Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout040401 PC MinutesCALL TO ORDER MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 200t The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday April 4, 2001, 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 Webster. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Commissioner Mathewson. Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 4, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: ~ 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 31, 2001 With respect to the Agenda, Chairman Guerriero noted that it was being recommended that Agenda Item No. 3 be pulled, and that Agenda Item No. 4 be continued to the April 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. R: PlanCornrn/minut es~40401 MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2, including the amendments to Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Clarification of the use approved with PA00-0260 - Outback Restaurant location ~. 40275 Winchester Avenue -Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Plannin.q RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Provide direction to staff. This item was pulled from the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Plannincl Application 00-0427 (Development Plan) Davcon Development Inc. to design and construct two adioinin~ industrial buildincls on two separate lots with the buildincl on lot 6 totalincl 18,787 scluare feet on 1.08 acres, and the buildincl on lot 7 totalin~ 16,381 scluare 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 Thornslev, Assbciate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0427 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 4.2 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 t8,787 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) & 909-3t0- 007 (LOT 7). This item was continued to the April 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Paul Lewis, representing the applicant, queried the Planning Commission for input regarding the revisions being made to the project in order to avoid having to have numerous blueprints drawn up, specifically requesting input regarding the area which now will have a roll-up door where the loading dock had been located, and whether the straight wall would be acceptable to the Planning Commission, In light of this item being continued to the April 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that it would be inappropriate to negotiate the project at this time; and relayed that the Planning Commission could communicate with Director of Planning Ubnoske to provide direction. Reiterating the Planning Commission's previous comments relayed at the March 28th hearing, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the Commission had been opposed to a loading dock being visible from the street, and likewise would most likely be concerned with a roll-up door location if it was visible from the street. Providing clarification, Senior Planner Hazen noted that the primary issue with staff regarding this project was not the location of the roll-up, but that the aisle was not wide enough to be utilized as a loading space. Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional information for the applicant as to avenues to better facility this approval process; and noted that staff could obtain general input from the Planning Commission via communications, while noting that this hearing was not the appropriate setting since this item was being continued. Plannin(3 Application No. 00-0417 (Development Plan) Marqarita Medical Condo Development, LLC, c/o Edward Anderson, to design, construct and operate two medical office buildin(~s, with three suites in each, totalincl 13,257 square feet of floor space, (Bldch "A" with 5,987 s(:luare feet and Bldg. "B" with 7,270 s(~uare feet) on a 1.5 acre lot located on the southeast corner of Marclarita Road and North General Kearny Road. - Thomas . Thornslev, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0417 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent fIR's and Negative Declarations. 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-008 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 '1.5 ACRES WITH BUILDING "A" HAVING 5,987 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" HAVING 7,270 SQUARE FEET, TOTALING 13,257 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. Clarifying the rationale for this item being continued from the March 28, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, Associate Planner Thornsley provided the staff report (of record), noting that after reviewing the Mitigation Monitoring Plan with the COA's, staff found that this project had been designed and developed in accordance with the documents with the exception of one item, that being the requirement for an acoustical study, advising that a condition has been added as part of the construction plan requiring that an acoustical study be completed. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the community wall along the creek edge referenced in the Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan, Associate Planner Thornsley noted that the language was vague, providing additional information regarding staff's review of this matter. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that this wall would be addressed during the next project's development with respect to the map. Commissioner Webster recommended that if the map and legend graphics were vague, that the text section be referenced when this issue was addressed. Mr. Ed Anderson, representing the applicant, noted that while the requirement for this site was for a fifteen percent (15%) landscaping plan, that this particular proposal included a thirty percent (30%) landscaping plan, additionally relayed that the proposal exceeds the parking requirements; noted the architectural features which provide a positive visual appearance for this corner site; advised that the applicant has agreed to replace the existing sidewalk along North General Kearny Road with a meandering sidewalk, per the Specific Plan Guidelines; and noted that the applicant has also agreed to incorporate the requirements of staff and the City to landscape the proximate parcel along Margarita Road which was not being developed at this time. For Commissioner Webster, the applicant's representative relayed that to the best of his knowledge this project would utilize reclaimed water for landscaping purposes. Mr. Ed McArdle, the applicant's architect, for Commissioner Webster, noted that to address energy conservation issues, the walls were made thicker, energy efficient glass was being utilized, the ceiling area would also be insulated, and the overhangs would be constructed larger than typical in order to screen the windows, in addition to the use of trees. Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that this was an attractive office project, commending the architect for the design, relaying that this project would fit nicely on this corner; and supported allowing the acoustical study to be submitted Prior to the Issuance of the Building Permit. Commissioner Webster noted his concurrence with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments. Relaying that he was pleased with this project, specifically with the single-story concept, Commissioner Telesio noted that he was sorry for the past necessary continuance of this item to address environmental review issues, relaying gratitude for the applicant's cooperation. Concurring with the previous comments, Chairman Guerriero commended the applicant for the great architecture; and noted the need for additional medical services in town, which this use would help to satisfy. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation with the added condition that an acoustical study be provided prior to the Issuance of Building Permits. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the excel3tion of Commissioner Mathewson who was absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS With respect to Commissioner Webster's queries on the status of the City's compliance regarding requirements denoted in a letter from the Water District, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she would investigate. Regarding the Reclaimed Water Project under construction on Rancho California Road, Chairman Guerriero noted that the flashing directional signs directs traffic in one direction, while the flagmen on site directed traffic in a different direction which created safety issues. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that he would investigate. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Referencing the supplemental agenda material provided in response to Commissioner Telesio's request (regarding recommendations from staff for approval of projects which did not address outstanding issues that staff had with certain proposals), Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she had requested Assistant City Attorney Curley do draw up some different language for the recommendations; and requested the Commission to review the data and provide input to staff. Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information, advising that there were timelines associated with moving a project forward which provide a window of time for staff to negotiate issues to be addressed; relayed that the additional language would provide focus as to where staff believes the project to be when it comes forward to the Planning Commission, clarifying that when there were minor issues needing to be addressed, staff was of the opinion that a recommendation of denial would not be appropriate; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that the range of options for recommendations would be used as seen fit on a project-by-project basis. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that each project should be viewed on an individual basis; and advised that if staff had an issue with a project that that should be communicated to the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that the sample recommendation options provided in the supplemental agenda material was for the purpose of providing a wider range of recommendations, which would be informational for the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 6:40 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular meetin.~ to be held on Wednesday, Al~ril 18, 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecuia. Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning