Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110602 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, November 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 Chairman Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Principal Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, Associate Planner Rush, Project Planner McCoy, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 2 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 6, 2002. Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October 2002. R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent. Planninq Application No. PA00-0507 Jefferson Avenue Inn, for the desi.qn and construction of a 70-room, four-story hotel buildinq on a 1.35-acre vacant parcel located adiacent to the Winchester freeway off-ramp next to the Comfort Inn Hotel at the rear of the Rancho Temecula Plaza - Michael McCoy, Project Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the submitted design changes and make a final decision on the proposed project. The original Staff recommendation was for denial or redesign. 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. 3.3 Or Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0507 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A FOUR STORY, 70-ROOM 42,000 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 1.35 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE AND 200 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-282-007. Via overheads, Project Planner McCoy presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the rationale for the inn's recent name change from the Hampton Inn Suites to the Jefferson Avenue Inn due to discrepancies involving the authorization of the use of the R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 2 name Hampton Inn Suites; specified the design changes the applicant has implemented per the Planning Commission's recommendations from the August 21, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, listed as follows: · The relocation of the trash enclosure (which had been expressed as a concern by the adjacent hotel use representatives); · The revised landscape plan with additional shade trees along the eastern property line as well as two additional specimen trees in the landscape planters near the front entrance; · The added two exterior courtyard seating areas proximate to the west and south entrances (denoted on the revised landscape plan); · That the fountain design would be modified in order that the fountain be visible from both sides of the porte cochere; and · The revised colored elevation plans denoting the stone veneer exterior finish. Continuing his presentation, Project Planner McCoy relayed that the applicant did not eliminate the 4th floor or reduce the building footprint, as recommended by some of the Planning Commissioners at the August 21st Planning Commission meeting; noted that in the agenda, staff has attached both a resolution for approval (Item 3.2) and a resolution for denial (Item 3.3) for the project; and advised that it was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission take final action on this application. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, presented the project plan; commenting on the decorative balcony treatments added to the majority of the rooms, advised that if it were the Planning Commission's desire that this element be added to every room, the applicant would be agreeable. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's previously stated concern regarding traffic impacts, Mr. Markham noted that if it were the Planning Commission's desire, the applicant would be agreeable to an added condition requiring that the Jefferson Avenue median improvements be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy; and specified the revisions to the plan (i.e., the relocated trash enclosure, the added landscaping, the added walkways and courtyards), advising that it was the applicant's opinion that the project met the criteria for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase, reiterating the benefits of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) which would be reduced if the FAR were reduced. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that the applicant has stated that he would be agreeable to the Planning Commission further conditioning the project, limiting the applicant's ability to occupy the building until the City completed the median construction project; noted that for this particular site there would not be a break in the median or a signal at this time; and advised that the Public Works Department would not be opposed to this added condition. Mr. Markham clarified that if the applicant were ready to occupy the building and the City had not completed the median work, the applicant would most likely take the responsibility for the construction of the median in order to obtain occupancy. Commissioner Telesio acknowledged the difficulties associated with this particular lot; noted that the applicant had implemented the majority of the Planning Commission's recommendations; relayed that he had not yet determined whether the project met the criteria of an exceptional landscape plan or architectural plan, qualifying the project for the FAR increase. R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 3 In light of the TOT revenue, which would benefit the City, and the applicant's willingness to accept the additional condition regarding the median work, Commissioner OIhasso relayed that she could support the project, as proposed, with the FAR increase. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Olhasso concurred that the balcony treatments should be placed on every window. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Markham relayed that the fountain treatment could be redesigned to be two-sided in order that it could be visible from the inside and the outside of the porte cochere. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing and to approve the project subject to the following modifications: Add- · That a condition be added that prior to occupancy, the Jefferson Avenue median project would be completed; · That the balcony treatment would be added to all the rooms; and · That the fountain design would be modified in order that the fountain be visible from both sides of the porte cochere. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio (Ultimately this motion passed; see below). Mr. Markham relayed that the added conditions were acceptable to the applicant. For informational purposes, Project Planner McCoy relayed that staff would review the revised fountain design to ensure the appropriate orientation. At this time, voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Commissioners Ouerriero and Mathewson who were absent. Plannin¢~ Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to construct, establish and operate a 30,000 square foot office buildinq and to divide the site into two separate parcels of 1.41 acres and 4.28 acres respectively located on the East side of County Center Drive, approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road (APN 910-110- 045), Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Requesting a continuance to December 6, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continue Item No. 4 to the Planning Commission meeting of December 6, 2002. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent. R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 4 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0322 An Extension of Time to desiqn and construct a 56,000 square foot office complex consistinq of ten buildinqs located on the north side of Ridqe Park Drive, between Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraqa Drive, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02~0322 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0322 (THE FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR PA 00-0072 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON FOUR ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, BETVVEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 940-310- 028 AND 032 Associate Planner Harris presented the staff report (of record), recommending approval of the time extension and the project, conditioned as follows: That Condition No. 4d be added, requiring that all onsite compact parking spaces be converted to standard size spaces; That Condition No. 9 be added, requiring that the site address be painted on the roof of the office buildings; That Condition No. 15 be amended to require that landscaping construction drawings be both reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit; That the development of the project comply with the latest edition of the Building Codes (2001) and the California Disabled Access Regulations (1999) adopted by the City; and, That Condition Nos. 87-90 be required, relating to maintenance of landscaping, street light maintenance, and the use of the City's franchise waste hauler. in response to Chairman Chiniaeff's inquiry regarding the applicant's amenability to the modified conditions of approval, Associate Planner Harris indicated that staff had sent the amended conditions to the applicant; however, no response has been received to date. R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 5 MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing and approve the application with staff's recommendations including the added/amended conditions (as reflected on page 5). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent. 6 Planninq Application No. PA02-0473 A Variance to permit a 10-foot reduction for the rear yard setback and a 2-foot reduction for the front yard setback ~ocated on the east side of Avenida De Pasqual and north of Sierra Bonita (945-110-019), Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0473 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0473, A VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 'I0-FOOT REDUCTION FOR THE REAR YARD SETBACK AND 2-FOOT REDUCTION FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AVENIDA DE PASQUAL AND NORTH OF SIERRA BONITA, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 945- 110-019. Associate Planner Rush presented the staff report (of record) and requested approval of staff's recommendation with the Conditions of Approval as proposed. In response to Commissioner Telesio's inquiry regarding the applicant's responsibility for the current circumstances of the lot, Associate Planner Rush clarified the following: · That the applicant purchased the site prior to the construction of the tennis coud which is located to the rear portion of the site; · That when the adjacent home and tennis court were built, the original orientation of the rear yard of the applicant's home would be facing the lighted tennis court. · That reorienting the home so that the side yard would be facing the tennis court, would create far less of a hardship for the applicant; and that reorienting the home would encroach 10 feet into the side yard setback. Responding to Commissioner Telesio's query regarding the sequence of events, Associate Planner Rush advised that the adjacent tennis court was built after the applicant had purchased the property. R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 6 For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Rush confirmed that the property met codes as far as setbacks, etc. Associate Planner Rush added that in doing research, according to the most current grading plan that staff could locate, the tennis court is actually sited on the east side of the property and should have been on the west side. Mr. Joe Saputo, 31265 Sierra Bonita, advised the Commission that the original grading plans sited the tennis court in the location referred to by Associate Planner Rush. However, the plans for the tennis court were modified after the property was originally graded; because it was determined by the City that a drainage ditch would need to be installed, thereby, not leaving enough room to build the tennis court in it original location. Mr. Saputo stated that the modifications were approved by the City. Mr. Saputo advised the Commission that he purchased the property to build an exclusive home and to enjoy the existing privacy. In Mr. Saputo's opinion, permitting the applicant to encroach into the side yard setback would cause the loss of some of his privacy and would lower the value of homes in the area. Mr. Saputo pointed out that his property is graded five feet below the level of the applicant's property and, therefore, Mr. Coltrane is not actually looking at a 24-foot fence. Mr. Saputo added that at the time of the grading, he offered the applicant the opportunity to also grade his property therein gaining 20 feet of flat pad to re-orient his home in a way that would be less intrusive and still agreeable to the applicant. As a point of clarification for Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Saputo advised that the tennis court was to be constructed on the same flat pad but it would have been located along the fence on the north side of the pad. However, after the grading was completed and as a result of rain, damage resulted to the grading and the grading had to be redone after approval by the City to make the land more compact; and noted that because there was no longer room to put the court in its original location, the tennis court was relocated, with approval from the City, and placed it in its current location. Because most activities take place in the rear yard, Commissioner Telesio stated that there would be minor impact to Mr. Saputo's property with the home sited as proposed (side yard facing the tennis courts). Since the applicant's property is situated about five feet above the level of his property, Mr. Saputo related concern that some of his view may be lost due to the closer proximity of the applicant's home. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Art Coltrane, 45338 Clubhouse Drive, clarified that Mr. Saputo had lowered his pad approximately four to five feet prior to the construction of his home and tennis court; that he had chosen not to lower the pad on his property; and, therefore, Mr. Saputo is responsible for the current situation. In response to Mr. Saputo's letter and his concerns regarding the liability of an errant tennis ball, it was noted by Mr. Coltrane that tennis balls are hit from north to south and his home would be oriented north to south; therefore, he wouldn't envision errant tennis bails being a concern. Considering the contributory factors created by Mr. Saputo, Commissioner Telesio supported staff's recommendation to approve the request of the applicant for a variance. R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 7 MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent. 7 Planning Application No. PA02-0147 A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to desif:ln, construct and operate a sixty-five foot hiqh-unmanned wireless telecommunication facility desiqned as a monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets mounted on a sixty-six-square foot pad located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road, Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0147 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0147, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A SIXTY-FIVE FOOT HIGH UNMANNED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY DESIGNED AS A MONOPINE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF FOUR EQUIPMENT CABINETS MOUNTED ON A SIXTY-SIX SQUARE FOOT PAD LOCATED AT 44501 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 922-220-004 Associate Planner Rush presented the staff report of record and indicated that staff is requesting approval. Replying to Chairman Chiniaeff's query, Associate Planner Rush indicated that the proposed monopine design would be similar to the one located on Margarita Road and noted the following: That the exhibits in Attachment No. 3 were representational of the actual antennae that would be installed; That the conditions of approval require that the antennae are within the foliage and are painted green; That after installation of the antennae, an inspection will be conducted to ensure compliance with the submitted exhibits. R: PlanComnVminutes/110602 8 MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who were absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS No additional comments were made. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Providing a Planning Department update, Planning Director Ubnoske noted the following: Woodside Homes si.qn - Code Enforcement determined that the sign was on private property, and therefore, its location would not be an issue; that the sign adheres to permissible square footage but that it is too tall; that Code Enforcement requested that the height issue be addressed; and that the issue was not addressed, therefore, a citation has been issued. Planning Commission Schedule for 2003 - Acting Administrative Secretary Mclntyre is scheduling the year 2003 for Planning Commission meetings noting that the Commission had agreed to January 15, and 29, 2003, meetings. ADJOURNMENT At 6:46 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to Thursday, November 20, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. hiniaeff, ~ Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R: PlanComm/minutes/110602 9