Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout091802 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, September 18, 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: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Acienda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Cudey, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Battalion Chief McBride, Principal Planner Hazen, Principal Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Thornsley, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 2 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 18, 2002. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from July 17, 2002. R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 I 3 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for August 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained from Item No. 2. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Development Review Process, Debbie Ubnoske Presenting an overview of the staff recommended revisions to the Development Review Process, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided the following highlights: · The task of analyzing the current Development Review Process; That meetings from various agencies were held in order for staff to obtain feedback regarding the review process; · The efforts made to improve the timeframe associated with this process; The plan to implement a Development Review Process for exempt projects (i.e., projects not requiring environmental review) which would take seven weeks in lieu of the current 15-week process, noting that this plan would include the following: The development of an appointment process for application submittals; The goal to deem complete the application at the time of the appointment; and The exploration of the concept of developing separate applications for each type of permit; · Relayed that a customer service survey was developed and implemented; and That there has been consideration to create City CEQA Guidelines, which would create additional exemptions. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that it was City po[icy to return phone calls within 24 hours, advising that the Planning Department was monitoring this procedure intradepartmentally; confirmed that numerous applicants communicate back and forth with staff via e-mail; and noted that there was consideration regarding allowing any applicant to follow a fast-track process (subject to applicant's agreement to the submittal of data per a specified timeline). In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that if the Development Guidelines became part of the Development Code some flexibility would be lost; and noted hopes that the City Council would support the concept of forming a Subcommittee to biannually review the status of the applications. R: PlanComm/rninutes/091802 2 For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the revised shodened timeframe for processing projects encompassed the time from the application submittal to the time the project was brought forward to the Planning Commission or a Director's Hearing; and relayed that a timeline was not developed for projects requiring Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) due to the variables associated with such. It is noted that the Planning Commission received and filed this report. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Appeal of PA01-0601 Unmanned Telecommunication Facility consisting of replacing two existing golf ball nettinq wood poles with two metal poles, which will contain the antennas located on the nodheast corner of Rancho California Road and Marqarita Road in Temeku Hills Golf Course, Planninq Area 46 of the Margarita Villaqe Specific Plan 199. Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Requesting a continuance to October 2, 2002 Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the staff report (of record), noting that this item had been continued from the August 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide additional data; relayed that staff received an additional letter from a homeowner who was opposed to the project which was provided to the Planning Commission supplementarily; specified the additional information the applicant has provided, presenting the sample materials for the poles; requested input from the Planning Commission regarding whether the site analysis data the applicant provided was adequate and whether an outside consultant should be hired to provide additional information regarding the project; and relayed staff's recommendation to continue this item to the October 2, 2002 meeting. Mr. Marc Myers, representing the applicant, noted that while the applicant would prefer approval of the project at tonight's hearing that the applicant would agree to the continuance; and clarified that all of the information that the applicant had submitted to staff had not been provided to the Planning Commission. Addressing the queries of the Planning Commission, Mr. Myers noted the following: for Commissioner Guerriero, provided additional information regarding the pole materials, advising that the applicant would be willing to either have an artist paint the steel poles to resemble wood telephone poles or to add telephone pole cladding as per provided sample materials; for Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, confirmed that staff has not had an opportunity to review the cladding sample material; confirmed that the photograph depicted a pole covered with the cladding material; for Chairman Chiniaeff, advised that the poles were warranted via the manufacturer; in response to Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that to the best of his understanding the Burger King parcel was part of the Palamar Shopping Center and under one ownership (Director of Planning Ubnoske noting that staff could obtain additional information regarding this matter); and for Commissioner Mathewson, advised that the actual wood poles vary in diameter from 11 inches to 15 inches, and the applicant would be installing comparable poles. R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 3 For the record, Chairman Chiniaeff noted the Planning Commission's receipt of a letter written by Mr. Bill Miller, outlining his concerns regarding the project. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: o Mr. John Shablow 30791 Links Court ~ Mr. Bill Miller 30743 Links Court [] Mr. Harold Ritter 30725 Links Court The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: ,/ Opined that this location was solely chosen due to the lower lease prices at this site; ,/ That approving this project would set a precedent in the City; ,/ Noted concerns regarding the health issues associated with this installation; ¢' Queried the focus of the Planning Commission regarding the camouflaging of the facility; ,,' Opined that telecommunications facilities should not be placed in residential areas; ,/ That this facility should co-locate at an alternate site (i.e., at the water tower site); and v' Requested that there be review of all the recorded statements of the applicant, and in particular the earliest hearings. Providing rebuttal, Mr. Marc Myers, relayed the following information: · Referencing alternate telecommunication facilities which he represented and were recently approved by the Planning Commission, noted that he thought that this project would have been more readily approved since there would be no significant net change to the existing environment; · With respect to concerns expressed regarding the location of a commercial use proximate to a residential area, clarified that there was an existing gas station which was significantly closer to the residents than this facility would be, noting that this project was far less intrusive; Relayed that this project would provide a benefit to the community due to the improved cellular service; That the project was stealth; That he could provide more specific information regarding the Burger King parcel, if needed; referencing the ownership list of the numerous parcels in the Palomar Village Shopping Center, relayed that in general the majority of the parcels were owned by the center; and R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 4 · Relayed hopes that the project would be approved, while offering to bring back additional information if that was the Planning Commission's desire. Chairman Chiniaeff requested that staff provide the Planning Commission all the information the applicant had submitted to staff including the technical study; and noted the importance of determining whether there was an alternate location that would work from a technical standpoint. Commissioner Olhasso clarified that she desired to see documentation regarding contact the applicant has had with the owners of the Burger King use regarding locating the facility at that location, or technical information regarding the rationale for this site not being feasible for the facility to be effective. Additional discussion ensued regarding whether a consultant should be hired to provide additional information to the Planning Commission. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that if the Burger King owner was not willing to lease to the applicant there would be no need of further documentation, which was echoed by Commissioner Telesio; and queried whether this facility could be co-located at an alternate site and provide the same coverage. Commissioner Telesio advised that the only two issues in question were, as follows: 1 ) Whether this site was appropriate for this facility, and 2) If the site was not appropriate what alternate locations would be feasible for installation of the facility. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the golf course was a commercial use and not a residential use. Assistant City Attorney Cudey provided additional information regarding the golf course being a commercial use. Concurring with Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Mathewson noted the far reaching impacts in alternate developments, i.e., Specific Plan Projects, if all areas in a Master Planned Community were to be considered residential; concurred with Commissioner Telesio, noting that if the applicant could provide documentation regarding the refusal of property owners to permit the facility to be located on their parcels there would be no reason for additional study information regarding the sites. Commissioner Telesio relayed that if the alternate sites, i.e., the Burger King parcel, cited by the Planning Commission were not available to the applicant, the Planning Commission would need to review this project as a facility proposed to be instalIed on a commercial site, and not a residential one. Relaying the applicant's responsibilities, Commissioner Guerriero opined that the applicant should provide documentation demonstrating that this was the only site feasible for installation of the facility; for informational purposes, noted that if the facility were to be located at this site, it was vital that the installation be stealth which was one of the issues the law permitted the Planning Commission to address with this type of facility; and relayed that he preferred the cladding material to the painted pole sample. R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 5 Additional discussion ensued regarding what encompassed the responsibilities of the applicant with respect to investigating alternate sites. Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the Findings the City Code imposes on the Planning Commission regarding this type of proposed project, as well as information regarding the extent of the responsibility of the applicant with respect to investigating sites, and the subsequent review of that information by staff. Offering clarification, Commissioner OIhasso reiterated that she desired to have information regarding the Burger King site prior to determining if the site analysis was complete. Referencing the applicant's data, Director of Planning Ubnoske queried the Planning Commission as to the breadth of information desired regarding the site analysis. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not require the hiring of a specialty consultant regarding this project's analysis. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would also provide additional information regarding the associated ordinance and the findings necessary for action at the next hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to bring additional information regarding the feasibility of installing the facility at the Burger King site, and for staff to analyze the cladding material that the applicant had provided at this hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. For Mr. Myers, Commissioner Olhasso noted that a letter from the properly owner of the Burger King use reflecting the refusal of the property owner to permit the facility to be located on their parcel would be adequate documentation. Mr. Myers requested that staff provide to the Planning Commission at the October 2, 2002, meeting all the project data that the applicant had submitted. 6 Planninq Application No. PA02-0236 A Development Plan / Product Review for detached sin.qle family residences within Planninq Area No. 7 of the Harveston Specific Plan located south of Oak Street, west of Marqarita Road, between Harveston School Road and Maior Entry off of Oak Street, Assessor's Parcel No. 916-160-004 and 916-170-011, Tentative Tract Map 29928-2 and 29928-3. Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner. RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application(s) No. 02-0236 (Development Plan / Product Review) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 6 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0236 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN / PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 7 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF OAK STREET, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETVVEEN HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD AND MAJOR ENTRY OFF OF OAK STREET, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 916-160-004, 916-180- 008, 916-170-011 AND 916-170-007 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29928-1 AND 29928. Assistant Planner Preisendanz introduced Mr. Bill Storm, the applicant's representative who would present the revisions to the proposal that the applicant has implemented in response to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Storm introduced Mr. M. J. Knitter, the principal designer for the project, and Mr. Matthew Fagan, who, via overheads, presented the proposed products for the Harveston Development, noting the following: · That a Tuscan style had been added to the products, specifically introduced in Plan lA and Plan 3; · That the Colonial style was eliminated in Plan lA due to its similarity to the Farmhouse style; · That the American Farmhouse style was simplified to provide a more authentic product; · That stonework was added to the East Coast Traditional style to add elegance; · That all of the elevations in Plan 2 remained without revision; That in Plan 3 the Colonial style was also eliminated, and that a Tuscan elevation had been added in this plan; and That on the American Farm House style (in Plan 3B) the porch had been extended, a column had been added, the roof had been extended, and the form element had been simplified. Relaying kudos to the representatives of Harveston, Commissioner Olhasso noted that the presented product was wonderful and would serve in upgrading the community; and applauded the authentic architectural styles. R: PianComm/minutes/091802 7 MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0217 Development AC:lreement with Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. a subsidiary of The Guidant Corporation, Dave Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Requesting a continuance to October 2, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 8 Planninq Application No. PA02-0355 A Substantial Conformance request to amend the Desiqn Guidelines of the Crowne Hill subdivision for Vested Tract Map No.'s 23143-5 throuqh -12 and approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan alonq Pauba Road, east of Butterfield Stage Road and south of Pauba Road, Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0355 (Substantial Conformance) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-037 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0355 A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE REQUEST TO AMEND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE CROWNE HILL SUBDIVISION FOR VESTED TRACT MAP NOS. 23143-5 THROUGH - 12 AND APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ALONG PAUBA ROAD, LOCATED EAST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD. Providing clarification at the request of Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that this proposal was before the Planning Commission due to the applicant requesting a change in the Design Guidelines. Principal Planner Hazen additionally noted that the second part of this padicular application was for the Planning Commission to review the conceptual landscape plan alon9 Pauba Road. R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 8 The Planning Commission determined to address the landscaping portion of the application first. Staff presented the proposal Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the proposed landscape plan along Pauba Road; read into the record Condition No. 52, regarding the project's landscape requirements at the time of project approval; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the condition subjected the applicant to install native landscaping. The applicant provided an overview of the proiect Via exhibits, Mr. Bob Diehl, representing the applicant, relayed that proposals presented tonight were conceptual; noted the efforts of the applicant to implement into the landscape plan elements to address the residents' concerns, highlighting the proposed slope plantings, the public park site, and the proposed hydroseeding; for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the location of the eroded section of the slope which would be graded, irrigated, and landscaped; relayed that the plant palette would encompass 30 to 40 varying types of trees; highlighted the proposed hydroseeded areas, and the storm drain area, specifying the function of this drain which would drain back toward the south east; and confirmed that the applicant had not finalized the landscape plans at this time, confirming that the applicant would comply with the conditions. For clarification, Principal Planner Hazen noted staff's intent to have the applicant bring the landscape plan forward to the Ptanning Commission while still in conceptual form due to the numerous residents who were concerned regarding this project; and advised that it was staff's recommendation that the public comments be relayed to the Planning Commission and the applicant prior to the plan being finalized. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Diehl noted the applicant's intent to incorporate a transition into the landscaping at the eastern podion of the project. The public was invited to speak The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Ms. Pamela Voit Ms. Debbie Luzuriaga Ms. Linda Mackie Mr. Roger Jaeger Mr. John Wayland Mr. John Lewis Mr. Joe McCormack Mr. Seamrs McDonald Mr. Dave Crone 38770 Sky Canyon Drive, #B 42075 Calle Barbona 33354 Pauba Road 41325 Billy Joe Lane 33342 Pauba Road 33560 Linda Rosen Road 41162 Mesa Robles Circle 41101 Mesa Robles Circle 41485 Via Del Monte Murdeta The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project, expressing the following comments: Thanked staff, and the applicant for their efforts to address the concerns of the residents; R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 9 · / Submitted a petition with 26 signatures of property owners in the Country Road Estates who were opposed to the project, as well as a letter dated September 18, 2002, from the Country Road Estates Homeowners Association (HCA) which outlined the concerns of the HCA; v' That when the landscape conditions were imposed on the project, the area had been more rural; ,/ That while Condition No. 52 requires the applicant to landscape, the applicant's plan denoted that the native vegetation would remain; v' Presented photographs depicting the type of landscaping desired; · / That natural landscaping would not be sufficient for erosion control and would cause an eyesore, as well as creating a fire hazard; v' That the homeowners in the Country Estates HCA were required to spend a minimum of two percent (2%) of the market value of their homes on landscaping within two years of the house's completion; v' Concern regarding the lack of available on-street parking; ," Queried why the developer was permitted to fence off public property, and permitted to use private property for access without compensation to the property owners; v' That the grading would cause flooding; ,,' That the subdivision rules for both the County and the City of Temecula require full- street improvements and permanent landscaping of the slope for erosion and beautification purposes; ,,' The proposed drainage plan which would negatively impact the neighboring properties; Requested that this item be continued in order to the applicant to provide specificity with respect to the landscape plan; v' Noted concern regarding the aesthetics and health hazards associated with the retention basin; · "Concern regarding the speeds of vehicles on Pauba Road, recommending that the speed limit be enforced; · "Concern regarding the proposed ingress and egress for the park, and the negative visibility impacts; · " Relayed opposition to the installation of 3-story homes; · / Noted that per discussions with Deputy City Manager Thornhill and Director of Planning Ubnoske in 1992, it was the intent that the language of the condition R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 10 provide flexibility for the Planning Director, the HOA, and the developer to come to an agreement when the landscape would be installed; Relayed a summary of conversations held in 1992 regarding the expectation for landscaping in this area; In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Ms. Voit confirmed that the conditions solely require the applicant to install temporary irrigation, and that when that irrigation was removed the landscaping would most likely die; advised that it was the Country Road Estates HOA's desire that the landscape requirements be revised in order to not devalue the area; for Commissioner Olhasso, provided additional information regarding the County's beautification program; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that the project was conditioned in 1992. For Commissioner Mathewson, Ms. Luzuriaga confirmed that the County, the City, and her Real Estate agent told her when she purchased her property that the slope area would be landscaped. For the record, Minute Clerk Hansen noted receipt of a letter submitted at this hearing (i.e., September 18, 2002) written by Mr. Ernie G. Meth, outlining his concerns regarding the project, specifically the landscape plan with no irrigation along Pauba Road, the implementation of 3-story buildings along Pauba Road and/or Via Del Monte, and the dangers associated with the drainage ditch that has been constructed adjacent to Pauba Road and Via Del Monte. At 8:03 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:12 P.M. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it was not the intent of staff to bring this item back to the Planning Commission, advising that the project was conditioned to have these items approved at a staff level and that staff was seeking Planning Commission input. Addressinq landscapinq issues associated with this proiect the Planninq Commission offered the followinq comments: In light of the size and quality of the project, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she expected the landscape plan to be commensurate with the landscaping on the projects located to the south and west of the project. Commissioner Telesio relayed hopes that the applicant would work with the residents to come to a compromise, recommending that staff be involved in these discussions; and urged the community to diligently work with the developer since the project had minimal landscape requirements per the conditions due to the desire at the time of conditioning for the area to remain rural; · Commissioner Guerriero urged the residents and the developer to work together with staff to address the landscaping; · Concurring with previous Planning Commission comments, Commissioner Mathewson relayed assurance that staff would work diligently to resolve these R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 11 issues, noting hopes that the developer would go the extra mile to be a good neighbor; Referencing Condition Nos. 52 and 54, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the intent at the time of approval of the project was to preserve the natural state of the area; advised that the retention basin was conditioned to be placed in this project; questioned the need for the proposed equestrian trail due to the lack of connectivity, recommending that the trail be eliminated and that the monies from the horse trail be added to the landscaping; with respect to the concern regarding placement of 3-story homes on top of the slope area, recommended that trees be placed in this area to reduce the negative ridgeline appearance; and noted for the public that when a developer grades and disturbs, re-vegetation was be required. At this time the Planning Commission considered the portion of the proposal regarding the revisions to the elevations. Staff provided a brief overview of the proiect Associate Planner Thornsley presented a brief overview of the staff report (or record); for Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that the parks had already been designed and had been previously reviewed and approved; and noted that the City did not require that a pool facility be implemented and the developer had no desire to do so. The applicant presented the proiect Mr. Bob Diehl, representing the applicant, noted that there was another developer (e.g., KB Homes) involved in the project at this time, and introduced Mr. Barry Burnell who would provide the presentation; in response to Commissioner Olhasso' queries as to why no pool facility was proposed in this project, noted that since the developer was entering an existing established community, that the homes offered were designed for move-up buyers, and that the product would be offered on large lots (which were adequate size for homeowners to install their own pool), it was determined that to keep the HOA fees down, a pool facility would not be implemented. By way of overheads, Mr. Barry Burnell as well as Mr. Diehl, representatives of the applicant, presented the following information regarding the proposed revised Design Guidelines: A visual of a created streetscene; · Specified the elevations on the lot site plan which would have enhanced articulation due to being visible to the public; For Commissioner Telesio, noted that the lot sizes would vary, that there would be a mix of one- and two-story dwellings, and that there would be oppodunities for a three-story unit on the larger lots, specifying the location of this area; · The built entry design and the landscaping; · For Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the product designs and the streetscene visuals were pulled from architecture which was being built today, advising that the R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 12 elevations depicted in the Design Guidelines were taken from actual project design drawings, and that when specific architectural designs had been developed for these homes they would be coming forward for Product Review approval; · Presented the enhanced window treatments, porch elements, and front entries; · For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the photograph samples were depicting Pacific Century homes which had been actually built in alternate areas; and · That the elevation in which the driveway was inadvedently not depicted would have a turn-in garage treatment. For clarification, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed to the public that the renderings depicted the types of homes that would be developed per the Design Guidelines and were not an actual representation of the project, advising that specific product review would be reviewed at a future public hearing. The applicant's representative clarified that the Design Guidelines provided the conceptual architectural styles being proposed for future implementation, requesting input as to whether these padicular guidelines define the criteria the Planning Commission was seeking. Commissioner Guerdero suggested that the applicant review the final Harveston Design Guidelines to gain an understanding of what the Planning Commission was seeking. For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that this project was already approved with a vesting map; and relayed that at this time the applicant was simply presenting revised updated Design Guidelines. The Planninq Commission offered the following input re~lardin~l the proposed Desiqn Guidelines: Commissioner Olhasso noted that the proposed products were outdated, depicting large stucco boxes without authentic architectural styles, relaying hopes that it was the applicant's desire to build a higher quality product. In response, the applicant's representative relayed the desire to build a product that would have continuity with the existing homes in this area. With respect to the proposed Design Guidelines, specifically on page 5, Commissioner Mathewson noted the lack of language addressing the development of an adequate mix of one- and two-story homes, advising that to have numerous homes built side-by-side with the same rooflines would not be acceptable; and requested a minimum single-story commitment. Assistant City Attorney Curley confirmed that it would not be appropriate to impose a specified percentage of one-story homes with respect to this project; and for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the variation of the floor plans could be addressed subject to the approved resolutions associated with this project not having language included addressing this matter. R: PlanComrn/minutes/091802 13 Commissioner Mathewson requested that the language of the Design Guidelines be strengthened to encourage the implementation of an adequate number of single- story homes. Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that the Planning Commission was seeking a streetscene with variation with respect to the elevations, i.e., the height, and the rooflines. Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that this type of language could be added to the Design Guidelines due to it being general. Mr. Bob Fallon, representing KB Home Coastal Inc., joined the applicant's representatives at this point to aid in addressing the Planning Commission's queries. With respect to the general language throughout the Design Guidelines stating should incorporate elements, or at times stating may incorporate elements, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the words should and may be replaced with the word shall. Assistant City Attorney Curley confirmed that this recommendation was appropriate. Referencing page 7 of the Design Guidelines, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that he had noted some revisions that he recommended that the applicant implement which he would provide to staff. in response to Chairman Chiniaeff's recommendations to add articulation to additional elevations, the applicant's representative noted a willingness to implement these revisions. Referencing page 8 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Olhasso noted her displeasure regarding the shutters denoted on the Spanish Colonial style, recommending that arched windows be incorporated; with respect to the Craftsman style, opined that the porch treatment was too small and the brick or stone would need to be continued or there should be siding implemented all the way down, citing an example from the Harveston proposed product (Plan 9); with respect to the ltalianate style, noted that she could accept the varying stucco tones or there could be added stonework, Commissioner Guerriero recommending the added stone. For Commissioner Telesio, the applicant's representatives noted that the chimneys were located behind the product on this page, and that it was an optional element on the KB Home product; and clarified that these elevations represented the smaller end product. With respect to pages 9, 10, and 11 of the Design Guidelines, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that on the enhanced elevations (i.e., elevations which were visible from the public right-of-way), that the shutters or alternative treatments be added to all the windows, as well as the pop-out treatments. Referencing page 11 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Olhasso noted that on the Craftsman style, the porch was too small, and that the front entry should be more continuous, suggesting that an authentic porch be added, in particular one that was wider; and that the Spanish Colonial style should be simplified to create authenticity, and the rooflines should create a clean front line appearance. R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 14 Referencing page 11 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that there be some architectural forward treatments, additionally commenting on the rooflines with no variation on the rear elevations. In response, Mr. Burnell suggested that some of the streetscenes be included in the Design Guidelines depicting these particular implementations; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that at this point the applicant was unsure what the product mix would be; and clarified that implementing the streetscenes into the Design Guidelines would represent the required mix. For clarification, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that when Product Review takes place at a Planning Director's Hearing, projects were conditioned to implement an adequate mix of roofline elements, providing assurance that staff would address this issue. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that the applicant's willingness to add a streetscene representative of a mixed product would further define the general concepts required, and that revising the language to add a requirement for a mixture of styles, elevations, and heights, would provide a level of certainty regarding an adequate mixture. With respect to all of the subsequent enhanced elevations, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that all the windows on an elevation be adiculated similarly in lieu of solely one. Referencing page 13 of the Design Guidelines, specifically the graphic denoting the standard condition, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that this elevation was not acceptable due to its box-like appearance; and confirmed for the applicant that the enhance condition style could be utilized for both elevations within the public view, and out of public view. Referencing page 14 of the Design Guidelines, the Planning Commission recommended a more authentic style on the Craftsman design, Chairman Chiniaeff suggesting added fascia, i.e., brick or siding. Commissioner Guerriero recommended that on the Spanish Colonial style the windows be arched, Chairman Chiniaeff suggesting the addition of a pot shelf treatment with shutters. Commissioner Olhasso advised that these depictions were the most antiquated. For Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's representative concurred that the four-vent treatment should be revised. Referencing page 16 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Guerriero recommended that on the one-story French Country style depicted on the right side of the page, stone be added under the window to the right of the entry, as well as on the right side of the garage, Commissioner Olhasso recommending that rock surround the garage door on the two-story element, and recommending that the shutter treatment be revised. For Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's representative specified the lot sizes in each planning area. R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 15 Referencing page 18 of the Design Guidelines regarding the Italianate style, the Planning Commission recommended additional consistency, not one window with shutters and another without, recommending that continuity be implemented on the other styles as well. Commissioner Guerriero recommended that on the Italianate style the area around the door be scored to simulate block. For Commissioner Olhasso, the applicant's representative relayed that the front porch would be approximately six feet. For Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that typically the Design Guidelines could address implementation of architecturally forward elements, advising that staff would investigate the approved conditions for this project to ensure that this matter had not been addressed, noting that if there was no conflicting language, then the incorporation of this element would be added to the Design Guidelines. In response, the applicant relayed the intent for a variety of elevations to be provided including architecture forward elements. Recapitulating, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that there needed to be consistency in the detailed articulation, i.e., avoiding three different types of windows on the front of a house (as cited on page 21 of the Design Guidelines). Commissioner Olhasso recommended that siding and rock be added to the Craftsman style even if solely on the higher end product, and that arched windows and doorways be added to the Spanish Colonial style. Referencing page 22 in the Design Guidelines, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the rear elevation was flat and needed added elements to create visual interest. Referencing page 25 of the Design Guidelines, the applicant's representative provided additional information regarding the French Country style. Referencing page 27 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Guerriero and Chairman Chiniaeff noted the lack of consistency again with the window treatments, recommending that the shutter treatment be added to alternate windows, and in particular the window to the far left. Commissioner Guerriero and Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the supports for the porch treatment appeared to be inconsistent with the French country style. In response, Mr. Burnell agreed, advising that this treatment would be revised Referencing page 27 of the Design Guidelines, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that additional articulation be added to the Spanish Colonial style, Commissioner Guerriero recommending enhanced stucco finish. With respect to page 31 of the Design Guidelines regarding the French Country style, Commissioner Guerriero and Commissioner Olhasso recommended that the stone treatment be continued on both sides of the garage. For Commissioner Telesio, the applicant provided additional information regarding the design of this elevation. R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 16 With respect to page 33 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the language include encouragement to implement architecturally forward elements and recessed garages, and that the configurations on page 34 be modified to reflect this implementation. At this time the public was invited to speak The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Mr. Roger Jaeger Mr. Bennet Cherry Ms. Pamela Voit 41325 Billy Joe Lane 43091 Noble Coud 38770 Sky Canyon Drive, #B Murdeta The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project, expressing the following comments: Noted the need to beak up the rooflines which as proposed did not present a mix, concurring with the Planning Commission's comments, recommending that the elevations in the public view provide a variety of architecture detail; ,/ Thanked the Planning Commission for their comments and recommendations; Voiced concern regarding the impact of this project on the existing HOA, i.e., increased HOA fees, and the maintenance of landscaping; and concurred with the applicant that a pool facility should not be implemented; ,/ Opposed to the implementation of 3-story homes due to the negative visual impacts; Disappointed with the presented elevations which lack articulation, recommending that the Design Guidelines not be approved due to the lack of specificity and architectural detail; Concurred with Commissioner Mathewson regarding the implementation of architecturally forward elements; and Noted concern regarding the proposal to eliminate the Design Guidelines for the 28 homes in the Crowne Hill Estates. For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that residents within a 300-foot radius would be notified of the Director's Hearing which would address the Product Review for this project, and that the hearing would also be posted, as well as advertised in the newspaper. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation to approve this application, subject to the modifications specified in the minutes of this meeting, specifically the portion reflecting the Planning Commission's bulleted recommendations, as well as implementing staff's recommendations contained in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 18.) R: PlanComn~rninutes/091802 17 It was determined that staff would work with the applicant and the residents regarding the conceptual landscape plan. Further commenting, Commissioner Olhasso opined that although the applicant noted the need to maintain the profit margin on this project, the majority of the Planning Commission recommendations allow for the applicant to maintain its goals while improving the product. For Commissioner Telesio, Principal Planner Hazen noted that there was a condition on the vesting map for this project that Pauba Road conform to a County standard road which included an equestrian trail, advising that although Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the horse trail be eliminated due to its lack of connectivity and that the monies be attributed to additional landscaping, that the trail could not be easily eliminated due to the conditions. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval of the motion. 9 Planninq Application No. PA99-0186 General Plan Amendment: 2000-2005 Housinq Element, Dave Hoqan, Principal Planner: RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 99-0186; 9.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO, 2002-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2000-2005 HOUSING ELEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0186) Principal Planner Hogan reviewed the two revisions proposed in the 2000-2005 Housing Element (per the staff repod), advising that a conditional approval from Department of HCD (Housing and Community Development) had been received regarding this element; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the Housing Element had been circulated. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 10 Planninq Application No. PA02-0318 Development Code Amendment: Modular Structures and Other Chanqes, Dave Hoqan, Principal Planner: RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 18 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE" (PLANNING APPLICATION 02- 0318) Discussion ensued regarding continuing this matter to the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. It is noted that Ms. Doreen Gagnon, and Rev. H. G. McComas, who had filled out request-to-speak forms for this item opted to hold their comments until the continued hearing. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the October 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS No comments. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 10:50 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re.qular meetin.q to be held on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R: PlanComm/minutes/091802 19