Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051601 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6dd~,. Notification 48 hours pdor to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE MAY 16, 2001 - 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2001-014 Commissioner Mathewson Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster and Chairman Guerriero A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 16, 2001 R:\P LANCOMM~Agendas~001~5-16-01 .doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes from March 28, 2001 3 Director's Hearin.q Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and File COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Capital Improvements Prelect (C.I.P.) RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and Comment to Finance Department (Under separate cover) PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. 5 Plannin,q Application PA00-0419 (GPA), PA99-0418 (SP 13, Development Code Amendment, and SP Zoning Standards), PA00-0189 (EIR), PA99-0245 (Change of Zone), PA99-0446 (Development A.qreement), PA00-0295 (Vestin.q Tentative Tract 29639), PA01- 0030 (Tentative Tract 29928), PA01-0031 (Tentative Tract 29929) and PA01-0032 (Tentative Tract 30088), located east of Interstate 15, north of Santa Gertrudis Creek, west of Margarita Road and south of the northern City limit. - Patty Anders, Associate Planner/Saied Naaseh, Project Planner V/Dave Hogan, Senior Planner/Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Continue the Harveston Specific Plan and all it's associated applications (all referenced in Subject heading above) to June 6, 2001. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next Regular Meeting: June 6, 2001, Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~001~5-16-01 ,doc 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday March 28, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Chiniaeff. Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments, CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Commissioner Mathewson. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hazen, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Thomsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 28, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 17 2001 MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Director's Hearin.q Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Receive and File MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to receive and file this item. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. 4 Plannin,q Application 00-0202 (Helium Balloon Ordinance Amendment) - Dave Ho,qan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Staff requests that the Planning Commission provide direction on the items to be included in any amendment to the Helium Balloon regulations. Senior Planner Hogan relayed that staff was requesting the Planning Commission's input regarding any recommended revisions to the current Helium Balloon Ordinance; and provided the rationale for this item being agendized, noting that the owners of a local balloon business were of the opinion that the current regulations restricted their ability to provide helium balloons in the business community for advertising purposes. Referencing the agenda material, specifically the data provided regarding alternate cities' Balloon Ordinances, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether there had been difficulty enforcing the ordinances. In response, Senior Planner Hogan noted that typically Code Enforcement addresses these issues, relaying that he had no additional information regarding how easily the referenced ordinances could be implemented. Noting that the balloons could create a negative visual appearance, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed his reluctance to recommend revising the existing Balloon Ordinance, additionally advising that he has seen balloons caught in the electrical wires along Ynez Road. Since the issue involved the desire of one business to have more lenient balloon regulations, Commissioner Webster queried why the use did not request a variance in lieu of revising the Ordinance. In response, Senior Planner Hogan provided additional information regarding the Variance Findings under State Law, noting that it was based on a property-by-property basis and on the physical development constraints of the property. Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding developing criteria establishing the standards, and subsequently the rationale for permitted deviations from those standards. Noting that this business owner supplies balloons to other businesses, Commissioner .Telesio queried how a variance would address the issue since the balloons would be placed on other properties. In response, Commissioner Webster relayed that he had the understanding that this business owner desired to display balloons at their own place of business, clarifying his recommendation that the business request a variance. Senior Planner Hogan confirmed that this business owner was requesting less restrictive standards for supplying balloons to other businesses. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the helium balloons spiraling up higher than ten feet were not permitted. Commissioner Telesio noted the importance of enforcement with respect to the balloon regulations. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan noted that originally the desire for revising the Balloon Ordinance was relayed to the Council at a City Council meeting, confirming that at that time Southern California Edison had noted their concerns regarding the negative impacts with respect to the balloons getting stuck in the electrical distributions lines. Chairman Guerriero recommended that the Balloon Ordinance not be revised to provide for greater leniency, for the following reasons: 1) numerous high flying balloons can be a distraction to drivers, and 2) the negative impacts environmentally, specifically when the balloons are consumed by animals. Concurring with Chairman Guerriero, Commissioner Telesio relayed that if there were going to be requests for variances from property owners, the sites would have to be visited, the surrounding area and the safety standards would need to be considered, advising that enforcement would be vital, and that this process would be timely and costly. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that the Balloon Ordinance not be amended. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Planninq Application 00-0427 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc. to design and construct two adioinin,q industrial buildings on two separate lots with the buildin.q on lot 6 totaling 18,787 square feet on 1.08 acres, and the buildinq on lot 7 totaling 16,381 square feet on 1.01 acres located on the south side of the Winchester Road west of Diaz Road across from Rancho California Water District (RCWD) [APN 909-310-006 (Lot 6) & 909-310-007 (Lot 7)]. -Thomas Thornsle¥, Associate Planner - Continued from March 7, 2001 RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0427 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0427 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON LOT 6 TOTALING 18,787 SQUARE FEET ON 1.08 ACRES, AND THE BUILDING ON LOT 7 TOTALING 16,381 SQUARE FEET ON 1.01 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE WINCHESTER ROAD, WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 909-310-006 (LOT 6) & 909-310-O07 (LOT 7). Commissioner Webster advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this item since he was not present when the issue was last presented to the Planning Commission. Via overheads, Associate Planner Thornsley provided an overview of the project plan; relayed the Planning Commission's previous concerns regarding the visibility of the loading docks from Winchester Road, noting the recommendation for the applicant to relocate the loading docks; invited Mr. David Wakefield to present the new concepts and designs, relaying that staff did not receive the data early enough to assess the information and provide a recommendation; and for Chairman Guerriero, advised that early this morning the applicant had discussed the design options with him via a telephone conversation, noting that he received four plan layouts later in the day. Mr. David Wakefield, noting the difficulties in redesigning the site layout, presented two alternate site configurations, relaying the loss of building square footage with these revised plans; per discussions with a professional truck driver, noted the difficulties created for trucks maneuvering to access the loading dock with the revised site plan; additionally noted that with the revisions, the site would be under-parked; presented a proposal to place a screening wall (which would be consistent with the building design and color) with an electrically controlled gate, noting that this was the applicant's recommended plan, advising that the Planning Commission's concern regarding the visibility of the loading area would be adequately addressed; relayed that when the neighboring lots were developed, the loading area would be further screened; provided additional information regarding the business uses which would be occupying the buildings; and noted the enhanced architectural treatments, advising that the applicant has expressed a desire to add additional glass elements to the building. Referencing the revised plan (Option 3), Commissioner Telesio queried what negative impacts were associated with this plan. In response, Mr. Wakefield specified the location of the office area, noting the proximity to the loading docks. Commissioner Telesio relayed that the trucks could drive straight in and then back straight into the ramp if the pop-out was moved forward towards the street, clarifying that the trucks would not have to maneuver around the curve. Mr. Wakefield noted the restrictions regarding redesigning the building configuration due to the inner office needs, additionally, reiterating that the revised configuration included the loss of building square footage and parking spaces which created a burden on the applicant. Noting that Mr. Wakefield indicated the loss of parking spaces with the revised plan, Commissioner Chiniaeff queried the variances with respect to parking between the originally presented plan (Option 1) and the revised plans. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, the applicant's architect specified the loss of three parking spaces with the revised site plan, noting the additional loss of parking spaces if the loading area was moved further up which would not be feasible for the applicant. Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that the maneuvering of the trucks would not change significantly with the revised site plan. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Wakefield specified that with the revisions, one building was reduced by approximately 1000 square feet and the other by approximately 1400 square feet; and relayed that the height of the proposed screening wall would be approximately six feet. Additional discussion ensued regarding the necessary height of the wall to screen the loading area. Clarifying that the issue that needed to be addressed was the visibility of the loading ' area, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant propose a wall that would more adequately screen this area, or utilize the revised site plans, noting that with the revised configurations, the planter could be relocated against the building and the truck traffic could be directed proximate to the property line. For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Wakefield noted that the proposed plans included provision for Fire access around the building. With respect to the ~'econfigured site plans, Chairman Guerriero noted that in his opinion, the trucks would be able to adequately maneuver; queried how the gate included in the plan with the screening wall would operate. In response, Mr. Wakefield clarified that it would be a rolling gate. Chairman Guerriero noted that he could support the plan with the proposed screening wall and gate if there was additional landscaping; noted his preference that Option No. ~ be developed, relaying that the plan could be revamped to include sawtooth (i.e., offsets to provide further definition). Commissioner Telesio recommended that the applicant provide the Planning Commission a rendering of the gate for review, clarifying that the wall would most likely need to be at a minimum height of eight feet to screen the loading area. In response, Mr. Wakefield presented, via overheads, a photograph of a similar wall, noting that the density of the gate could be revised. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed the negative impacts associated with the gate, as follows: the lack of assurance that the gate would be kept closed, and the lack of being able to adequately screen the area unless the gate was solid (which presented difficulties with moving the gate); and advised that he recommended that Option No. 3 be implemented. Chairman Guerriero requested Associate Planner Thornsley to comment on the applicant's proposed revised plans. Associate Planner Thomsley relayed that with respect to Option No. 3, that the number of parking spaces lost would most likely correlate with the square footage loss, noting that the applicant would know the parking needs for the facility; advised that in order to provide the Planning Commission with clear direction, staff would need additional time to review and analyze the plans; noted that with the original plan the trucks would have one hundred sixty feet (160') for movements coming in, relaying that with the revised proposal although there was still one hundred sixty feet (160') that part of this distance encompassed a radius curve; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, specified the parking requirements for this type of use. Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional recommendations regarding reconfiguring the site plan to address the parking losses and the truck maneuvering space. After discussing the issue with the applicant, Mr. Wakefield noted that the applicant had offered to eliminate the loading dock from the project plan in order to expedite the approval process. Commissioner Telesio questioned why the original plan included the loading area since the applicant had previously relayed that there would be minimal truck deliveries for ' these uses. In response, Mr. Wakefield advised that with buildings of 15,000 square feet and larger, trucking docks were typically needed, advising that this particular applicant was more concerned with postponing approval of the project. The Plannin,q Commission relayed the followinR closin,q comments: Clarifying that it was not his desire to require the applicant to delete the loading dock, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant further investigate avenues to address the issue of the visibility of the loading area from the street; and advised that the Planning Commission would need additional information regarding the plan without a loading area prior to approval. Commissioner Telesio recommended continuing this item in order for the applicant to investigate options for screening the loading dock, while noting that he could support the removal of the loading area if that was the applicant's desire due to the need to expedite the approval process. For Chairman Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen noted that the Parking Code requires that all industrial buildings of this size maintain at least one loading space with a dimension of ten feet by twenty-five feet (10' by 25'), advising that if the loading dock was eliminated the site plan would still need to be revised in order to denote the location of the required loading space. Associate Planner Thornsley noted that the applicant has relayed a willingness to work with staff, advising the with the deletion of the loading dock, the one loading space could be located against the building if the original plan was revised; and for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that on the expanse of the buildings where the loading dock had been located, staff could work with the applicant, ensuring that this area would be articulated. For Associate Planner Thornsley, Senior Planner Hazen confirmed that staff could work with the applicant to revise the original plan with the deletion of the loading dock, noting that the lack of a loading dock could be a negative factor for future uses, while relaying that since these were small buildings it would most likely not have a significant impact. Commissioner Chiniaeff reiterated that he was not opposed to the loading docks, but solely the visibility of the area from the street; and queried whether the applicant had considered sharing one loading dock for the two buildings. In response, Associate Planner Thornsley relayed that staff could work with the applicant regarding this concept. Mr. Phil Lewis, the applicant, relayed his concern with continuing the item due to the fear that additional issues would still need to be addressed; clarified that the applicant's business could not operate adequately with the loading docks unless they were located, as originally proposed, noting that the applicant would therefore be willing to delete the loading docks; and advised that timing was an issue at this point, noting the desire to attain approval. Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that although the Planning Commission requested modifications at the March 7t~ meeting, that data was not received until the day of the hearing, March 28th (a three-week period), advising that the Planning Commission reviewed all plans prior to approval; and noted that at the March 7th meeting he had questioned the applicant as to whether moving the ramps would effect the business operation and the response had been that it would not. In response, Mr. Lewis relayed that the revised site configurations would effect the interior layout of the building. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the Planning Commission did not have detailed plans regarding the proposed gate, noting the need for additional information regarding all of the modified proposals. In light of this project being located in an industrial area, Mr, Lewis noted that trucks were commonly seen in this area. Additional discussion ensued regarding the negative impacts associated with the visibility of the loading docks from the street. Commissioner Telesio noted his reluctance to approve a plan he has not reviewed. Providing clarification, Chairman Guerriero advised the applicant to bring the matter back to the Planning Commission at the April 4th meeting which would be a one-week period of time, noting that without additional information the project would be denied if action was taken on the item at this time. MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to continue this item to the April 4, 2001 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent and Commissioner Webster who abstained. At 7:13 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:20 P.M. 6 Plannin.q Application No. 00-0417 (Development Plan) Margarita Medical Condo Development, LLC, c/o Edward Anderson, to desi,qn, construct and operate two medical office buildings, with three suites in each, totalinq 13,257 square feet of floor space, (Bldq. "A" with 5,987 square feet and BId.q. "B" with 7,270 square feet) on a 1.5 acre lot Ioc~_!~d on the southeast comer of Mar.qadta Road and North General Kearny Road. - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0417 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0417 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ON t.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A" HAVING 5,987 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING 7,270 SQUARE FEET, TOTALING t3,287 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-090-087. Associate Planner Thornsley presented the project plan (of record), highlighting the location, the access, the trellis and courtyard area, the architecture with enhanced articulation, the colored rendering, and the landscaping plan (which exceeds the requirements). For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the hill would be graded down; and noted that the landscaping of the retention basin on the south side of this property was being completed by the Woodside Development. Associate Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding the signage, for Commissioner Chiniaeff. In response to Commissioner Webster's, Associate Planner Thornsley confirmed that with respect to the CEQA portion of the project there was a Notice of Exemption proposed to be adopted based on this proposal being an in-fill project; in response to questioning whether the project's CEQA analysis should be based on the overlying Specific Plan EIR, confirmed that there should be mitigation measures incorporated from the EIR into this project, relaying that a condition could be added requiring the project to comply with the Mitigation Measures for the Specific Plan. Commissioner Webster queried whether the project should be continued since there could be a particular Mitigation Measure on site that could effect this particular application, querying whether this should be reviewed prior to approval of the project. Addressing Commissioner Webster's queries, Attorney Curley noted that since he could not forecast whether a Mitigation Measure would effect this site, that for purposes of certainty, that this project could be continued in order for the matter to be evaluated; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that while a condition could be added to require the project to meet all the requirements of the Specific Plan, if there was an issue in the Mitigation Measures that would effect the site design, it would still need to come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Webster recommended that there be an environmental checklist prepared in accordance with the previous EIR, noting that based on that checklist a Notice of Exemption, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration would be presented for adoption. Referencing the Public Resources Code, Attorney Curley relayed that when there is an existing environmental approval, it would stand unless a condition triggered more CEQA analysis, noting that without this trigger there would be no need for the checklist. Associate Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding the neighboring sites, noting that with the Mall's Specific Plan all the projects were required to comply with the Mitigation Measures of that Specific Plan, advising that this condition could be added to this project. Relaying that at the mall site all of the Mitigation Measures were not met, Commissioner Webster recommended that the CEQA issues be dealt with more properly. For Chairman Guerriero, Attorney Curley specified that the Public Resources Code stated that if there has been a prior Environmental Review then no subsequent review was required with the exception of substantial evidence, providing additional information regarding the analysis; clarified that there was a requirement that a checklist be utilized to review the three factors required to be investigated with an existing EIR; and noted that it was the Planning Commission's decision which avenue to utilize (whether to request a continuance for additional review or to add a condition that the project is consistent with the Mitigation Measures for the EIR), relaying that there was some risk to the applicant if there was a general condition added requiring all the Mitigation Measures in the EIR to be complied with. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Thornsley relayed that the project was not evaluated as it related to the EIR for the Campos Verde Specific Plan. Mr. Ed Anderson, representing the applicant, queried why the Planning Commission was requiring this additional review, noting the approval of neighboring projects. In response, Commissioner Webster noted that the Planning Commission was ensuring compliance with State law, relaying that the review of other projects was irrelevant. Lacking understanding of the Planning Commission's comments, Mr. Anderson queried why this project was being dealt with in a different manner than the surrounding projects, specifically, since a condition could be added requiring that the project meet all the EIR requirements. Additional discussion ensued between Commissioner Webster and Mr. Anderson. Providing additional information for Mr. Anderson, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that part of the approval process was ensuring that this plan was consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan, advising that the project had not been evaluated as it relates to the Specific Plan. Noting his frustration, Mr. Anderson relayed that the applicant had worked diligently to plan a beautiful project, meeting all of the City's requirements, advising that the need for additional review was surprising, while relaying that the applicant was willing to continue this item to next week's meeting on April 4, 2001. For Mr. Anderson, Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the EIR that was approved with the Specific Plan, noting that typically the Mitigation Measures stipulated requirements for subsequent development, clarifying that the additional review would be to ensure that all of those pre-existing requirements were properly included in this particular project. For Commissioner Webster, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that in the next meeting's agenda packet, the Planning Commission could be provided a copy of the Conditions of Approval, as well as the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Campos Verde Specific Plan. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this item to the April 4, 2001 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. 7 Plannin.q Application No. 00-0448 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc., to desiqn and co.~[Fuct two adioininq commercial buildinqs on two separate lots with the buildin.q on Lot 3 totalin,q 29,186 square feet on 1.66 acres, and the buildinq u~ Lot 4 totalinR 29,186 square feet on 1.71 acres located on the eastside of Madiso~'~ Ave where Madison Ave "'I'" intersects with Sanborn Rd. - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No, 00-0448 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0448 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ADJOINING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ON TWO SEPARATE LOTS WITH THE BUILDING ON LOT 3 TOTALING 29,186 SQUARE FEET ON 1.66 ACRES, AND THE BUILDING ON LOT 4 TOTALING 29,t86 SQUARE FEET ON t.7t ACRES, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MADISON AVENUE WHERE MADISON AVENUE "T" INTERSECTS WITH SANBORN ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO'S. 910-272-005 (LOT 3) & 910-272-006 (LOT 4). Via overheads, Associate Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (per agenda material), specifying the location, the buildings' size, the access, the architecture inclusive of relief accenting, and the colors utilized; relayed that one of the concerns staff had with the project was the exceeding of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the site, noting that this area of the City had one of the Iow FAR's of thirty percent (30%) coverage, advising that the applicant was proposing forty percent (40%), coverage, relaying that the Development Code does allow for a one hundred and fifty percent (150%) increase if the applicant provided certain incentives which would justify the increase in FAR, specifying the criteria, as follows: 1) the project provides outstanding and exceptional benefit to the City with respect to employment, financial and socioeconomic matters, 2) the project has exceptional architectural and landscape design, or 3) the project provides enhanced public facilities beyond the mitigated impacts; noted that the applicant provided a letter outlining their rationale for qualifying for the FAR increase (per record), advising that staff did not concur completely due to uneasiness regarding the architecture of the building in light of its location proximate to the freeway, advising that the applicant was requested to enhance the articulation on the building, noting that the Planning Commission may have additional input regarding the architectural enhancements; relayed that the pop-outs may not provide adequate relief due to the length of the building on the freeway side, additionally noting that the returns on the projected portion may create a blocking of the appearance of columns; requested the Planning Commission to review and provide comments regarding the architectural style as it related to the request for a FAR increase; and presented the landscaping plan which staff was pleased with. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Thornsley confirmed that staff had requested that the pop-outs be a minimum of four feet, relaying that the applicant was proposing some portions at four feet, and others at two-and-a-half feet, due to the applicant's desire for variety; and specified the varied depth elements on the back and front portions of the buildings. Mr. David Wakefield, representing the applicant, relayed that this project was a speculative building which would be utilized as a showroom for large sale items which would be visible from the freeway, noting the consistency with the users in this area; relayed the potential for the tenant to be a furniture company, providing the rationale for the requested increase in FAR, noting that this type of use would typically be utilized by businesses selling large items and therefore needing additional space; relayed that the tax revenues from the business could be considered when justifying the FAR increase as it relates to economics; noted the enhanced amhitecture and landscaping which aided the project in qualifying for the FAR increase; advised that the site would additionally be over-parked; and provided additional information regarding the varying dimensions of the pop-out elements to create visual interest, relaying that the applicant would be willing to revise this plan, having the pop-outs all be a minimum of four feet. Referencing a letter dated February 1st, from the applicant (per agenda material), Chairman Guerriero queried the use of the phrase, "Showroom Corridor" as it related to this area. In response, Mr. Wakefield noted that the architect designing this project has been involved with this proposal pdor to the City's incorporation, relaying that the County's criteria for this designation was different than the City's; advised that the type of users currently in this area were uses such as carpet and spa companies, noting that the letter's reference most likely alluded to these types of uses. In response to Chairman Guerriero's question regarding whether Mr. Wakefield considered this type of building a 'typical freeway element in California, Mr. Wakefield noted that there were projects currently being developed in the Cities of Montclair and Corona proximate to the freeway, advising that in comparison this particular proposal was an upgraded project due to the architectural enhancements, while relaying that the showroom concept was typical; and noted the minimal space left in the Cities of Murrieta and Temecula with this type of freeway visibility. For Commissioner Chiniaeff's queries regarding the FAR on the existing surrounding uses (i.e., the Boot Barn, and the furniture uses), the applicant's architect noted that these buildings were larger than the proposed project, relaying that this fact was part of the rationale for the FAR increase on this project, acknowledging that while this area was not zoned for showrooms, it has been established as such. Addressing Commissioner Telesio's questions, Mr. Wakefield noted that the type of tenants for this project would be 5,000, 10,000, and 18,000 square foot uses; and relayed that the project was designed to be attractive on both sides of the buildings. The PlanninR Commission noted the followin.q concludin.q remarks: Relaying his concern, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the parcels located in this area make up a window into the City of Temecula, recommending that there be additional articulation on the buildings, noting that the parking layout created a straight long appearance, relaying that if the landscaping was incorporated into this drive aisle in order to create a meandering effect it would aid in breaking up the face of the building; and recommended that the building design have additional variance, not solely on the pop-out elements. Commissioner Webster noted his concurrence with Commissioner Chiniaeffs comments. Recommending a variance in height elevation, Commissioner Telesio concurred that the building provided the appearance of a long square box, advising that there should be additional enhancements to create visual interest. Chairman Guerriero relayed that the City of Temecula did not desire to be typical with respect to the showroom appearance from the freeway; and noted that due to the project's location, it would make a statement regarding the City of Temecula, recommending that there be additional architectural enhancements. In response to Mr. Wakefield, Chairman Guerriero relayed that in his opinion this project did not meet the criteria for the FAR increase. Mr. Wakefield clarified that the mezzanine element of the project had been added into the building's square footage, noting that if the FAR increase was of major concern that this mezzanine area could be shifted back. Chairman Guerriero recommended that there be focus on architectural and landscape enhancements, rather than revising the mezzanine element. Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that there be some variation in the architecture particularly along the freeway. Mr. Wakefield queried whether adding courtyards in the front would satisfy the concerns of the Planning Commission. Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred that that type of element should be investigated. For Chairman Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen clarified that when this agenda packet was being prepared he had noted that in his opinion the design of the project was unacceptable (which was discussed with Director of Planning Ubnoske), advising that due to the timing of the project's process it was determined to let the project go forward to the Planning Commission for input; clarified that staff would be willing to work with the applicant to enhance the building design, noting the reluctance of staff to require the applicant to re-design the building at the last hour without the Planning Commission's comments. In response to the Commission, Mr. Wakefield noted that due to this project being deemed complete initially, and meeting all of the City's objectives, it would be the applicant's desire to continue this item to the earliest date possible. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this item off calendar in order for staff to work with the applicant to enhance the design of the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Telesio noted that the March conference that the Planning Commission had attended had been extremely informative. Addressing Commissioner Webster's queries, Attorney Curley relayed that the presentation of the Harveston Project was being postponed in order for staff to further address the details of the project. Commenting on the conference that the Planning Commission attended, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the benefits of the data provided, specifically with respect to the findings associated with approvals of project, relaying the importance of having the applicable reviews conducted prior to Planning Commission presentation, recommending that staff thoroughly addresses issues related to the findings, which was echoed by Chairman Guerriero. Concurring with the previous comments regarding the conference, Chairman Guerdero relayed the importance of the Planning Commission attaining additional education. For Chairman Guerdero, Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission could be provided additional information regarding RLUPA. Updating the Commission in response to Chairman Guerriero's questions, Senior Planner Hazen provided additional information regarding the signage at the Cosco use, referencing the letter which had been submitted to staff which called for another delay; advised that the sign contractor was available for Planning Commission questions; and noted that the land_scape plans were being revised and prepared for submittal. For Chairman Guerfiero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that he would investigate the closing of lanes along major roadways in the City during maintenance projects (i.e., median landscaping, and road patching maintenance). PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comments. _ADJOUR.NMENT At 8:26 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular, meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 4~ 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guerdero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning CITY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning May 16, 2001 Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for April, 2001 Date Case No. Proposal Applicant Action April 5, 2001 PA00-0443 A request to divide a 3.09 acre WMII Partners LP Approved parcel into two (2) lots April 26, 2001 PA00-0425 Planning application to renovate an Dick Kennedy, Approved existing 10,156 SF building. Norm Reeves Design and construct a new Super Group additional 10, 156 SF building ultimately proposing a 20, 795 SF Honda Dealership on 2.63 acres of improved land along the '¥nez Corridor Car Dealership" area. Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 R:\D1RHEAR\MEMO\2001 \April2001 .memo.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO~2001 \April2001 .memo.doc 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING APRIL 5, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come brward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be flied with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. '~ere is a three (3) minute time limit br individual speakers. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA00-0443 (Tentative Parcel Map) WMII Partners LP, c/o Mr. Gary Nogle, 2398 San Diego Ave., San Diego, CA On the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 921-900-076) A request to divide a 3.09 acre parcel into two (2) lots. Exempt per CEQA Sec. 15315 (Minor Land Divisions - Four or fewer lots.) Thomas Thornsley APPROVED P:\PLANN1NG\DIRHEAR\2001 \04~)5~) 1 AGENDA..doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26, 2001 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Planning Manager on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no_..~t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. Tnere is a three (3) minute time limit br individual speakers. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA00-0425 (Development Application) Dick Kennedy, Norm Reeves Super Group Located on the west side of Ynez Road, one lot south of the centedine intersection of Solana Rd and Ynez Road, Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 19145, in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, and State of California. Planning Application to renovate an existing 10,156 SF building. Design and construct a new additional 10,156 square foot building, ultimately proposing a 20,795 SF Honda Dealership on 2.63 acres of improved land along the '"Ynez Corridor Car Dealership" area. Notice of Exemption per California Environmental QualityAct Article 19 Categorical Exemptions Section 15332 Class 32 In-ill Development Project Rolfe Preisendnaz Annie Bostre-Le ,.-"--APPROVED p:\PLANNING\D1RHEAR~2001 \04-26-01 AGENDA_doc ITEM #4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (C.I.P.) IS UNDER A SEPARATE COVER (If the public would like to review, please contact the Finance Department) ITEM #5 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Subject: Planning Comm~s Debbie Ubnosk~-Oimctor of Planning May 16, 2001 PA00-0419 (GPA), PA99-0418 (SP 13, Development Code Amendment, and SP Zoning Standards), PA00-0189 (EIR), PA99-0245 (Change of Zone), PA99-0446 (Development Agreement), PA00-0295 (Vesting Tentative Tract 29639), PA01- 0030 (Tentative Tract 29928), PA01-0031 (Tentative Tract 29929) and PA01-0032 (Tentative Tract 30088) PREPARED BY: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning RECOMMENDATION: Continue the Harveston Specific Plan and all it's associated applications (all referenced in Subject heading above) to June 6, 2001. BACKGROUND: The Harveston Specific Plan and all it's associated applications was scheduled for the May 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. At this time, staff and the applicant are continuing to negotiate the terms of the Development Agreement, several conditions of approval and the financing plan associated with the formation of the Community Facilities District. Staff feels it is important for staff and the applicant to reach resolution on these issues before the applications are brought before the Planning Commission.