Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030304 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 3, 2004 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, March 3, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Chiniaefl, and Chairman Telesio. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 3, 2004. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of February 4, 2004. 3 Director's Hearina Case Uodate RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for February 2004. R:\MinutesPC\030304 1 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of Commissioners Mathewson and Guerriero who both abstained. COMMISSION BUSINESS New Items 4 PlanninQ A[lolication No. PA01-0505 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to construct a 103-unit self storaQe facilitv totalinQ 29.780 SQuare feet with 54 outdoor recreational vehicle spaces on a 173.440 SQuare foot lot. located alonQ the south side of Overland Drive and east of Commerce Center Drive Associate Planner presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That the proposed project will be for two separate parcels, one will be zoned service commercial and the other light industrial; . That the service commercial parcel will be located along Overland Drive and the light industrial will have access to Commerce Center Drive; . That ingress for the storage facility will be off Commerce Center Drive and egress will be off Overland Drive; . That the project will be designed to tie into an existing storage facility across the way on Overland Drive; . That originally the project was proposed to have access on Overland Drive; that because of conflict and traffic issues, staff recommended that the access point be moved over to Commerce Center Drive; . That 170 feet of the project will be located along Overland Drive; . That since the writing of the staff report, the applicant and staff have reviewed the Conditions of Approval and the applicant has requested to modify Condition of Approval No. 10 a standard Condition of Approval, requiring internalization of all downspouts and is put on all projects; and that the applicant requested to modify the condition to only require internalization of downspouts on the front elevation and not the elevation into the site that will not be visible from the public view; . That the applicant also requested a modification to Condition of Approval No. 101, but that staff would be recommending that Condition of Approval NO.1 01 be deleted versus modified; . That staff would be recommending approval of the project with the attached Conditions of Approval and resolution. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Rush relayed that the GIS map indicated that the property is located outside the flood plain; however, it was not checked against the FEMMA map. R:\MinutesPCI030304 2 Deputy Director Parks relayed that the Murrieta Creek' has been lowered from it previous elevation; that the silt at Empire Creek has been removed; that the responsibility for maintaining Empire Creek falls on the property owners association; and that the Murrieta Creek renovations are a joint venture by the Army Corps and is maintained by Riverside County Flood Control District. At this time, the Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Ken High, 1000 Town Center, owner of Rancho Self Storage, commented on the following: . That the proposed project will primarily be an RVlStorage facility; . That the proposed project has been through architectural review by the Rancho Owners Association and has been approved; . That if downspouts were put inside the walls, a wall would have to be built around the downspout; that the partitions between units are metal; that there will be no place inside the units to put the downspouts in the conventional way; that there are double walls on the front; and that the downspouts need to be outside the units and should not be seen by the public; .. That there will be video cameras throughout the facility, individually alarmed units which will be recorded real-time; . That a wrought iron fence along the creek will be eight feet tall with spikes; At this time, the Public Hearing was closed. For clarification, Associate Planner Rush relayed that staff conditioned a previous storage facility to internalize the downspouts and that the issue of damage was not raised by the applicant. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt PC Resolution No. 2004-011, subject to the previously noted changes per Mr. Rush deleting Condition of Approval NO.1 01. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0605 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 103 UNIT SELF STORAGE FACILITY TOTALIZING 29,780 SQUARE FEET WITH A64 OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SPACES ON A 173,440 SQUARE FOOT LOT, LOCATED ALONG THE ( SOUTH SIDE OF OVERLAND DRIE AND EAST OF COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. S 921-480-044 AND 921-480-045 R:\MinutesPC\030304 3 . , 5 Plannino Aoolication No. PA03-0551. submitted bv Shea Homes. is a Product Review for 99 detached sinole-familv residences within Plannino Area 3 of the Rorioauoh Ranch Soecific Plan. located south of Murrieta Hot Sorinos Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Staoe Road (Tract 29661-3) Associate Planner Long presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: . That Shea Homes is proposing four architectural floor plans and three architectural styles within the area; . That the architectural styles include Mission, Mediterranean, and French; . That staff reviewed the project and determined that the project will with the four-sided architectural requirements; . . That each style will include a varied roof pitch; . That each style will maintain various arches and different window type; and that the various styles have wrought iron details in key locations; . That the applicant has proposed plan 2 and plan 3 for all corner lots; that both plans carry significant detail to the exterior elevations such as arched windows, wrought iron detail, decorative window sills, stone, and decorative roof treatments as well as numerous windows which break up the wall plane; . That plan 3 will include a courtyard with decorative walls including a gate and wrought iron deteil; that the courtyard and walls will not be visible; however, staff has included as a Condition of Approval, that the fence be pulled back for corner lots to expose the courtyard from the street; that staff is of the opinion that this will open up the exterior elevations and beautify the street scene; . That careful plotting of setbacks and single-story elements on two-story products will avoid the can effect, as required in the Specific Plan (SP); that there is no style or plan located side by side more than 3 in a row with the exception of lots 23, 70, 60, and 53; . That staff would recommends that two additional single:story products be added on lots 69 or 70 (corner lots) and one other lot; that there are a total of four plans, three plotted in a row; lots 23, 70, 69, and 53; that staff would be of the opinion that by replacing lot 69 or 70 with a plan one, it would provide a single story on a corner lot and break up the number of plans three in a row to no more than two; . That staff included a packet sample of the excerpts from the design guidelines which includes the Mediterranean, Mission, and French style; . That staff would be of the opinion that the proposed project will be consistent with the Design Guidelines and would recommend approval as conditioned; . That staff would request to modify Condition of Approval No. 17 to read: A olan one shall be plotted on lot 69 or 70 and one other corner location as determined bv the Plannino Director: R:\MinutesPCI030304 4 . That staff would be requesting to omit the language Davina stones and flaa stone in Condition of Approval No. 13; For the Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that there is no language in the Specific Plan (SP) that calls out a specific percentage or number; that the language states as determined by staff for the market, that staff will be looking at each tract that comes through; that on the smaller lots, staff will be looking at variation in roof heights, styles, and details in the front; that earlier designs presented with definitive numbers, but this will no longer be the case. Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested having a performance standard. For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she is not aware of the status of the Assessment District. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Mike O'Melvany, 2280 Wardlow Circle, representing Shea Homes, noted the following: . That the applicant is appreciative of staff's efforts; . That the applicant will be complying with the Conditions of Approval; . That the applicant would be willing to locate a single story on one of the lots as req uested by staff; Mr. Manny Gonzalez, 17992 Mitchell South, echoed Mr. O'Melvany's comments. Mr. Kevin Everett, 3553 Hollyberry Drive, representing Ashby USA, noted the following: . That the first Community Facilities District (CFD) will be for the panhandle only; . That the panhandlewill include the first 509 units in the first five neighborhoods; . That the applicant was stalled in getting the JCFAs through the county; . That Ashby USA has agreed to two CFDs one for panhandle and one for the pan and that the county will not be involved in the first phase of the first CFD; . That in the meantime, Ashby has funded the CFD through the first phase and on into the second; . That most of the improvements have started under construction; . That before any lots are sold, the first CFD will have been formed and funded; . That the first CFD will be for the panhandle only; . That the development agreement states "Formed and funded prior to the first building permif'. R:\MinutesPCl030304 5 At this time, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero commended Shea Homes on a great job. Associate Planner clarified the conditions of approval: . Modify Condition of Approval No. 17 to read: A plan one shall be plotted on lot 69 2! 70 and one other corner location as determined by the Planning Director; . That the Asphalt shingle will be chanaed to concrete shingle; . That Condition of Approval No. 12 states that "All mission style products shall provide a barrel type roof tile as determined acceptaele by the Planning Director". . That the language Davina stones and flaa stone from Condition of Approval No. 13 will be deleted. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt PC Resolution No. 2004-012, subject to the above stated conditions. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aDDroval. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0551, A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 3 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS TRACT 29661-3 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS The Commission thanked Associate Planner Rush for all his hard work and wished him the best in his future endeavors. Commissioner Mathewson requested that staff place staff's concerns in the beginning of staff's report, making it easier to locate. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the Public Works Department for addressing the landscaping issues on Margarita Road and noted that the traffic control problem is under control. For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the gas station problem has been forwarded to the City Attorney. Chairman Telesio noted that he had attended his first General Plan meeting and relayed that the Commission may submit any concerns to him and that he will forward it to the committee. For Chairman Telesio, Commissioner Olhasso relayed concern with SR 79 South. R:\MinutesPCl030304 6 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the two-story housing issue for Roripaugh will be agendized for the next meeting. Ms. Ubnoske also noted that there will be a meeting scheduled between Mr. Bill Storm and the City Manager to address signage at Harveston; that although the City Manager understands the Planning Commission's concerns, it is not under the purview of the Planning Commission and it is not in the Specific Plan. Suggesting that Ms. Ubnoske review the conceptual plan, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that Harveston represented to the Planning Commission that signs different,then the standard street signs would be Installed. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she did not recall any standard with respect to height, materials, etc. but will confirm with the Specific Plan (SP). Commissioner Mathewson queried whether the Planning Commission may address the meeting with Mr. Bill Storm and the City Manager to which Commissioner Olhasso suggested that two Planning Commissioners attend in on the meeting. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if there were standards in the Specific Plan, it will not be necessary for any Commissioners to attend the meeting. Deputy of Public Works Parks commented on the following: . That if these roads were private, the concern of street signs could have been resolved; . That there is a liability and maintenance responsibility when roads are accepted by the public; that these types of issues are standardized so that there are no major liabilities; . That the request would be of significant cost which would be a concern for the Public Works Department. Commissioner Olhasso relayed the following: . That although she understands the risk and the cost, the City had accepted these types of signs for Meadowview, Los Ranchitos, and Santiago estates along with the cost of maintenance and that a precedent has been set; . That Harveston will be a special community like Meadowview, Los Ranchitos, and Santiago estates; . That the City can afford to pay for the maintenance of signage; . That the property values will be higher and the community as a whole will benefit; For clarification, Mr. Parks relayed the following: R:\MinulesPCI030304 7 . That the Public Works Department has been trying to work with Harveston in regard to street signs; . That the Public Works Department has requested a sample of a post, but that Harveston noted that it would cost $10,000. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Parks relayed that the type of signs placed in the public right of way will fall under the purview of Public Works Department. Understanding the concern with the departments associated costs, Chairman Telesio noted that an equitable solution must be found. Although understanding the concerns of the Public Works Department, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that if the will were to make the City of Temecula a unique place to live, a price will be associated with that; that an effort must be made to achieve that goal; also noting that Director of Public Works Hughes had relayed to him that the Public Works Department will be exploring the matter in an effort to find a resolution. For the Commission, Mr. Parks relayed that there will be separated side walks; that there will be Sycamore trees in the parkway; that street widths have been reduced in the Harveston project; and that Public Works Department has been trying to accommodate the Planning Commission and the developer. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the General Plan Design (standards must be raised); that ) the goal of the Planning Commission would be to continuously set a higher standard; and that it would be disheartening that if a proposed project were not of the high caliber standard as originally proposed. Commissioner Olhasso stated that she would be desirous of an equitable resolution to find some middle ground that would work for both the developer and the City and reiterated that precedence has already been set by the placement of similar signs in Meadowview, Los Ranchitos, and Santiago Estates. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Meadowview and Los Ranchitos were created before the City incorporated and before there was a Public Works Department. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated that two Planning Commissioners should be at the meeting with Mr. Bill Strom and the City Manager. Ms. Ubnoske will review the Specific Plan (SP) to determine a level of detail that would support what the Planning Commission is requesting and that if necessary, she will contact two Planning Commissioners to be at the meeting. Commissioner Guerriero noted that if necessary, the Planning Commission could refer to the tapes when the project was originally proposed. Planning Director Ubnoske thanked Mr. Rush for a great job and wished him good luck with his new endeavors and noted that he will be missed. R:\MinutesPCI030304 8 ADJOURNMENT At 7:20 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to be held on Wednesday. March 17. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Jot" T''::d( Chairman )~l ~jJlI--<' u--~),L- Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPCI030304 9