term visual impact and the potential for this portion of the property to not be developed for a lengthy period of time. Mr. James Buxton, representing the applicant, clarified the applicant's opposition to Condition No. 5, noting that due to the site being located in a drought area, if this particular undeveloped portion of property is required to be planted the area will also have to be irrigated or the plantings will die; via a photograph, displayed the proximate use's undeveloped pads which had been hydroseeded; advised that ultimately the undeveloped pad will most likely be a parking area, additionally noting that the property will be screened due to increasing the berm on Dendy Parkway; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the undeveloped pad would not be developed for parking at this time due to budget constraints and the lack of need for additional parking, confirming that this future parking area will also be utilized for trailer truck parking, noting that initially one trailer will be parked in this area temporarily. Mr. Vincent Didonato, landscape architect representing the applicant, provided an overview of the landscape plan proximate to the undeveloped pad, noting the slopes on the outside edges, as well as the screening from the street; relayed that if this area was irrigated it would create difficulties when the pad was developed for parking; specified that this pad was a large area which would not be visible; and for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that it was his understanding that the Code did not allow Decomposed Granite (DG) in these areas, but an organic material. Mr. Paul Ramsey, representing Keeton Construction Company, further addressed the undeveloped pad area, noting that the area was approximately two acres and was not scheduled for any particular use at this time, and that the area was unbuildable but could be utilized for parking at a future point; and advised that due to the size of the pad it was the applicant's proposal that the area be hydroseeded. For informational purposes and the potential for the Milgard Company to add employees with the expansion project, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that Riverside County One Stop had funds available for on-the-job training for up to half the payroll, advising that it was located proximate to Fire Station No. 73. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Fire Captain McBride advised that if a meadow mix were planted on the undeveloped pad, the Fire Department would consider it landscaped and would not require abatement. R: PlanComm/minu {e~/080702 10 In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding conditions imposed and the relationship to the Code requirements, noting that the intent of the Code regarding landscaping undeveloped pads was to keep the site tidy, weed-free and debris-free; and advised that if the project were conditioned to install gravel or DG with intermittent landscaping, the spirit of the Code would be satisfied. For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Rush (referencing the Code) noted the intent to require landscaping on undeveloped pads for the purpose of soil and erosion control. Commissioner Olhasso noted that the Rancho Water District site provided a good example of drought tolerant landscaping. With respect to the undeveloped pad, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would not be opposed to the installation of DG pathways with some drought tolerant bushes. Mr. Didonato relayed that installing pathways on this particular pad could create a nuisance, advising that he envisioned screening the area and providing erosion control. The applicant's representative requested that the Planning Commission provide specific direction regarding the undeveloped pad. Commissioner Guerriero congratulated the Milgard Company for their growth; and noted that the undeveloped parcel will most likely be vacant for a short period of time, recommending that whatever is installed in this area address dust control. Regarding the undeveloped pad, Commissioner Telesio recommended that the area be primarily gravel (to address soil and erosion control) with minimal plantings, Chairman Chiniaeff recommending a dust control solid type environment with additional landscaping along the edges, which could be irrigated via the existing adjacent irrigation system (changing the spray field to 360 degrees). For the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske concurred that staff and Mr. Didonato could work together to implement a plan for the undeveloped pad per the Planning Commission's direction, advising that, if necessary, staff could obtain input from the City's landscape architect. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following: Modify- · With respect to Condition No. 5 (regarding landscaping the undeveloped pad) that the language be revised to require the applicant to work with staff to develop a plan to install an appropriate level of organic and inorganic materials to address this area; · With respect to Condition No. 2, that the language be revised to state All outdoor staging areas should be fully screened from public vie~, and · That the initial study be revised to implement the correct table per direction provided via a letter from AQMD (as noted previously by staff). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. For the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if there were difficulties regarding staff and the applicant coming to agreement on a plan to landscape the undeveloped pad, the issue could be brought back to the Planning Commission. 6 Planning Application No. PA01-0383 (Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan). To desiqn, construct and operate a thirty-five foot hiqh-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility desi.qned as a flaqpole and the installation of a one hundred forty four square foot equipment shelter located on the south side of Hiqhway 79 South and west of Redhawk Parkway at the existinq McDonalds site at 31853 Hiqhway 79 South - Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0383 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 6.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0383, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THIRTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGNED AS A FLAGPOLE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF A ONE HUNDRED FORTY FOUR SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT SHELTER LOCATED AT THE MCDONALDS SITE AT 31853 HIGHWAY SEVENTY-NINE SOUTH AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 961-080-007 By way of overhead photographs, Associate Planner Rush presented the project plan (per agenda material), noting the location, and the proposal to replace the existing flagpole with a flagpole with antennas mounted inside; relayed that staff was opposed to the proposed lighting mounted at the base of the pole which was not consistent with the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance, advising that staff was recommending that the lights be raised to eliminate the direction of light into the sky, or that the lighting be eliminated; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the applicant has relayed no opposition to staff's recommendations; relayed that staff was requesting that Condition No. 9 (regarding fees) be deleted due to these fees having been paid; and that Condition No. 10 (regarding copies of the final conditions) be moved under the section Prior to Building Permits. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Credit Union in this center may also have a flagpole. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Rush confirmed that the applicant did provide siting analysis within the initial submittal package, which was adequate with respect to justification for locating the antenna at this use, advising that staff opined that this proposal was a suitable location; and noted that there were no existing antennas located proximate to this location. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hazen clarified that it was staff's opinion that this proposed location was more suitable than the Temeku Hills proposed facility, specifying that that applicant had been encouraged to explore different sites with that particular project, additionally noting that staff encouraged applicants to locate the facilities in existing architectural features. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that future .proposed facilities for alternate entities would be directed to consider co-locating. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that GIS staff was in the process of developing an exhibit denoting the existing antennas in the City. Mr. Marc Meyers, representing the applicant, presented the proposal, noting that the antennas would be completely sealed within the pole; relayed that the equipment would be located adjacent to the existing building and connected to the trash enclosure; relayed no opposition to the Conditions of Approval or to staff's recommendations; presented photographs of alternate similar facilities; provided additional information regarding co-location; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted a wiliness to move the lighting; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the antenna would extend to the top of the pole. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following revisions: Modify- · That Condition No. 9 (regarding fees) be deleted; · That Condition No. 10 (regarding copies of the final conditions) be moved under Prior to Building Permits; and · That the lighting be moved further up on the pole and be in compliance with the Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Planninq Application No. PA01-0572 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan). To desi.qn, construct and operate a twenty-six foot hiqh, fourteen- foot wide unmanned wireless telecommunication facility housinq six antennas and associated equipment, located at 27215 Nicolas Road (Chaparral Hiqh School Campus - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner R: Pla n Comr~'n~ n ut es/O 80702 13 RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0572 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0572, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TWENTY-SIX FOOT HIGH, FOURTEEN FOOT WIDE UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY HOUSING SIX ANTENNAS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT LOCATED ON THE CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS AT 27215 NICOLAS ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 911-760-007 Senior Planner Hazen provided an overview of the project plan (per the staff report), highlighting the location, the proposal to mount the antenna panels inside of the monument sign, the dimensions of the monument, and the reader board; advised that this proposal was being dealt with as a stealthing device for the telecommunication panels; presented the landscaping plan; noted staff's recommendation to place the Chaparral "C" on all four sides of the monument sign; advised that due to this monument sign being installed, the existing sign located further down on Nicolas Road would be removed; and with respect to the proposed lighting, relaying that staff was recommending that there be a reveal inset where the "C" was located and that the lighting either be placed at the top of the reveal inset, or be eliminated. Commissioner Guerriero recommended that there be specific language addressing the timing of the removal of the existing sign. For Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen provided additional information regarding the reader board; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that in allowing the 26-foot height the approximate 30-foot height of the existing sign was considered. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that due to the transportation easement on Winchester Road, the applicant would be required to sign an agreement stating that if in the future that easement was needed for transportation, the sign would have to be moved. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the focus of this action was the antenna structure, noting the applicant's plan to consider all the requirements of the antenna facility and subsequently create a useable structure to house the antenna, which in this case was the monument sign. R: PlanComoYminu [es/080702 14 In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen noted that consent of the properly owner (the School District) was submitted as part of the initial application process. For the record, the applicant's representative, Mr. Marc Meyers, noted agreement with the Conditions of Approval, with moving the lighting from the ground, as recommended by staff, as well as creating a reveal inset for the Chaparral "C." MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the applicant moving the lighting, as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Oihasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS In response to Commissioner Olhasso's queries regarding the dead grass area depicted in the photograph associated with Agenda Item No. 7, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that the area was located on partial right-of-way and School District property. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske introduced the Planning Department's newest addition to staff, Mr. Dan Long. Associate Planner Long provided a brief overview of his work history, noting that he looked forward to working for the City of Temecula. Commissioner Guerriero noted that he was pleased with Mr. Long being added onboard, that he would be a great addition to staff; and welcomed him. ADJOURNMENT At 9:13 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular meetin.q to be held on Wednesday, Au.qust 21, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairma i~iaeff, ~ Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning