Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051904 PC Minutes , MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Telesio thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. 'ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None. Chairman Telesio announced that per the Fire Department Code, there is a legal capacity for only one seat per person and that if necessary there is overflow seating in the Main Conference Room. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Carol Marsden, 30955 de Portola Road, expressed concern with an esthetically unpleasing Happy Mover van at the residence of 31580 Pio Pico; and stated that it is offensive to the neighborhood and would request that Code Enforcement explore the removal of the Happy Mover van. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 19, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: R:\MinutesPC\051904 1 2.1 Approve the Minutes of April 7, 20.04. Chairman Telesio requested to move Item NO.6 before Item No.5 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar and to move Item No. 6 before Item NO.5. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS Continued from Apri/21, 2004 3 Plannina Application No. PA03-0725. submitted bv Davidson Communities. is a product review for 99 detached sinale-familv residences within Plannina Area 2 in the Roripauah Ranch Specific Plan. located south of Murrieta Hot Sprinas Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road (Tract 29661-2) Associate Planner Long presented a brief staff report (of record), noting the following: . That staff has reviewed the revised plans and determined that while some of the concerns of the Planning Commission have been addressed, the following issues identified by staff and the Commission have not been addressed: o Conditions Nos. 12, 15, 19, and 20 have not been implemented; that these conditions deal with arched focal points, variation in the roof plans, and the use of additional materials such as brick for the Spanish or Monterey styles; o Massing on Plan Two (2) has not been addressed; o Window spacing and windows with single shutters have not been addressed; o Entry doors have not been expanded in width (optional doors are proposed, however, they do not vary in shape or width and glass was not proposed); o That the applicant has re-plotted the plans along Brush Creek Drive, however there is no net loss or gain of any single plan; . That the elimination of the second-story portion of Plan Two (2) be added to the Conditions of Approval. . That staff has prepared conditions of approval to include the remaining Planning Commission's recommendation and that staff is recommending approval as conditioned. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Bill Davidson, 1302 Camino Del Monte, of Davidson Communities relayed that the applicant does not concur with staff in regard to pulling the fence and pilaster back and would request to leave as conditioned, and is of the opinion that the proposed project is in conformance and is requesting approval of the plans as submitted. R:\MinulesPCl051904 2 Ms. Linda Beaudon, 22380 Alameda Del Monte, expressed concern with the lack of single-story homes along the ridgeline and stated that she was of the opinion that there would be more single-story residences in the proposed project. \ For clarification purposes, Mr. Long noted that the direction from the Planning Commission to the City Council was to require single-story products throughout the single family residential areas; that the City Council modified the language to state "as determined by the marker' and that staff would be of the opinion that the proposed project has sufficient single-story elements and meets the intent of the design guidelines in the Specific Plan (SP). Mr. Long also noted that a single-story element would be a portion of the residence that is not two-stories high. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it would be his opinion that the applicant has complied with many of the requests but does not agree with Condition of Approval No. 21, (fencing on corner lots shall be pulled back towards the rear on exterior corner lots to open up the exposed elevation to the street as determined acceptable by the Planning Director). Commissioner Guerriero echoed Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments and is in agreeance with staff's Conditions of Approval except for Condition of Approval No. 21. Commissioner Olhasso also echoed the previous two comments and expressed appreciation with the work that Davidson's Communities has done with the proposed project; and requested that staff notify the Planning Commissioners when the City Council makes substantial changes to their recommendations. Commissioner Mathewson concurs with the above mentioned comments but noted his concern with the two-story massing on Plan 2 and is of the opinion that the number of Plan twos (2) and threes (3) adjacent to one another has not been addressed and would request that staff explore the issue. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson move staff's recommendation as presented as well as the deletion of Condition of Approval No. 21 as presented above. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the removal of the second-story element on Plan Two (2). At this time, the Public Hearing was reopened. Mr. Davidson relayed that it would be his opinion the proposed project is in conformance of the Specific Plan. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Olhasso who voted No. R:IMinutesPCI051904 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION !>l0. PA03-0725 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 99 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 2 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT MAP 29661-2 4 Plannina Application No. PA03-0634. submitted bv Meeker Companies. is a product review for 113 detached sinale-familv residences within Plannina Area 4B in the Roripauah Ranch Specific Plan. located south of Murrieta Hot Sprinas Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staae Road. (Tract 29661-5) Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (of record), noting the following: . That staff reviewed the revised plans and it was determined that while the revised plans have addressed some of the concerns of the Planning Commission, a number of outstanding issues have not been addressed; , . That staff has added some additional recommendations which have been included in the Conditions of Approval; . That the recommended enhancements are a result of comments from the Planning Commission hearing; . That a Resolution of Approval has been attached for your consideration; . That in reviewing the revised elevations staff has noted the following enhancements: o That the front elevation of each architectural style of Plan Two (2) has been revised to break up the wall plane above the garage; o That the left elevation of Plan Two has been revised to include one additional window on the second floor and the right elevation has been revised to include two (2) windows on the second floor; o That the left elevation of Plan Three (3) has been revised to include one additional window on the first floor and one additional window on the second floor; and that three additional windows have been proposed on the second floor of the right elevation; o That the left elevation of Plan Four (4) has been revised to include one additional window on the second floor and one additional window on the second floor of the rear elevation; . That the intent of adding additional windows would be to break up the large expanses of wall; . That staff is recommending as a Condition of Approval, that the applicant provide only the enhanced elevations; that the standard elevation should not be used due to the language in the Specific Plan (SP), which states "articulation shall be provided on all R:IMinutesPCIOS1904 4 sides of the homes ('10ur-sided architecture")"; that staff is of the opinion that the standard elevations do not meet the articulation or the four-sided architecture standards; . That the following issues identified by staff and the Planning Commission of items of concern, have not been addressed: o Additional variation of the garage placement and garage door style for each plan has not been proposed; o The appearance of two front elevations has not been proposed and; o The roof design/silhouette does not offer a significant level of variation within each plan. . That staff has added the Conditions of Approval to ensure these changes are made, which would bring each product into conformance with the intent of the Design Guidelines and that staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve the project with the attached Conditions of Approval. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. M. J. Knitter, representing the applicant relayed the following: . That since the last Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 2004, the applicant has taken the comments of the Planning Commission and have enhanced a number of the areas on the sides and rears, revised the second-elevation on the second floor, moved the egress window (which was on the front of the window) and moved it to the side; and that smaller design element windows were added to the,front; . That on all corner conditions, there will be a one-story plan; and that a gable could be added for enhancement purposes if it is the will of the Commission; . That six (6) garage door variations will be provided for the home buyer; . That the landscaping and fencing will be taken care of by the landscape architect; . That windows to sides were added to Plan Two (2), Plan Three (3), and Plan Four (4); . That in regard to the four-sided architecture, the applicant is of the opinion that the front elevations of all plans comply with the intent of the Architectural Guidelines; . That there will be enhanced elevations on the rear of every residence along the ridgeline, every residence that abuts the street, and on all corners; . That on Plan One (1) the applicant would request to stay with the ridge running front to back;' . That on Plan Two (2) there will be a hip roof condition which will be on all three of the elevations; R:\MinutesPC\051904 5 . That on Plan Three (3) there will be a hip roof on the front; that on the side of the elevation the rear is a gable roof and that if it were the will of the Commission a hip could be added to the back 3b which would match the front of the b; . That on Plan 4, there will be a hip roof on all three elevations; . That on the Spanish Revival, the applicant would propose to use a lace finish on stucco versus a 20/30 sand finish noting that a 20/30 sand finish is difficult to use, extremely expensive and that the applicant would like to avoid the call back that the 20/30 sand finish will entail; . That the applicant would request to use an "S" tile concrete tile roof on the Spanish Revival versus a barrel tile clay roof; . That if it were the will of the Commission, the applicant could add a hip on the profile of the roofs on 3b. Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the Design Guidelines for Spanish Revival call out for a Barrel Tile clay roof. Mr. George Zeeber, representing Meeker Companies noted that he needed clarification for the following Conditions of Approval: . Item No. 30 relating to paseos: For Mr. Zeeber, Mr. Hazen relayed that Item No. 30 is based on the terms of the development agreement and the Conditions of Approval of the Specific Plan. Mr. Long further clarified that the master developer has some responsibility to implement the paseos and landscaping in various areas prior to the individual merchant builders being able to pull building permits. . Item No. 32, 45, and 47. Ms. Ubnoske clarified that Item No. 32, 45, and 47 would not be for private lots. Mr. M. J. Knitter relayed that he will work with staff to. enhance the sides on corner lots to give the appearance of a second front elevation. At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Olhasso expressed disappointment with the proposed project and suggested that the applicant work with staff to improve the outdated appearance of the residences. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to an indefinite period of time. This motion died for a lack of a second. R:\MinutesPC\051904 6 Commissioner Guerriero also expressed disappointment with the proposed project stating that a lot of time and effort has gone into the implementation of the Design Guidelines and the Specific Plan (SP) and queried why the Design Guidelines and Specific Plan are not being followed. Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that staff is satisfied with the project as conditioned; that if the Planning Commission were to approve the proposed project with the conditions that staff has placed on it, it would then be consistent with the Specific Plan (SP); and that the other option would be to continue this item off calendar to have the applicant continue to work with staff. Commissioner Olhasso apologized to staff, the Commission, and to the developer, but noted that she would not be able to approve the project as proposed. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion subject to the proposed conditions stated by staff, that the land developer construct the paseos as it is required in the existing Specific Plan, and that the applicant upgrade for an architectural elevation for all side lots on corners where they occur on all plans. Commissioner Mathewson amended his motion to include Commissioner Chiniaeff's requests voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso and Commissioner Guerriero who voted No. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0634 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR 113 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 48 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUGHT OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT MAP 29661-5 New Items 5 Plannina Application PA03-0027. submitted bv Cornwall Associates Architects. is a Conditional Use Permit to construct. establish and operate a 24. 287 SQuare foot church facilitv located on the north side of Pauba Road and 140 feet west of Corte Villosa (APN: 955-050-017\ This item will be addressed after Item No.6 per the request of the Commission. 6 Plannina Application PA03-0534 submitted bv McArdle and Associates Architects is a Development Plan to construct an 18.981 sQuare-foot. three-storv office buildinQ on 1.01 acres. Located in the north side of RidQe Park Drive. south of Rancho California Road. (APN: 940-310-027\ Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the proposed project is for a three-story office buil~ing; and that it is located on the site interior loop portion of Ridge Park Drive that wraps around the site; R:\MinutesPC\051904 7 . That there are two existing transformers located on each side of the driveway entrance; that due to slop restraints it would not be feasible to relocate the driveway; and that the applicant has proposed plantings around the transformers to soften their appearance; . That the first floor of the building includes underground parking which provides direct access into the building via elevator and stairs; . That there will be vehicular access to the first floor parking structure on the east and west sides of the building which creates two-way circulation throughout the project site; . That the project requires 57 parking spaces which are being proposed by the applicant; . That the applicant is proposing to exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard which is .40; and that the applicant is proposing .45 FAR; . That staff is of the opinion that the proposed project includes exceptional materials, design, and landscaping that would qualify the project for an increase in FAR; . That the elevations that are included in the Commission packet are for a blue reflective glass and that the applicant has revised it to a green color (at this time a sample was distributed to the Commission); . That the proposed project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that staff would be recommending approval. . For the Commission, Fire Marshal McBride relayed that the proposed project meets the fire code requirements under section 903 of the fire code as well as meeting the practicality of the requirements; that the Fire Department will have access to both sides of the building as well as the front of the building for aerial apparatus; and that the Fire Department is of the opinion that they could adequately protect both the occupants and building. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-026 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0534M A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 29,622 SQUARE FOOT THREE STORY OFFICE BUILDING ON 1.01 ACRES, LOCATED ON RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS APN: 940-310-027 New Item 5 PlanninQ Application PA03-0027. submitted bv Cornwall Associates Architects. is a Conditional Use Permit to construct. establish and operate a 24. 287 SQuare foot church facilitv located on the north side of Pauba Road and 140 feet west of Corte Villosa (APN: 955-050-0171 R:\MinutesPC\051904 8 Assistant City Attorney Curly relayed that the applicant posted photo simulations of what is perceived to be the after affect. At this time the Commission took a 15 minute break. Assistant City Attorney clarified what a Public Hearing is stating that the Planning Commission will be making decisions based on the City's laws, State Planning and Zoning Laws, and Federal Laws; and also explained Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). For the Commission, Ms. Ubnoske clarified what correspondence the Commission should have. Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the applicant is proposing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Plan to construct, establish, and operate a 24,287 square foot church facility including a sanctuary, multi-purpose room, classrooms, meeting rooms; and that the subject property is located on the north side of Pauba Road and 140 feet west of Corte Villosa; . That the proposed project is 4.72 acres in size and that currently the site is vacant; ~. . That there are existing single-family residences to the east that back up to the . proposed property line; . That the north and west side of the proposed project is vacant and to the south there are existing single-family residential residences, part of the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan (SP); . That the facility has been sited in the center of the property so as to reduce impacts on adjacent properties; that approximately 170-foot wide setback has been achieved between the building and the eastern property lines; that setbacks of 108 feet and 170 feet have been achieved from the north and west property lines; and that these setbacks far exceed the minimum 10-foot wide setback that is required by the Development Code and that staff is of the opinion that the setbacks serve as ample buffers between adjacent residences and the proposed facility; . That there will be a 20 foot landscape buffer proposed along the. eastern property line; . That there will be a 10' to 20' wide landscape buffer on both the north and the west sides of the property; . That in addition, the applicant is proposing 18' tall parking lot poles with cut-off fixtures that would force the light downward into the parking lot area and to the landscaped area to the east; R:\MinutesPC\051904 9 . That landscaping being proposed will be adjacent to each side of the two driveways that would serve to screen the parking lot from Pauba Road; . That a colonial architectural style is being proposed for the church facility; that a cupola is being proposed out towards the front of the structure that will serve to breakup the roofline; and with the cupola incorporated into the structure it would be 50 feet tall, which complies with the building height requirements in the very low zoning district; . That the height and scale of the proposed church facility will be different from the surrqunding residences; however, with the large building setbacks and landscaped buffers being proposed, staff is of the opinion that the facility will be compatible with the surrounding single-family residences; . . That the building will be covered in brick to give the appearance of a colonial architectural element; that it will be a cross cable building style with the gable ends treated with decorative columns and siding, and decorative window treatment to bring out the architectural style; . That the proposed church facility will be constructed as a stake center; that the a Stake center accommodates three church wards; and that a ward consists of approximately 100 families or 500 to 600 people; . That a sanctuary area, offices, a multipurpose area with a stage, a basketball court area, a variety of Sunday school classrooms, and meeting rooms are being proposed; . That based on calculations provided by the architect, there will be 287 fixed seats proposed within the sanctuary area; and that the Development Code requires 96 on site parking spaces (overflow parking has been factored in); that in terms of parking, the applicant complies with the Development Code; . That non-fixed seating will be provided for overflow potential in the multipurpose room when necessary; . That staff determined that the project complies with all other applicable Development standards such as building height, lot coverage, and landscaping; . That there was an initial study performed for the project site resulting in three (3) impacts identified that had potential to be significant, Air Qualitv, Cultural Resources, and Transportation/Traffic; however, mitigation measures have been applied to them which have subsequently reduced them from being significant; . However, there have been mi'igation measures specified in the traffic study, the first of which is a half-width improvement of Pauba Road along the entire width of the project site; the second mitigation measure would be a locked gate across the eastern property line to prohibit vehicles from entering during the evening hours, and that the last item would be the payment of both TUMPF and signal mitigation fees; R:\MinutesPC\051904 10 . That the applicant provided a new operational statement (see staff report) which further clarifies how many people will be associated with the various activities on the property; and that based on the new operational statement provided, staff has drafted an additional Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Conditions of Approval (see staff report). For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Harris relayed that it is his opinion that the surrounding residences have received an operations matrix. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that as a result of the new statement of operations and the changes to the Conditions of Approval, a temporary use permits is not required for any of the uses, and that staff reviewed the detailed revised statement of operations and concurred that the activities and events could be accommodated in the proposed building. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the applicant would not require the use of a temporary use permit for the bi-annual Stake Conference. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Principal Engineer Moghadam relayed that at ultimate build-out. Pauba Road would be able to carry 31,000 vehicles a day; that if there are any delays of traffic due to the proposed project, it will be at the driveways of the proposed project, noting that there will be full movement from both driveways. . Mr. Moghadam also relayed that a Level of Service (LOS) D would condition a project for signalization; and that the CIP has a design underway for Rancho Vista and Meadows Parkway which will be going to bid in the near future. Deputy Director Parks clarified that the widening of Pauba Road in front of Linfield School is a condition on its project; and that the Temecula Valley High School expansion project will be conditioned to widen Pauba for their whole frontage. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Moghadam relayed that the Level of Service (LOS) on Pauba Road with the improvements of Temecula Valley High School factored in, would be A or~. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Kent Cornwall, of Cornwall Associates Architects, provided the following history and thoroughness of the process up until the Public Hearing: . That the church acquired the property in 1997 with the intent of building this type of facility on the property; . That Cornwall Architects was contacted by the applicant in early 2002 when it was ready to move forward with the project; and a pre-application was started to inquire what the City's procedures would be as far as building plans, appearance, and statement of operations; . That the applicant received comments from staff requesting not typically required items such as an acoustical study, a lighting study, and a traffic analysis; and at that time, the concerns of staff were ingress and egress of the property, and the comparison of the R:\MinutesPC\051904 11 zone use (which is very low density residential) and the proposed use being for a church; and that staff requested other standard requests; . That at that time, Cornwall Architects recommended that the applicant meet with the surrounding neighbors (particularly the neighbors adjacent to the east) early on to discuss the proposed project; . That Cornwall Architect has been working with these type of facilities (churches) for over 30 years and understand the process, concerns, and sensitivities of the neighborhoods they enter into; . That on August 4, a meeting was scheduled with the residences of Corte Villosa who would be most affected by the proposed project; that representatives of the church and construction people were present to discuss the proposed project; that renderings, floor plans, and a video showing examples of the quality of construction and maintenance that will be involved was shown; and that at that time, the church representatives took four (4) pages of notes of concerns expressed by residences; and that as a plans developed, the church attempted to incorporate mitigating measures to the neighbors concerns into the project; . That alter a result of much discussion with the neighbors, the landscape buffer that was on the east property line was increased; that the landscape fingers that are on the last row of parking was doubled; and that the applicant worked with staff to install the west driveway; . That the applicant went through the process with the design review committee and the City, in the fall of 2002; and that during that time period, the applicant developed those standard requirements, preliminary grading plans, landscape plans, material boards, detailed floor plans, elevations, building sections, soil reports, and the requested acoustic and photometric studies, and traffic analysis; . That a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held in February of 2003; and that at that time, staff recommended a neighborhood meeting (one that would be noticed) so that the applicant could receive public input early on in the process; . That the first public meeting announced by the City was held in March of 2003; that the major impacts of concern that came out of that meeting was security, evening and morning noise, lighting, future development of the property to the north of the proposed property (which belongs to the church), screening, height of the steeple, inadequate landscape buffer, home depreciation, traffic concerns, and the concern that the church would use other uses outside the statement of operation; . That as a result of the March 2003 meeting, further adjustments were made to the design such as parking lot light poles that were on the east property line were moved at the end of the landscape finger so that it would be 40 feet away from the property line of the adjacent homes; that the steeple was lowered by two-stories (20 feet); that a traffic study was initiated; that the church committed to sell the excess property so that there would be no concern that there would be some expansion of the proposed facility, but that until the church has a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), would the church be able to R:IMinutesPCI051904 12 commit to sell the remaining property; that a gate was added to the east driveway; and that a primary building entrance was proposed for the west entry; . That the revised documents were accomplished and resubmitted to the City in June; . That per the request of staff, a second community meeting was held with the neighbors on September 11 , 2003 to show the neighbors how their concerns were addressed; that the applicant listened to similar concerns of neighboring homeowners; that traffic was the most common expressed concern; that the applicant's traffic engineer was available to answer questions; and that new concerns arouse such as depreciating homes and the use of 'the property north of the proposed property; . That the applicant provided staff with a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Assessment Initial Study (which concerns archeological issues); , . That a palentological study was provided; . That in January 2004, all documents had been provided and staff was satisfied; and that the process was set to go through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff, City Attorney, and the CUP hearing; . That the following are concerns that have been adjusted and what is currently in the project to mitigate and address existing concerns: o Site suitability; o Traffic; o Privacy; o Noise; o Parking lot lights; and o Property values. At this time, Mr. Cornwall addressed a letter that was referred to as May 12, 2004, from the homeowners of Temecula, Corte Villosa, noting the following: 1. Retainina wall: that the applicant will be engineering and installing a retaining wall, and if desired by the homeowners, that the applicant would also be willing to install a six-foot wrought iron fence on top of the wall so that when the condition of the properties being back filled against it, it would not have an 8 foot or 6 foot drop-off, down from the applicant's wall; and that the Church has offered to install the retaining wall at its expense. 2. Back-fillina back vards: that the applicant would be willing to make back-fill material available from its site development at the time of the development; that they would allow access and encourage their graders to be used by the homeowners to install the back- fill. 3. Landscape and irriaation for reclaimed land: that the applicant would be willing to offer the homeowners landscaping and irrigation at a reduced rate. 4. GreenbeJ!: that the residences concurred that 20 feet between properties would be adequate; that most of the trees requested by the adjacent homeowners are huge and dense; and that the applicant would be willing to work with staff to come up with proper and acceptable landscaping for the proposed property. R:\MinutesPC\051904 13 5. Roofina material: that the applicant is willing to change the color of the roof. 6. Liahtina: that the applicant is willing to work with staff in regards to parking lot lighting. Mr. Cornwall relayed that the applicant has appreciated the communication between the applicant, staff and neighbors. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Harris noted that the results of the analysis that was performed by the landscape architect would be in staff's report. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Cornwall relayed that the gate on the east boundary would be closed at all times. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Cornwall stated that the Church would be willing to be responsible for the wall, the fence and the landscaping; and that the drainage swale, existing wrought iron fence and the slope is not the church's property and would be the responsibility of the homeowners. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Cornwall relayed the following: noted that the proposed retaining wall would extend to the ih property line; and that if the homeowners were interested in the back fill, they could have it at no cost to them; and the applicant is willing to change the color of the roof, but that they would not be changing the materials; and that the applicant is open to any combination of light fixtures in the parking lot to address the concerns of lighting. For Chairman Telesio, Mr. Cornwall noted that the traffic survey iNas performed before the neighboring schools let out; and that if there is a concern in regard to entering the proposed area through the westerly gate during the evening times, the applicant would be willing to close the westerly gate in the evening. Mr. Rocky Snider, project manager for the LDS Church, relayed the following: . That staff delete Condition of Approval No. 13; . That on the evenings when activities conclude at 11 :00 p.m., that the lights around the building remain on until the last person leaves 11 :15 or 11 :30; and that the eastern parking lot lights shall be turned off at 10:00 p.m. seven days a week; . That beGause a dance is considered a primary activity, the applicant would request that the Condition of Approval in regard to dances be modified to allow for more than one day per month and would also request that it open to other nights of the week other than Saturday night; . That in regard to Stake Conferences, the applicant would request that Condition of Approval No. 20 be deleted that it is covered under Condition of Approval No. 19. . That as soon as the applicant receives its Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the real estate department of the church would start the process of selling the property. Mr. Kevin Osborne, 32750 Pine Circle, Stake President, relayed the following: . That a commitment has been made to sell the excess property; that as soon as the applicant receives its Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the real estate department of the church would start the process of selling the property; . That five (5) percent of the residents of Temecula are members of the LDS church; R:IMinutesPCI051904 14 , \ . That there is usually a 50 to 60 percent attendance of services every Sunday; . That the proposed building is designed for the members of the church but that the community is welcome to participate in the use of the building; and that there are many different events that are community oriented; . That the applicant are proponents of the Boy Scouts of America; and that there are) seven (7) different troops located within the Temecula Stake and non-members are' welcome to the scouting program; . That the proposed facility would also be used for a Blood Drive, where the whole community is welcome to participate; . That the proposed facility would also be useable for the community. The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed project: Mr. Benjamin Graff Mr. Heber J. Hurd Mr. Brad Start Mr. Stewart Morris Ms. Larry Slussor Ms. Melanie Moore Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula The above mentioned individuals spoke in favorof the proposed project for the following reason: . That the Church would be advocating honesty, integrity, and will teach citizens how to be responsible members of society; . That the Church would strengthen families and increase the quality of life for families in the neighborhoods; . That the proposed Church would help to build a better community; . That the dances at the Church would have 16 to 20 adult chaperone per day supervised in the dance and the parking lots; that there would be 100 to 150 youth per dance ages 14 through 18; that most of the individuals do not drive; that the dances will take place inside three sets of doors which will diminish the sound to the exterior; and that the youth attending dances would not be able to exit the building without parental consent; . That LOS Churches are built in residential areas and that it does not engage in money generating endeavors that may classify it as a business; . That the youth program teaches young people to become honest well adjusted adults; . That the Church of LOS will be a beautiful Church; and that they are always well maintained inside and outside and would be an asset to any community; The following individual spoke in opposition of the proposed project: Ms. Jenny Elliott Mr. Don McLaughlin Mr. Jim Johnson Ms. Beth Ceja Ms. Bobbi Corn Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula '- R:\MinulesPC\051904 15 Mr. Stephen Longo Ms. Rebecca Longo Mr. Tony Hardy Mr. Kenneth Ray Mr. David Kimbass Mr. John Wilshire Ms. Marjorie Gregory Mr. William Agnew Ms. Kristen Boano Mr. Chris Sorensen Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula Temecula The above mentioned individuals spoke in opposition of the proposed project for the following reasons: . That the proposed LDS Church does not blend in with the surrounding neighborhood; . That since the proposal of the LDS Church, five (5) residents have relocated; . That the residents would prefer to have single-family units rather than a 24, 287 square foot church; . That their currently are 12 public institutions within a mile of the proposed area; . That the properties adjacent to the proposed building would be faced with hundreds of people coming and going and looking into the yards; . That there will be excess noise created by the cars and people coming from the proposed building; . The quality of life will be compromised by the proposed building; . That a 24, 287 square foot, 31 foot tall building will create a massing affect; . That the residents did not receive the operations matrix or the new draft of the Conditions of Approval (CUP); . That the drainage issue is a concern for adjacent residents; . That the proposed facility will block the view of many of the surrounding residents; . That the residents are concerned that the traffic analysis has not been adequately addressed; . That residents were of the opinion that the proposed property was zoned for custom ranch style homes; Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that per the Development Code, there are a number of uses that are conditionally permitted in very low density zones such as mobile home parks, daycare centers, museums etc. . That the proposed facility deviates from the intent and the character of rural ranch development; . That no other areas of Temecula have the density of schools and churches concentrated as much as the proposed area has; . That air pollution is a concern; . That if the proposed facility is approved that it be dramatically scaled down; For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Cornwall relayed that the applicant would be willing to work with staff in adding more landscaping in front of the church; and that the applicant will be responsible for maintaining the retaining wall. R:\MinutesPC\051904 16 . At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. , At this time, Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to extend the meeting to 11 :30 p.m. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern of staff's ability to meet the second criteria of the Conditional Use Permit (compatibility with the surrounding area); and stated that he would be of the opinion that the proposed facility and/or any other type of public facility would not be compatible with the surrounding single-family residences. Commissioner Mathewson stated for the audience that he has been taking notes and takes every comment seriously. ' Commissioner Mathewson expreslled some concern with the traffic that the proposed facility would be bringing but that overall was pleased with the proposed architecture; and noted his appreciation for the applicant's willingness to address many of the concerns of the community. Commissioner Guerriero echoed Commissioner Mathewson's comments advising that he would be in favor of the proposed project. Commissioner Olhasso commended the speaker's willingness to meet and invest their time; stating that she also appreciates the work that the applicant and staff have put into the proposed project. Chairman Telesio echoed the above mentioned comments. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director Parks relayed that currently the capacity of the road is 8200 and that at built out it would be 31,000 trips a day. Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that he also appreciates the applicant's willingness to accommodate the surrounding community; but that he has concerns with the overall massing affect that the proposed project would bring to the surrounding area and also expressed concern with the fact that it would only be used twice a year for large assembly. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff's recommendation, modifying the Conditions of Approval with respect to the operating hours by deletion of Condition of Approval No. 13, modifying Condition of Approval No. 18 to reflect that the proposed facility may operate 12 primary activities per year until 11 :00 p.m., deletion of Condition of Approval No. 20, and that the modification of the roof color be worked out between staff and the applicant. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted !:!2. R:\MinutesPCI051904 17 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0027, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A LATTER DAY SAINTS CHURCH FACILITY CONSISTING OF SANCTUARY, MULTI-PURPOSE ROOM, SUNDAY SCHOOL CLASROOMS AND MEETING ROOMS TOTALING 24,287 SQUARE FEET ON 4.72 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD AND 140 FEET WEST OF CORTE VILLOSA ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 955-310-050 & 017. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0027, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, A CHURCH FACILITY CONSISTING OF SANCTUARY, MULTI- PURPOSE ROOM, CLASSROOMS AND MEETING ROOMS TOTALING 24,287 SQUARE FEET ON 4.72 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD AND 140 FEET WEST OF CORTE VILLOSA, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 955-050-017. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS No reports at this time, PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time, ADJOURNMENT At 11 :30 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to be held on Wednesday. June 2. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Joh"~; ~L 'J-fihk L:- ~ X- De bie Ubnoske Director of Planning Chairman R:\MinutesPC\051904 18