Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042402 PC Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 24, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Chairman Chiniaeff. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Commissioner Telesio. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner McCoy, Management Analyst Smith, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 24, 2002. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of the April 3, 2002 Meeting. R: Pla nComm/minutes/042402 3 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent and Chairman Chiniaeff who abstained from Item No. 2. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planning Application No. 01-0307 (Development Plan) - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner It is noted that the Planning Commission took action on Agenda Item No. 4 when Item No. 5 was addressed; see below. 5 Planninq Application No. 01-0309 (Development Plan) - Rick Rush Project Planner Relaying that both Agenda Item Nos. 4 and 5 had been continued from the last Planning Commission meeting (April 3, 2002) to tonight's meeting (April 24, 2002), Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the applicants were not yet prepared for Planning Commission presentation and recommended that the items be continued, as follows: that Item No. 4 be continued to the May 15, 2002 meeting, and that Item No. 5 be continued to the May 1, 2002 meeting. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Senior Planner Hazen provided additional information regarding the items that had been continued from the April 3, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, relaying that the Planning Commission had recommended that both projects be redesigned. For informational purposes, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that Agenda Item No. 4 (Planning Application No. 01-0307) was a proposal for a 24,170 square foot IndustriaINVarehouse building located on Zevo Drive, west of Diaz Road, and that Agenda Item No. 5 (Planning Application No. 01-0309) was a proposal for a warehouse building located on Winchester Road, north of Colt Court and south of Zevo Drive. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue Item No. 4 to May 15, 2002, and to continue Item No. 5 to May 1, 2002. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent. R:PlanCom r~'minut es/042402 2 6 Plannin,q Application No. 01-0445 (Extension of Time) - Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0445 (Extension of Time) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted pursuant'to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0445 (THE SECOND ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME), FOR PA97-0420 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 27,700 SQUARE FEET, 69 INDEPENDENT CARE HOUSING UNITS WITH A DETACHED CLUBHOUSE AND POOL (380,859 TOTAL SQUARE FEET) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.62 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOMALINDA AND PALA ROADS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 961- 010-014 AND 96'1-010-015. By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (per agenda material), noting that the requested extension of time was for a project which was brought before the Planning Commission three years ago; and relayed that in order to update the associated Conditions of Approval to meet the City's current standards, the following revisions are recommended by staff: the addition of Community Services Department Condition Nos. 94, 95 and 97 as per the staff report (regarding requirements associated with solid waste disposal, recycling and the installation of bike lanes), and the addition of Public Works Department Condition No. 50 (regarding requirements to improve the existing channel on Pala Road if CIP Project No. PW99-11 has not occurred prior to development of this project.) For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Daniel Lomax, the applicant, relayed agreement with the revised conditions. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the conditions being revised, as presented by staff (see above). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent. R:PlanComrn/minutes/042402 3 7 Plannin.q Application No. 01-0539 (Development Plan) - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0539 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0539, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 18,894 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A .96 ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, 230 FEET NORTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-281- O03 Via color renderings and overheads, Associate Planner Harris presented an overview of the proposed project (per agenda material), highlighting the location, the zoning (Business Park), the surrounding land uses, the site design, the entrance point, the roll- up delivery door located at the rear of the building, the landscape plan which will aid in the screening of the on-site parking, and the decorative paving located at the building entrances, the outdoor eating patio, and at the driveway entrance; specified the building design with the use of three colors on the building, the entry frames provided at the building entrances which the applicant was willing to extend two feet per staff's recommendation in order to provide additional depth; noted the glass treatments which would aid in breaking up the massing; relayed staffs efforts with the applicant which resulted in larger windows being proposed; advised that while the applicant was proposing five flagpoles at the front of the building, the Development Code only allowed for three flags on the property, one of which would be the American flag while the other two could be international flags, noting that since the project would not qualify for variance regarding this issue, staff was recommending that the site plan be amended to indicate three flagpoles Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit; for Commissioner Guerriero, relayed that the proposed glass would be a green reflective glass, providing the sample material board; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, reiterated the restrictions regarding allowance for only three flags on site. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it was her understanding that the allowance of three flags was a requirement of the Code, and not a recommendation. Mr. Dave Wakefield, representing the applicant, noted agreement with the conditions; with respect to the architectural design, provided additional information regarding the glass treatments and the accent paint application; relayed the landscape plan, and the R: PlanComm/minut es~042402 4 proposed decorative concrete to create visual interest; and noted that if the Planning Commission could approve the plan for five flagpoles it would be greatly appreciated. Ms. Judy Muscarella, representing the applicant, relayed that the company (Gospel Recordings) was relocating to the City of Temecula, after being located in Los Angeles for over 62 years; provided an overview of the work this non-profit company was involved with (providing the gospel message in an audio format in various world languages); and advised that staff members (missionaries) were based in 35 different nations around the world, noting that the rationale for the plan to have five flagpoles was due to the desire to fly the flag of the country where a staff member had been stationed while that member was home on leave, advising that the applicant would abide by whatever determination was made regarding the flagpole issue. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff opened the public hearing. Mr. Mack Timm, 41840 Enterprise Circle Drive North, representing the use located directly across the street from this proposed project, noting that he was in favor of the development plan and would have no objection to the additional flagpoles. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation; and directed staff to further investigate as to whether the five proposed flagpoles could be installed, ultimately subjecting the site plan to the requirements of the Development Code. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent. 8 Planninq Application No. 01-0385 - Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0385 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act 8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0385, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE TWO MULTI-TENANT INDUSTRIAL/WAREHOUSE SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS, ONE OF 19,400 SQ. FT. AND ONE OF 23,700 SQ. FT. ON A 3.25-ACRE VACANT PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD AT THE TERMINUS OF COLT COURT AND WEST OF DIAZ ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 909-360-025 & 042 By way of overheads and a material sample board, Project Planner McCoy presented the staff report (of record), relaying the location, the zoning (Light Industrial), the General "1 Plan Designation (Business Park), the surrounding properties, the site design, the access point, the circular driveway, the employee patio area, the trash enclosures and loading area located in between the proposed buildings, and the buildings' enhanced articulation which provided material variation creating visual interest; noted the landscape plan which enhanced the entrance, and effectively screened the parking area and provided additional accenting; and advised that the internal driveway between the buildings has been conditioned (Condition No. 13) to provide one-way access only and restricted from extended parking, and storage of materials or vehicles of any kind behind the tenant suites. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy relayed that while the entire width of the internal driveway was thirty-six feet (36'), that with the ten-foot (10') wide striped areas along the length of each of the rear of the buildings the clearance would be reduced to sixteen feet (16'), confirming that the striped areas were the designated as loading zones; and noted that the Fire Department was satisfied with the plan, relaying that the 150 foot (150') fire hose would address fire emergencies with the fire vehicles being parking on the edge at the side of the entrances. Director of Planning Ubnoske clarifying that conditioning the driveway to only allow one-way access created a circulation plan that was adequate. Commissioner Olhasso noted her concern regarding enforcement of the conditions regarding restrictions at the internal driveway. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Senior Planner Hazen advised that it had been relayed to the applicant that if there was a desire to have two-way access at the internal driveway the square footage of the buildings would need to be decreased. The applicant's architect provided additional information regarding the internal driveway design; and with respect to Condition No. 24, noted the applicant's concern regarding the requirement to establish a reciprocal access between this property and the parcel to the west (which was also owned by the applicant) due to negative impacts if the two sites are sold separately. Providing clarification regarding the second access point, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted the applicant's original request for a second driveway to be located at the westerly parking area which staff:was not in agreement with due to the plan to limit the number of driveways on Winchester Road, ergo the requirement to establish reciprocal access to provide a second access point as per the Fire Department requirements; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that there would be a conflict with the alternate parking lot is a second driveway was to be installed at the westerly parking area; and confirmed that staff would not be opposed to the installation of a breakaway gate at the location of the reciprocal access point. After additional discussion regarding maintaining the reciprocal access as restricted for fire and safety vehicle access only, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that staff would need to further investigate the recommendation to ensure there would be clear emergency access prior to developing the language for the reciprocal agreement; and provided language which could be added to Condition No. 24 to reflect the plan for limited reciprocal access (as indicated in the modifications to the conditions under the motion; see the italicized section on page 7). Per her experience in the City of Ontario, Commissioner Olhasso noted that various tenants had created negative impacts in alleyways such as this particular proposal (i.e., installing fences). Mr. David Silver, representing the applicant, provided assurance that there would be no fencing or storage in the alleyway, relaying a willingness to have the project conditioned with these restrictions. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following revisions: Modify- That additional language be added to Condition No. 15 restricting the storage of any items including dumpsters, stacking bins, as well as prohibiting the installation of fences. That Condition No. 24 be revised to state A reciprocal access agreement shall be established in the property title to provide for limited reciprocal access for emergency vehicles (subject to the satisfaction of the City's Legal, Planning and Public Works staff) between this property and the adjacent parcel to the west. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent. 9 Planning Application No. 01-0386 - Michael McCoy, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0386 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act 9.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0386, DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 33,226 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL/VVAREHOUSE BUILDING ON A 'I.91 ACRE VACANT PARCEL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD AT THE TERMINUS OF BOSTIK COURT AND WEST OF DIAZ ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360- 041. Project Planner McCoy provided an overview of the project plan (of record); via overheads, relayed the location, the Zoning (Light Industrial), the General Plan designation (Business Park), the surrounding land uses, the site design, the two R: Pla nComm/minut es/042402 ? decorative paved entryways, the access from Winchester road, the employee patio area, the loading docks, the provision of a variation of visual relief with vertical columns offset from the building, the two raised glass elements, and the horizontal metal canopies at the entranceways, and the landscape plan; and with respect to the proposed paint application which was comprised of three shades of blue, noted that staff has conditioned the applicant to provide an alternative color palette with earth tones due to incompatibility issues with the proposed bright colors against the hillside. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that with respect to Condition No. 23, the same revision as in Agenda Item No. 8 regarding the reciprocal easement being for emergency access only could be applied. The applicant's architect noted the desire of the applicant to maintain the proposal for the building to be painted in blue shades; and with relayed concern respect to Condition No. 10, requiring that all downspouts be internalized. Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that due to the lack of visibility of the rear of the building, face-mounted downspouts would most likely be acceptable in this location. Director of Planning Ubnoske relaying that this revision would be satisfactory with staff. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's architect relayed the proposed color application, which was comprised of blue hues that graduated from light to darker tones. Addressing the color application issue and in light of the applicant's opposition to utilizing earth tones, Commissioner OIhasso suggested utilizing a sage green color tone. Chairman Chiniaeff concurred with the applicant with respect to opposing the utilization of earth tones for the paint application, noting that he could support the plan to utilize blue tones. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed the rationale for staffs recommendation regarding the opposition to the applicant's plan to utilize a blue-toned paint palette, noting that per previous Planning Commission meetings, the Commission's desire had been to approve color applications which would blend with the natural hillside colors with projects located on the hillside. Additional discussion ensued regarding the paint application on buildings on the City's hillsides, Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, noting that a gray color tone might blend more than blue tones with the natural background, recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop an appropriate paint application. The applicant's architect relayed that it was the applicant's desire to utilize a blue-toned paint application due to the use potentially selling more readily, additionally noting the plan to utilize blue-colored glass. Commissioner Guerriero noted his concern regarding the visual appearance of the south elevation. Commissioner Mathewson suggested that the glass band be extended further across this area, Chairman Chiniaeff suggesting that the glass treatment be repeated stepping down towards the middle of the building which would fill the void. Due to the location of the service door, Commissioner Olhasso recommended screening this area on the Winchester elevation. R:PlanCornrr t/minutes/042402 8 For informational purposes, the applicant's architect noted that there was a slight grade change from the street to the site; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that applicant's willingness to add landscaping to screen the door on the Winchester Road elevation. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following revisions: Modify- With respect to the Winchester elevation, that there be additional glass added, specifically that the glass treatment be extended with an additional stepping down towards the middle of the building, and that a 24-inch box tree be installed in this area to screen the service door on this elevation. · With respect to Condition No. 10, that the language be revised to state All downspouts visible to the public shall be internalized. With respect to Condition No. 23, that the language be revised to state A reciprocal access agreement shall be established in the property title to provide for limited reciprocal access for emergency vehicles (subject to the satisfaction of the City's Legal, Planning and Public Works staff) between this property and the adjacent parcel to the east. With respect to Condition No. 24 (regarding the color palette), that the applicant be directed to work with staff to develop an appropriate color scheme. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who was absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Noting the progress in the City since she was an employee four years ago, Commissioner Olhasso commended Director of Planning Ubnoske and Deputy Director of Public Works Parks for the development of a concurrent permit process in order for the community to be perceived as business friendly; with respect to the struggle the Planning Department has had filling positions due to the competitive market, requested that consideration be given regarding staff salaries and the recruitment process, and that whatever steps are deemed necessary that this matter be addressed; and noting her desire to see more current architectural design, offered her time to tour staff and/or th~ Planning Commission through development projects in the City of Ontario. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would forward the information regarding the plethora of banners displayed at the Portofino Apartment Complex to Code Enforcement, advising that the Planning Commission could e-mail or phone Senior Management Analyst Brown in order for staff to address these matters expeditiously. R:Plan Com m/minut es~42402 9 With respect to the May 7t~ City Council/Planning Commission Joint Workshop meeting, Commissioner Mathewson noted that he would be unable to attend. Regarding the recent National Planning Convention in Chicago that he had attended, Commissioner Guerriero noted that it had been an educational and wonderful experience. Commissioner Guerriero requested that there be investigation as to whether it would be feasible to extend the left-turn lane on Rancho California Road (coming from Margarita Road.) In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff was in the process of investigating this issue and that he would update the Planning Commission at a future meeting. Commenting on the National Planning Convention held in Chicago, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the architecture being developed in alternate cities was a regression back to the 1920's and 1930's style; and thanking staff for the opportunity to attend this convention, relayed that he would provide to staff the photographs (reflecting interesting architectural design elements) that he took while in the City of Chicago. Referencing Agenda Nos. 4 and 5, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that in the future additional information be provided on continued items in order to provide clarification as to what project was being continued. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Regarding architectural design in the City, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted the struggle between staff and the development community with respect to this issue; and advised that in the proposed CIP budget (which has not yet been approved by the City Council) funds have been designated for hiring a consultant to prepare a new set of Design Guidelines which would aid in addressing this issue in written form, noting that in the future a workshop would be scheduled in order to have discussions with the Planning Commission prior to meeting with the consultant. In order to gain input, Senior Planner Hazen queried whether when applicants made minor changes in approved project plans if it was the Planning Commission's desire to have these items brought back to the Commission or if the Commission preferred to have staff address these minor revisions; and provided an example of a project where the applicant was requesting a minor deviation from the approved plan regarding awnings and entryway design, noting the desire to utilize retractable awnings and to replace the dome over the entry with a canvas canopy. In response to Senior Planner Hazen's queries, and after additional discussion it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission to have staff bring back these particular projects to the Commission where the applicant was requesting to deviate from the approved project plan. Assistant City Attorney Curley confirming that these items would need to be noticed. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided an update regarding the Home Depot/Staples Shopping Center. Apprising the Planning Commission, Senior Planner Hazen noted that on May 16, 2002, staff would be conducting a field trip to visit development in the City of Temecula, relaying that desire to gain input from the Planning Commission regarding design elements. Updating the Planning Commission, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that at the April 23, 2002 City Council meeting the City Council voted to deny approval of the proposed Development Code Amendment (regarding second dwelling units), supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske and Senior Planner Hazen providing additional information regarding the Pacific Bell Wireless lease agreement, which was approved by the City Council at the April 23rd meeting. Commissioner Guerriero noted that he most likely would not be able to attend the May 1, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Olhasso queried the scheduling of a Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop on May 7t~, advising that she had relayed that she would never be able to attend a meeting on any first or third Tuesday night of any month. Providing clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted the difficulty City staff had scheduling this meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re.qular meeting to be held on Wednesday, May 1, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Debb'~ Ubnoske, Director of Planning R; PlanComm/minut e~042402 11