Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030602 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, March 6, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Olhasso. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Fire Battalion Chief Ahmad, Senior Planner Hazen, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Harris, Associate Planner Papp, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Ronald Knowies, 39675 Cantrell Road, questioned the process of agenda items, specifically relaying his confusion regarding Agenda No. 5 (on the March 6, 2002, Agenda), noting that this item had been considered by the Planning Commission previously, forwarded to the City Council with a Planning Commission recommendation for denial, and was now, once again, before the Planning Commission for consideration. In response to Mr. Knowles, Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that there are two types of actions that the Planning Commission has jurisdiction over, listed as follows: 1) with certain items the Planning Commission has final authority, unless the matter is appealed to the City Council, and 2) with other items, the Planning Commission reviews the matter and makes a recommendation to the City Council where the final action will be taken, advising that with these particular issues, the City Council will take into consideration the Planning Commission's and staff's recommendations prior to taking action; with respect to Agenda Item No. 5 on tonight's agenda, relayed that with this item the City Council determined to send the matter back to the Planning Commission for further deliberation, advising that at a future date the Planning Commission's second recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration along with staff's recommendation; and in response to Mr. Knowles' question, noted that typically with an ordinance amendment item there are no direct mailings. Director of Planning Ubnoske further clarifying that with this type of issue (Development Code Amendment), the agenda item is placed in the newspaper and the sites are posted; and noted that if it was Mr. Knowles' desire to be contacted with information regarding when Agenda Item No. 5 would be considered by the City Council, that he could let her or Senior Planner Hazen know, and he would be provided this information. CONSENT CALENDAR A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 6, 2002. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of February 20, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planning Application No. 01-0485 (Development Plan) - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner - Continued from February 20, 2002 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0485 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0t-0485, DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A '10,926 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE I RETAIL BUILDING ON '1.t4 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF DARTOLO ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-080-014 Via overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz specified the revisions to this particular project plan since the item was continued from the February 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, highlighting the addition of a cultured stone veneer wainscoting (which will wrap around the entire building), the recessed windows on the front element, and the raising of the parapet; noted the detail of the cornice molding on the parapet, as well as on the building which will add visual interest; and specified the trees located on the adjacent property which will soften the building frontage. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that although the trees on the west elevation (located on the adjacent property) were not shown on the drawings at the February 20, 2002, hearing that the trees currently exist at this location. Mr. Richard Finkel, architect representing the applicant, for Commissioner Guerriero, noted that the material board was accurate, specifying that the roof tile would be consistent with the adjacent medical building; briefly noted the revisions in the project implemented due to the Planning Commission's desire for the architectural design to be enhanced; clarified that the three-dimensional images of the project were provided to demonstrate massing and the variations in the roof and walls, and were not representative of the final landscaping and color plans. Chairman Chiniaeff thanked Mr. Finkel for the applicant's efforts in revising the architectural plan in order to address the Planning Commission's concerns. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; to approve the project plan, as per the presented revised design plan; to adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0485; and to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002-004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Planning Application No. 01-0586 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan) - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt an Addendum to a previously approved Negative Declaration; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0586, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 6,489 SQUARE FOOT NINE (9) CLASSROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY IN TWO (2) PHASES. THE 5.49- ACRE SITE IS LOCATED AT 42690 MARGARITA ROAD, EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-020-0'10 By way of overheads, Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the project (of record), noting the proposed addition to an existing church facility encompassing a 6,489 square foot nine-classroom addition (to be utilized for Sunday school instruction) which would be constructed in two phases; relayed the project site designation (Public Institutional Facilities), and zoning (Margarita Village Specific Plan), and the surrounding uses; provided a history of the development at the site, noting that the actual sanctuary has not yet been constructed and is not expected to be developed for five years; specified that Phase I would include four classrooms, and a restroom facility and was anticipated to be commenced in the Spring of 2002, and that Phase II would include five classrooms and was anticipated to be commenced in the Spring of 2003; noted that the architectural design will be consistent with the existing finishes, colors, and materials; relayed that the proposed tower element at the southern end of the building would match the existing tower element; provided additional information regarding the existing parking lot provisions (158 parking spaces) which the project was conditioned to install for Phases I, II, and III of the 1993 project plan of which only Phases I, and II had been constructed; noted that it was not anticipated that this project would generate additional traffic; with respect to the landscaping, advised that the four missing street trees (liquid amber trees) along Margarita Road would be installed as well as 16 pine trees (required per the Margarita Village Specific Plan) which were never planted; with respect to Condition No. 53 (which required a secondary access) noted that the applicant has been working with Fire Department staff regarding this condition, advising that upon further investigation the Fire Department staff has agreed that this condition could be deleted. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that Condition No. 29 (regarding the requirement for a geological report to be prepared) was most likely included as a standard condition, advising that if the report was not necessary the applicant would not be required to prepare it. Mr. Rumansoff, architect representing the applicant, noted the efforts with the applicant and staff regarding the development of this project plan, specifying the elements of the project which would be consistent with the existing facility; and relayed that the additional pine trees installed on the slope would aid in providing a pleasing streetscape. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the deletion of Condition No. 53. The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 5 Plannin,q Application No. 01-0566 (Development Code Amendment) - Dave Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NOT APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS (PLANNING APPLICATION 0t-0566) Senior Planner Hogan introduced newly hired staff member Associate Planner Papp who would present the Development Code Amendment proposal, in response, the Planning Commission welcomed him aboard. Associate Planner Papp provided the staff report (per agenda material), noting that the proposed amendment was for the purpose of increasing the allowable size of second dwelling units to 2,000 square feet; relayed that the Planning Commission had considered this item on December 5, 2001, and forwarded a recommendation for denial of the amendment to the City Council, that subsequently the City Council (on December 11, 2001) deliberated and there was a general consensus that increasing the allowable size of second dwelling units may be appropriate in certain circumstances, and that the City Council then took action (with a 4/1) vote) for the Planning Commission to further deliberate regarding this matter, and subsequently the item was sent back to the Planning Commission for consideration; advised that based on staffs additional investigation the following data was revealed: 1) that most of the cities which have adopted second dwelling unit ordinances have followed suit with the State and kept the maximum size at 1,200 square feet, and 2) that the City of Moreno Valley and the County of Riverside allow larger second units, as well as various cities outside of the County of Riverside, ergo a precedent has already been established; noted that the table on page 2 of the staff report displays a theoretical maximum number of secondary dwelling units (by unit size) which could be constructed in the City of Temecula based on existing lot coverage criteria in the Development Code; relayed concepts for reducing the number of secondary dwelling units, as follows: 1) solely allowing the units larger than 1,200 square feet to be constructed on lots one acre in size, or greater, 2)limiting the maximum size qfthe second dwelling unit to a size equal to 75% of the primary unit, and/or 3) requiring a Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for secondary dwelling units proposed over 1,200 square feet; via maps, indicated the parcels in the City which were one acre in size, or larger; advised that staff recommended that approval of secondary dwelling units larger than 1,200 square feet should only be considered on lots one acre in size or larger, and that approval be obtained via a Minor CUP to ensure that there are no blanket approvals for larger second dwellings; specified the performance criteria which will be included in the Development Code (as denoted on page 3 of the staff report); relayed the proposed seven findings which would be mandatory for the Planning Director to make for all secondary dwelling units proposed in excess of 1,200 square feet; and for clarification, noted the following corrections: that on the table denoted on page 11 of the staff report, at the second entry line, the square footage for the secondary dwelling units should read 1,201 square feet to 2000 square feet in lieu of 1,200 square feet to 2000 square feet, that on page 12 of the staff report, in Section M., Subsection 1.x., the last three sentences be stricken, beginning with the phrase "Permitted uses," and that in Section M., Subsection 2., in the last line of the first paragraph, that the language after the word "section" be deleted. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Papp clarified when Section M., · Subsection 1 .x. would be applicable (which required an additional access for emergency vehicles if the second unit was placed more than 150 feet away from a public right-of- way.) Mr. Ronald Knowles, 39675 Cantrell Road, noted his oppostion to the proposed amendment; with respect to the few individuals who have already constructed second units over 1200 square feet, advised that these residents should have checked the Code prior to construction, and was opposed to modifying the Code to address these few individuals concerns; and relayed concern with respect to the negative impacts if this amendment is passed, in particular regarding increased densities, increased traffic, and decreased property values. Noting that the current allowable 1200 square foot size for secondary dwelling units would be adequate, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he would not be in favor of amending the Code. Concurring that a 1200 square foot secondary dwelling unit would be ample space for caregivers, or elderly family members, Commissioner Mathewson opined that increasing the allowable size to 2,000 square feet would create significant negative impacts; and relayed that his position has not changed on this issue. In light of potential traffic and alternate negative impacts, Commissioner Olhasso advised that she was not in favor of increasing the allowable size of secondary dwelling units; and noted that she would not be opposed to the secondary units being utilized for business of a home occupation (referencing the restriction denoted on page 3 of the staff report.) In response to Commissioner Olhasso's comments and State legislature regarding this matter, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed uncertainty that the secondary dwelling units could be restricted from conducting business or home occupations. Concurring with previously expressed comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed that after additional exploration of this issue he was still opposed to increasing the allowable size of secondary dwelling units; and noted the potential negative impacts on the adjacent neighbors if the secondary dwelling unit could be 2,000 square feet. For clarification and in response to Mr. Knowles' comments, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the maximum number of potential second units which could be constructed in the City of Temecula would not change whether or not this amendment was approved, but that the amendment addressed allowing units larger than 1,200 square feet; noted that with the revision, one-acre site property owners within the Meadowview development could construct a secondary dwelling unit of 2,000 square feet, advising that this could create a negative impact while on a three-acre lot, or larger, the impacts would be less significant (Senior Planner Hogan noting that there were only approximately 10 lots in the Meadowview development that were one acre, or larger); and relayed that determining an appropriate criteria as to what size secondary dwelling unit would be suitable for a certain sized parcels would be difficult, advising that it would be his preference to leave the Code, as is. In light of comments expressed regarding a concern with respect to the traffic impacts associated with this issue, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that there has been no finding of any significant traffic impact that would be created by second units. In response, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that from his own experience, when rentals were utilized for student housing that a four bedroom unit could have 8-10 students residing in one house with a constant of 8-10 cars with potentially 20-30 vehicles parked on the neighborhood streets on weekends, opining that this would create a significant negative impact. For informational purposes, Commissioner Olhasso opined that the numerical statistical data in the staff report was not helpful for this particular type of proposal. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to recommend that the City Council deny approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Olhasso reiterated the importance of correlating the General Plan with the Economic Development Strategy and Economic Report. Updating the Planning Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the signals on Rancho California Road are linked but that the coordination has not been completed, advising that this was a priority project, and efforts were being made to address this issue at this time. For informational purposes, Assistant City Attorney Curley introduced one on his colleagues from the Brea Law Office who was in the audience, Ms. Carrie Ahn. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that on the date of the next scheduled meeting, most of the Planning Commissioners would be at the conference, and after additional discussion it was determined to adjourn this meeting to the April 3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 7:20 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, April 3, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennl~ W. Chiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:PlanCom~'minutes/030602 8