Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout051502 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, May 15, 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 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. None. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Planner Hazen, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Harris, Associate Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 2 1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 15, 2002. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from April 24, 2002. 2.2 Approve Minutes from May 1, 2002. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that on page 3 of the May 1, 2002 minutes, in the motion, it indicated that he had made and seconded the motion, recommending that this portion of the minutes be corrected. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2 (Item 2.2, as revised.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who abstained from Item No. 2.1. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Capital Improvements Pro(Imm (ClP) Regarding the proposed Capital Improvements Program (ClP) for fiscal years 2003- 2007, the Planning Commission offered the following recommendations: With respect to the Butterfield Stage Road Extension Beltway Project [as denoted on pages 35 and 36 of the CIP Summary (Draft Extract) (per agenda material)], Commissioner Guerriero recommended that the priority level of this item be changed from Priority III to a minimum Priority II, and preferably to Priority I. With respect to the Diaz Road Widening Project from Winchester Road to Rancho California Road (as denoted on pages 43 and 44), Commissioner Guerriero recommended that the priority level of this item be changed from a Priority Ill to a minimum Priority II, and preferably to Priority I. With respect to the Rainbow Canyon Road Widening Project from Pala Road to the City limit (as denoted on pages 83 and 84), Commissioner Guerriero recommended that the priority level of this item be changed from a Priority III to Priority Il. With respect to the State Route 79 (South) Medians Project (as denoted on pages 97 and 98), Commissioner Olhasso recommended that the priority level of this item be changed from a Priority II to Priority I, citing accidents she has witnessed on this roadway. With respect to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Project (as denoted on pages 193 and 194), Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the priority level of this item be changed from Priority IV to Priority I1. With respect to the Meadowview North City Circulation Study (as denoted on pages 69 and 70), Commissioner Telesio recommended that the priority level of this item be changed from Priority III to a minimum Priority II due to the numerous alternate proposals and projects that are being delayed until this study is complete. R: PIanComm/minut e~051502 2 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for fiscal years 2003-2007 with the above-mentioned revisions. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planninq Application No. 01-0307 (Development Plan) - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner Development plan to construct, establish and operate a 24,170 sq. ft. industrial warehouse building on 1.50 vacant acres. Generally located on the south side of Zevo Drive, west of Diaz Road know as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-360-034, RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission not approve the project and continue off-calendar for redesign. Associate Planner Harris provided a project overview (of record), noting that when this item was before the Planning Commission on April 3, 2002, the Commission had expressed concerns regarding the lack of building articulation, the box-like and stark appearance of the building, the need for additional windows, the minimal ornamentation, recommending that the a~plicant hire a licensed architect in order to revise the plans, and the item was continued in order for the applicant to address these issues; with respect to the latest proposal, relayed that sandblasted panels have been added to the north and east sides of the buildings, additional windows have been added, painted knock-out panels have been added to simulate windows, scoring has been added, and a fifteen foot (15') tall by twenty-two foot (22') wide entry panel has been proposed which would project out approximately six point five feet (6.5') from the building; advised that after review of the modifications, it was staff's opinion that the revisions do not comply with the Industrial Design Standards in the Design Guidelines, in particular that the proposal does not comply with significant building indentations, that the building floorplan has not been significantly revised, that the added side panels provide insufficient articulation, that the design lacked a variety of building form and additional interest, that the plan lacked varied siding materials, that the sandblasted panels only offered minimum depth (being less that one foot in depth off the building face), that the gray color treatment of the concrete may conflict with the building colors, and that the square-shaped and rectangular-shaped architectural features amplify the box-like appearance; and advised that in light of the Permit Streamlining Act that mandates that the application be approved or denied by May 19, 2002, which was not feasible, it was staff's recommendation that the applicant consent to a one-time, 90-day processing extension if no approval or denial action was taken at this meeting. For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that if the Planning Commission opted to take action on this item tonight, it would be staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission articulate the findings for the action which staff would subsequently memorialize in a resolution; and R: PlanComm/rninut es/051502 3 additionally recommended that in lieu of continuing this time off-calendar if the Planning Commission determined to continue the matter, that the item be continued to a date certain due to the critical timing element. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Harris noted that the project data was submitted by the applicant just prior to Planning Commission distribution and that staff has not had the opportunity to further direct the applicant on the current plan; for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the proposed entry, confirming that the trelliswork has been deleted from the plan; and confirmed that the inset treatment has been replaced with a scored panel, additionally confirming that a larger window treatment was now being proposed. Mr. Walt Allen, architect representing the applicant, noted that he has been working on the redesign of this proposal since the project was continued by the Planning Commission; opined that staffs recommendations were in part due to the lack of visual aids, and that there was an incomplete understanding of the design intent; via overheads, provided additional information regarding the various elements involved in designing a project, inclusive of setback requirements, consideration of the existing buildings, parking provisions, traffic flow, and the determination of the size and shape needed for the proposed building; presented a site analysis, noting the existing adjacent uses and setbacks, the six-foot yard wall, and the screened view of the project site due to the existing structures; relayed the rationale for the project layout; noted the plan to include warehouse provisions as well as office space for this particular proposal; advised that the square-shaped articulations were intentional to create consistency in design elements (between the office portion of the project with the square-shaped windows, and the warehouse portion of the project with the square-shaped knock-out panels); relayed that the focal point of the project was the entry; specified the main visual impact from the street, and the principal access node; and advised that the enhanced landscape plan would aid in softening the building's impacts; and introduced Mr. Vince Didonato, the applicant's landscape architect. Via overheads, Mr. Didonato, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the revised entry plan with the grid pattern, which was consistent with the grid pattern on the building with a plaza-type setting; relayed the landscape plan; and for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the entry treatment. In conclusion, Mr. Allen noted the applicant's disagreement with staffs findings, opining that this particular proposal represents a logical site design, as well as provision of an enhanced entry, and excellent form concepts expressed, as afforded by the functional elements of the building; noted the avoidance of trendy architectural elements; for Commissioner Mathewson, via a sample material board, relayed that there was a proposed clear gloss sealer for the sandblasted treatment which would render a browner colored concrete; for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified the project's elements which provided dimensional relief; and for Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that the sealant would prevent the sandblasted treatment from appearing gray. R:PlanComm/minutes1051502 4 Commenting on the project, Chairman Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the articulated elements, which provided dimension; and specified the portions of the project, which would be screened due to the adjacent uses. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Didonato specified the proposed location of the 24- inch box pine trees. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Allen noted the applicant's willingness to have the project continued. Noting the need for additional information regarding the project, Commissioner Guerriero relayed his support of a continuance, advising that he would desire for the applicant to provide a landscape plan. Advising that since the revised plans were submitted last-minute, Commissioner Mathewson noted that the applicant's timing had not provided staff an adequate review process; with respect to the proposed added panels, noted that if there was a 7.5 inch relief from the existing panels, this particular element would provide more than adequate articulation, relaying that he was pleased with the height variations created with the added panels; noted concern regarding the coloring of the knock-out panels, recommending that this element be replaced with windows; and advised that he preferred the originally proposed entry treatment. Commissioner Olhasso noted her concurrence with the previous comments, including the recommendation to continue this item. Relaying appreciation for the clarification the applicant's representative offered during his presentation, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he would desire to have additional information regarding the knock-out panels; noted that in his opinion, the building did not appear stark, relaying that while it was important that the project was visually pleasing, that this warehouse-type building additionally needed to be functional; concurred with the need to continue this item; noted hopes that there were intermediate conversations from staff to the applicant to provide direction, recommending that the coordination of these discussions be improved; and opined that a good project could be designed with the use of two or three varied materials. Referencing the adjacent existing uses, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that this particular proposal was a vast improvement; opined that staff should be relaying specific comments to the applicant regarding what was expected; recommended that the project be modified, as follows: that additional articulation be added along the roofline (consistent with the main entrance and the north elevation's elements), and that storefront glass be added to the knock-out panels (noting that it may not be necessary to install the glass down the entire elevation); relayed his preference for the revised entry design; and with respect to the element which appeared to be a concrete tilt-up wall with insets, recommended that this be clarified on the submittals and that the materials be indicated. Regarding the Permit Streamlining Act timing constraints, Assistant City Attorney Cudey queried whether the applicant was willing to consent to the 90-day R:PlanComnVminutes/051502 5 processing extension (clarifying that per CEQA requirements, only one request for an extension could be granted, ergo the rationale for the 90-day request). In response to Assistant City Attorney Curley, Mr. Vince Maganuco, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's agreement to the request for a 90-day process extension, Assistant City Attorney Curley noting that this agreement would be followed up with a letter confirming the applicant's agreement. Expressing appreciation to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Didonato requested that the Planning Commission provide specific input, relaying that it was an ongoing problem whereby staff had attempted to provide information to the applicant regarding the Planning Commission's expectation level; and with respect to the number of materials utilized in this project, queried whether a tilt-up building with exposed aggregate and varied textures and colors was acceptable to the Planning Commission, or whether it was necessary to add a brick or rock material. Commissioner Guerriero confirmed that it was the Planning Commission's desire to raise the bar with respect to design standards, aiming for more dynamic architectural designs and moving away from the 60's and 70's architectural designs. Reiterating his specific recommendations in response to Mr. Didonato's comments, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the knock-out panels not be painted, and that he concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff's comments regarding adding additional window treatments; and reiterated his concern regarding the entry treatment, as well as his concern regarding the colorization of the concrete panels, querying the final appearance of the concrete with the sealant. Offering his opinion, Commissioner Telesio noted that his expectation level regarding design was impacted by the location of the site, advising that if this project was located on Rancho California Road or Ynez Road he would expect a higher level of design than a warehouse-type project on Zevo Drive, and while noting his desire to have a higher level of designed projects in the City of Temecula, relayed that this project's design plan superceded the existing buildings adjacent to this proposed project. For informational purposes, Commissioner Olhasso recommended that design samples from the Cities of Rancho Santa Margarita, Rancho Cucamonga, and certain areas of Ontario be reviewed by the Planning Commission, noting staff's efforts to provide photographs of design styles in order to receive input from the Planning Commission regarding acceptable design standards. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item to the June 5, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:PlanComm/minutes/051502 6 5 Planninq Application No. 01-0324 (Conditional Use Permit) - Don Hazen, Senior Planner A Conditional Use PermitJDevelopment Plan to construct and operate a golfing educational facility with a 10,000 sq, fi, classroom building, a 3,000 sq, fi. commercial pro shop, and a nine-hole public golf course with a 40 tee driving range, and the relocation of a caretaker's residence on a 22-acre site. RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Staff recommends the project be continued off-calendar at the applicant's request, because they are developing a revised lighting plan for the facility. (See attached documentation) Commissioner Telesio advised that he would be abstaining from this issue, and therefore left the dais. Senior Planner Hazen relayed that the applicant has requested a continuance regarding this item in order for the applicant to revise the lighting plan associated with this project, advising that it was his understanding that there were individuals present desiring to speak about the project. At this time Chairman Chiniaeff opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Dierking, 42889 Via Alhama, relayed his concern with the evening lighting associated with this project which would create a significant negative impact, additionally noting that the noticing did not mention the proposed night lighting, opining that the description in the notice was inadequate, ergo the surrounding residents have not been given sufficient information, confirming that per discussions with his neighbors the residents were not aware of the proposed night lighting; relayed that one of the on-site notices was in the dirt for the past week; and noted that he would not be opposed to this project if there were explicit requirements regarding the lighting, recommending that the lighting be limited to two hours after sunset. Mr. Edward Hubler, 41815 Green Tree Road, relayed that he purchased his home based on the assumption that the proximate greenbelt would be maintained; noted that he was not opposed to the development of a golf college, but the golf course, the lighted driving range, and the natural habitat being disturbed at this site in which he has viewed animals (i.e., coyotes, owls, etc.) residing for years. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that since this item will be continued off calendar, the project will be re-noticed; and in response to Mr. Dierking, noted that it was helpful if residents telephoned the City when they were aware of notices that had fallen down, so that staff could correct the matter. For informational purposes regarding the scope of notice, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that although State Law only required one form of notice, the City of Temecula posts all three forms. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that when the noticing is next posted for this project, staff will make a point to include information regarding the lighting. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item off-calendar. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who abstained. 6 Planninq Application No. 01-0521 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Rick Rush RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0521 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0521, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 55,906 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ON 3.47 VACANT ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON PALA ROAD NORTH OF LOMALINDA ROAD AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 961-010-010 Associate Planner Thornsley provided an overview of the project plan (per agenda material), highlighting the access, the parking, the site layout, the thirty percent (30%) landscaping plan, the setbacks, the architectural design plan, advising that staff was pleased with this particular proposal; relayed the following modification: that Condition No. 84 (regarding the requirement for an easement for public trials) be revised to indicate after the phrase "shall be shown," the following: and recorded along the Jedediah Smith Road right-of-way, noting that this condition should be placed under the heading Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits; and commended the applicant's architect for his diligent work associated with the project. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the plantings indicated on the landscape plan would be the actual installations and not those pictured on the rendering, Associate Planner Thornsley providing additional specifications regarding the plantings. Mr. Ariel Valli, architect representing the applicant, for Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that the project included the proposal of two types of fencing, as follows: 1) a solid block wall, and 1) wrought iron fencing, specifying the proposed location of each. R:PlanComm/minutes/951502 8 After additional discussion, Senior Planner Hazen recommended that the off-site improvements not be part of the action taken on this project. In response, Mr. Valli relayed that it would be the applicant's desire for the applicant to work with staff to provide a continued treatment through this project and the parcel to the north in order to create a consistent appearance. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks specified the location of the open drainage channel; and confirmed that there was adequate right-of-way to provide for the denoted facilities. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staffs recommendation, subject to the following modifications: Add- That Condition No. 84 be revised, adding the following language after the phrase "shall be shown:" and recorded along the Jedediah Smith Road right-of-way, and that this condition be placed under the heading Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits; and That a condition be added stating that the applicant would work with staff regarding improvements on the adjacent site (i.e., demolition, and the installation of a block wall.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS No additional comments. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. With respect to architectural standards for proposed projects, Director of Planning Ubnoske requested clarification from the Planning Commission, advising that the Design Guidelines do not vary standards with respect to location, noting that Planning staff was struggling regarding the expectation level of design; provided additional information regarding Agenda Item No. 4, clarifying that staff had not reviewed the data which was submitted at a late date and presented at tonight's meeting (Senior Planner Hazen clarifying that the day after the Planning Commission meeting when the project was continued staff had met with the applicant recommending that conceptual sketches be provided to staff, advising that submittals were not provided and that staff had viewed many aspects of the project for the first time yesterday afternoon, and at tonight's hearing): and noted that staff cannot force an architect to make changes and that it would not be appropriate to place staff in the position of designing buildings. Noting his frustration, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that although the Planning Commission has a desire to raise the bar regarding design standards, the applicants' representatives, some of whom have been working in the City for R:PlanComm/minutes/051502 9 years, assume that lesser standards can be submitted and approved, querying where the applicants' representatives would receive the message (that the bar has been raised) from the Planning Commission or staff. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff worked with applicants and their representatives, advising that it was not staff's desire to ever bring forward projects which would be recommended for denial; and relayed that if the applicants were not agreeable to making improvements based on staff's conception of what the Planning Commission expected, staff could bring those items forward with a recommendation for denial based on inconsistency with the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Guerriero relayed that it was not the Planning Commission's desire to promulgate a message of anti-business or anti-growth, querying the avenue for relaying that message that the bar has been raised with respect to design standards. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if the Planning Commission was consistent in its standards with respect to projects proposed with lower design standards, recommending denial or a continuance for the applicant to revise the design plan, the word would get out to the community and projects would begin to come in at a higher level. Chairman Chiniaeff commented that no one on the Commission would be reluctant to not support a project proposing lower design standards. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that there was a difference between being business-friendly and processing plans too quickly, clarifying that she was a proponent of maintaining higher design standards. Providing additional information, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if the Planning Commission codified its findings with respect to design standards as it relates to the Design Guidelines, staff would have something more substantial to provide applicants with respect to raising the board regarding design standards. Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the Design Guidelines include photographs of samples of architecture that the Planning Commission was seeking, as this would provide applicants with a clearer picture of what was expected. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that monies were set-aside in the budget to hire a consultant to update the Design Guidelines. Commissioner Telesio advised that the applicants were not receiving the message that the design standards have been raised, as they relay to the Planning Commission that the issue was a matter of interpretation of the Design Guidelines. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that when applicants noted that the adjacent uses to their proposed project had lower R: Pla n Comrn/min ut esl051502 10 design standards, staff clarifies to the applicant that this has no bearing on current design standards for projects. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that although the color renderings on projects were not a requirement, staff would attempt to provide direction that the landscape plans should be accurately reflected if renderings were provided. In response to Commission comments, Assistant City Attorney Curley confirmed that when Planning Commissioners met with applicants on an individual basis, it was appropriate to absorb information but not to provide direction per the Brown Act regulations, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirming that it would be inappropriate for a Planning Commissioner to serve on an Architectural Committee associated with a future project. After additional discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to hold three Planning Commission meetings in June, on June 5th, June 19th, and the 26th, the 19th being a Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT At 7:57 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetinq to be held on Wednesday1 June 51 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. (,Dermis W. ChT~iaeff, ' Chairman Director of Planning R: PlanComm/minut es/051502 1 1