Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120402 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:07 P.M., on Wednesday, December 4, 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. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriem, *Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. * - Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:21 P.M. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 4, 2002. 2 Director's Hearin.q Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for November 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who had not yet arrived. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 Planninq Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to construct, establish and operate a 30,000 square foot office buildin.q and to subdivide the site into two parcels of 1.41 acres and 4.28 acres respectively, located on the East side of County Center Drive, approximately 740 feet north of Ynez Road (APN 910-110-045), Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Requesting a continuance to January 15, 2003. Chairman Chiniaeff informed the public that the applicant has requested a continuance to the meeting of January 15, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Mathewson who had not yet arrived, 4 Planninq Application No. PA02-0223 A request for a findinq of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to upqrade the existinq Type-20 (Off Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license authorizin.q the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold located in the Mora.qa Plaza Shoppin.q Center at 29762 Rancho California Road on the north side of Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane and Mora.qa Road known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-022, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0223 (Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF- SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310-022. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-059 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0223 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310-022. Staff presented the staff report Principal Planner Hazen reviewed the Planning Commission's rationale for continuing this matter from the November 20, 2002 meeting, advising that since there were only four Planning Commissioners present and the support for denial and approval was split, the Planning Commission continued the item to this meeting in hopes of having the full Commission present. For the record, Commissioner Olhasso, who had been absent from the November 20, 2002 meeting, noted that she had reviewed the taped record and the draft minutes regarding this item. The applicant's representative provided an overview of the proposal Dr. Sami Jihad, representing the applicant, provided the following information regarding this particular application: Noted that with approval of this request for a Type 21 license, the number of licenses in this census tract would not increase due to the applicant's intent to cancel the current license if the upgraded license was granted [referencing a letter provided in the agenda material dated November 6, 2002 from the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board confirming the intent of the applicant;] That with respect to the impact of the upgraded license on the community, relayed that there would be no negative impacts, noting that the Police Department relayed no opposition to the upgraded license, that the Temecula Valley Unified School District had written a letter thanking this applicant for continued support, that the community offered its support of the upgraded license via the petition with over 500 signatures (per agenda material), and that of the 160 letters sent to neighboring residents, the applicant had received no protests; and That with respect to the applicant's role in the community, that the applicant has offered to install a chain-linked fence across the 1st Baptist Church's property, has donated to community activities and charitable organizations and schools, has R;PlanCornm/~ n utes/120402 3 maintained an excellent record with the Police Department with no violations, and had been a businessman in Temecula for eight years prior to his two years at the present business location. The public was invited to comment Reverend Larry Fisher, 42101 Moraga Road, confirmed that while the applicant offered to install a fence at the neighboring chumh use, it would have to traverse through a Southern California Edison right-of-way and would most likely need additional review and approval; presented a box of trash comprised primarily of empty liquor bottles that he had collected in a ten-minute period of time from the wooded bank area proximate to the church; provided photographs of the bank and its proximity to the pre-school as well as pictures of debris on the slope behind the mini-mart including empty alcohol containers; and clarified that his greatest concern was the proximity of children to this use, noting his opposition to the upgrading of this liquor license. Closin,q comments were offered Commissioner Guerriero advised that while he had no doubt that the applicant was an excellent businessman in the community, his concern was based on the proliferation of full liquor licenses in the community; and noted that he did not support this particular proposal. Commissioner Telesio relayed that in the eight years of doing business, this owner has had no complaints from the community, the Police Department, the surrounding businesses and has had no violations with respect to the use of his current license; clarified that approval of the applicant's request would not add an additional liquor license to this tract, but would simply expand his license; questioned the equity of every major grocery store in this area receiving the upgraded license when requested while the small businessman was required to go through this process, noting that this businessman was in business in the community for a longer period than several of the larger grocery stores which had the upgraded licenses; opined that the fact that the upgraded license would aid in keeping the convenience store viable was not grounds for denying this request, noting his support of aiding in keeping the small businessman going; noted the comments of the residents expressed at the November 20, 2002 meeting whereby support for this request was relayed; advised that the upgraded license would serve as a convenience for the residents in this area; and relayed that he would support this proposal, querying the rationale for not providing the small businessman the same options as a large big box use. With respect to this business being viable, Commissioner Olhasso opined that the owner would most likely not have purchased the business two years ago if it was not viable; advised that while generally she was on the side of business, in this case she was on the side of the ABC and staff, relaying that she supported staff's recommendation to deny the proposal; with respect to the big box uses obtaining the upgraded liquor licenses, relayed that the trade area associated with the larger uses was greater, noting that the trade area for this store was less than desirable, opining that an upgraded liquor license could create additional negative impacts. It is noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived at 6:21 P.M. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley and Minute Clerk Hansen summarized the public testimony provided earlier in this hearing on the record, and Commissioner Mathewson reviewed the photographs that had been presented by Reverend Fisher. In response to Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Mr. Jihad clarified that ABC was not opposed to the upgraded license; and noted that this business qualified as a pre-existing legal non-conforming use, that approval for an upgraded license could be granted by the Director of Planning, that the applicant had been willing to come before the Planning Commission regarding this matter, and that the applicant had complied with ABC and staff. Commissioner Mathewson advised that the critical factor regarding this issue was whether the Planning Commission could make a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity, opining that this application did not meet this criterion. Advising that at the November 20th hearing this particular census tract with the existing licensed uses was discussed, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that census tracts were arbitrary; noted that the licensed uses in this tract were primarily large grocery stores or restaurants; reiterated that approval of this request would not add an additional license to the community; opined that this project did meet the criteria to qualify for a Finding of Public Convenience, which was echoed by Commissioner Telesio; and confirmed that per conversations with Police Chief Domenoe, the Police Department was not in opposition to the request for an upgraded license at this use. Commissioner Telesio noted that he had visited the site in order to investigate pedestrian activities, advising that he had viewed pedestrians accessing this site; and relayed the past efforts of staff and the Planning Commission to create pedestrian- oriented uses, noting that this request qualified for a Finding of Convenience due to being pedestrian accessible to the neighboring residents. Commissioner Guerriero commented on the dangers for the community associated with a proliferation of licensed uses. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation, denying this application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff who voted no. NEWITEMS 5 Planning Application No. PA02-0271, PA02-0272, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use desiqnation from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, A Specific Plan Amendment for the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planning Area 19 from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and amendin.q the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desi.qn, construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot grocery store, a 16,640 square foot druq store, a 11,230 square foot shop buildinq, a 8,780 square foot shop buildinq, a 6,220 square foot shop buildinq and a 4,670 square foot shop buildinq, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throuqh at a 16,640 square foot druq store, and to permit R: Plan ComrWminut es/120402 5 the sale of alcohol at a 48,427 square foot qrocery store and a 16,640 square foot druq store located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway RushI Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001 R: Plan ComrWminut es/120402 6 5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,230 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 8,780 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 6,220 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 4,670 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001 5.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,427 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 16,640 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001 Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated staff's opinion that the General Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial is accurate for the subject site; stated that staff will further explore the matter; and advised that it would be appropriate, at this time, to take public testimony. It was noted by Associate Planner Rush that e-mails were received from Dr. Albert Ball, 31836 Corte Mendoza; and Ms. Maria Bissell, 41645 Corte Higuera, relaying their opposition to the proposed center (copies of the e-mails were distributed to the Planning Commissioners). In response to the Planning Commissioners, Principal Planner Hazen and Associate Planner Rush noted the following: That the intent of the Community Commercial designation in the General Plan would be a use that would serve the entire City; that the intent of the Neighborhood Commercial designation would be more for the benefit of a neighborhood core; R: Plan Comm/r~ nut es/120402 7 That, as per the Development Code, the maximum allowable lot coverage for Neighborhood Commercial is .40 with a density bonus and the target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is .25 (105,000 square feet); that the target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for Community Commercial is .30 maximum allowable lot coverage with a density bonus of 1.0; that the Community Commercial designation would permit more square footage on a lot; that the height limitation for the Neighborhood Commercial designation would be 35' and for the Community Commercial designation, it would be 50'; that the proposed plan would be at approximately 95,000 square feet; · That Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road have been designated as major arterials (110' right of ways); That the significant land use differences between the Neighborhood Commercial and Community Commercial designations would be the size of the grocery store; the drive-thru, which would require for all zones, a Conditional Use Permit; and the gas station; That there are mitigation measures within the initial study; that if the project were approved, a negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program would be adopted; · That the proposed site would lend itself to pedestrian access; That the noise associated with the loading activities of a 48,000 square foot grocery store would be more intense than those of a 25,000 square foot grocery store; That a center with a 48,000 square foot grocery store would be out of scale considering the adjacent smaller-sized residential homes and would not be compatible with the existing environment; · That a Neighborhood Commercial center would be in scale with the Zono's Center at Margarita/Pauba Roads; That adjacent homes were approved by the County and when built, the zoning for the area of discussion was Tourist Commercial Highway, which would permit a grocery store; · That an Environmental Negative Declaration was circulated but no responses were received; That staff would be of the opinion that pedestrian linkages throughout the site are lacking and that if approved, staff would request the ability to further work with the applicant to address concerns. At this time, the public hearing was opened. R:PlanComm/mmutes/120402 8 Public Input Mr. John Clement, applicant, introduced his project team - Mr. Richard Salus, attorney, and Mr. Brian Wolfe, project architect. Proceeding with a project overview, the above- mentioned individuals noted the following: Zoning history - relaying that the property of discussion should not have the Neighborhood Commercial zone designation; that the County Development Agreement continued into affect when the property was sold; that when action was taken to change the zoning, several issues occurred: o The property owner did not consent to the change and, therefore, zone change would be void; O At the time of the zone change, notices were not provided to the owner; that the applicant received notice of an action pending as a recipient in a bounded area but not expressly reflecting the subject site; o Desirous to continue working with the City and to move project forward and to work within bounds proposed by the City. Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle, representing the applicant, noted the following: That the original document was Development Agreement No. 5 (11/7/1988) part of Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 to the Specific Plan; subsequently Amendment No. 2 in 1996; Amendment No. 3 in 10/28/1997; that Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 were primarily for residential purposes; Amendment Nos. 3 and 4 were part of the Temeku Hills Specific Plan; that an error was made in Amendment No. 3 (1997) which included areas that should not have been included; and that Amendment No. 4 was submitted in December 1997 and was approved by the City Council on January 27, 1998; That the property of discussion was not included in the application for Amendment No .4; that a notice was sent with regard to change and lot coverage areas (areas included were west of Meadows Parkway and north of Rancho California Road but not the subject site); That after Amendment No. 4 was approved, a revised text package was received by staff from the consultant; that this revised package reflected the change to include the Neighborhood Commercial designation; That when the General Plan was adopted in 1993, the property of discussion was under the original Development Agreement; that the property of discussion was zone changed to Neighborhood Commercial without the acquiescence or notice to the applicant; that in 1993, the subject site was reflected as a 6.7 acre parcel; that the area of discussion has always been 9.77 acres; That research would indicate that the subject site is zoned Tourist Commemial Highway, as zoned in 1988 (Planning Area 19 in the Development Agreement and Specific Plan); that there has been no change, to date, to that document; In an effort to rectify the zoning issue, Mr. Salus relayed his willingness to continue to work with the Assistant City Attorney's office and staff. By way of color renderings, Mr. John Clement commented on his workings with City staff for the past two years, noting the following: · That the 10-acre parcel would accommodate a grocery/drug store; that specific economic factors are necessary to finance a site of this size; · That the site plan has been changed on several occasions in an effort to mitigate concerns, noting the following: o Continued equestrian trails and sidewalks o Front entry to the project site (Ranch California Road) - soft edges, vineyard theme, Iow signage o Meadows Parkway entrance - broad sidewalk surround the entire center o Downtown theme - benches, water features, gathering area · That the loading dock area will be completely enclosed with a solid gate That the separate building (located on Rancho California Road/Meadows Parkway) was intended to function as a restaurant or some other Neighborhood Commercial permitted use; · That there will be pedestrian links throughout the entire center; · That all components/uses of the center were designed as Neighborhood Commercial in an effort to service the local neighborhood; That Neighborhood Commercial would permit a 25,000 square foot grocery store; that it would be the applicant's desire to increase the size of the grocery store to 48,000 square feet. Addressing concerns raised by the neighboring residents, Mr. Clement noted the following: · Visual noise/loading That the maximum height standard for Neighborhood Commercial is 35'; that the proposed center was designed at 28'; that the proposed rotunda will be 35'; and that the arch treatment could be altered; o That the architectural finish of all building will be the same on all four sides; · Noise That, as per City Code, an external level of 65 decibels is permitted; that an acoustical study reflected that the proposed center, after completion, may experience an external level of 62.5 decibels; that the 62.5 decibels would primarily be comprised of street noise versus center noise; and that the center would actually function as a noise buffer; · Center hours as well as delivery hours · Loading o Dock will be oriented away from homes o Dock will be enclosed · Buffering from residences Neighborhood Commercial standards require a minimum 25' setback residential; that the average setback will be 52'; that the maximum setback will be 65'; and that the minimum setback will be 32'; that the existing natural slope will provide a 25' to 35' buffer; · Out-of-scale That Neighborhood Commercial standards permit a maximum lot coverage of 25%; that the proposed center will have a lot coverage of 22.5%; · Environmental That, as per the City's Notice to issue a Notice of proposed declaration (November 12, 2002), the proposed project will not have a significant impact upon the environment. With the exception of the proposed size of the grocery store (48,000 square feet), Mr. Clement reiterated that the proposed center was designed as a Neighborhood Commercial center. In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Clement advised that notices of plans were sent to four neighboring homeowners associations; that he had received one letter in full support; that the project team has met with specific groups for input; and that efforts have been undertaken to address the concerns of those residents more directly affected by the proposed center. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement noted that Vons and Sav-On had indicated a willingness to modify its business hours with those businesses located on Rancho California Road and that no specific hours have been set for deliveries. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Clement confirmed that, as per the Neighborhood Commercial use, the proposed drive-through would require a Conditional Use Permit and that the grocery store will not be utilizing trash compactors at this particular location. At 7:36 P.M. a short recess was called and the Planning Commission reconvened with its regularly scheduled business at 7:48 P.M. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed project: - Ms. Robin Greer - Mr. Bob Crowtler - Mr. Robert Rasband - Ms. Christine Helwig - Ms. Pat Lindahl - Mr. Al Ogle 30090 Rancho California Road 41536 Yankee Run 32044 Merlot Crest 38225 Via de Oro 45660 Camino Rubi 43053 Margarita Road The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the project for the following reasons: · That the developer has addressed community/Planning Department issues with regard to the project; · That the neighborhood area has a need for this center and that without it, there will be continued traffic impact on Rancho California Road and Winchester Road; · That the size of the store will not greatly impact inventory deliveries; · That a 25,000 square foot grocery store would be functionally obsolete; · That several smaller stores versus a larger grocery store could create other problems; · That the proposed center will be a visual asset and enhancement to the aesthetics of the neighborhood; · That the residents of this neighborhood were aware that something would be constructed on this particular parcel; · That similar concerns were raised with the Plaza del Sol Center; that two years after the construction of that center, neighboring residents are pleased with the center and no major problems have arisen. Written communication received in opposition to the center - Ms. Lisa Wigand - Mr. Richard Schafer - Mr. John Kelsey - Mr. Wayne Arter - Mr. Paul Jacob 33539 Corte Figueroa (by way of letter) 31418 Corte Tunas (by way of letter) 41875 Corte Lara (by way of letter) 32271 Corte Las Cruces (by way of letter) 32370 Corte Zamora (by way of letter) The following individuals relayed their opposition to the proposed center: Mr. George Marshall Mr. Tony Harris Mr. Wayne Arter Mr. Paul Jacobs Mr. Ed Lindsey Mr. Donald McLaughlin - Mrs. Pam Stangl - Mr. Robert McAIlister - Ms. Jenifer Alvarado - Ms. Jodi Harris - Ms. Petra Valasakos-Darmento - Mr. William Madden - Mr. Steven Hagl - Ms. Christine Crawford - Mr. Jefferson Smith - Mr. Michael Crawford 31880 Corte Positas 416629 Corte Higuera 32271 Corte Las Cruces 32370 Corte Zamora 42375 Camino Merano 32205 Corte Chatada 31945 Camino Marea 31580 Culbertson Lane 41528 Riesling Court 41629 Corte Higuera 41665 Corte Higuera 41653 Corte Higuera 41613 Corte Higuera 32057 Corte La Puenta 31708 Paseo de las Olas 32057 Corte La Puenta The above-noted individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed center for the following reasons: · That the area of discussion will not be conducive to pedestrian traffic · That the proposed center would only minimize traffic trips for a few residents · That the proposed center will provide minimal added services/goods to those already being provided by existing shopping centers; that there is no need for an additional grocery store · That the existing zone for the property of discussion should remain as is or the parcel should be converted into a park · That the center would create noise, view, traffic, visual aesthetic, bright lights, and air pollution impacts as well as raise concerns for the safety of the children · That the signal on Paseo de las Olas would create stacking problems which could impact the residential driveway within close proximity of that signal · That the neighboring residents were advised that the property of discussion was commercially zoned but that it was zoned Neighborhood Commercial · That there would be objection to the proposed zone change (Community Commercial) but no objection to a Neighborhood Commercial center · That if the center were approved, a 24' deceleration lane should be provided · That the proposed use would not be the most appropriate land use for the property of discussion · That other existing grocery stores throughout the City are separated from abutting residences by either a City street or a water run-off · That truck deliveries may be made during the time when children are walking to the neighboring school · That the property of discussion is an unique piece of property which is completely surrounded by single-family houses and, therefore, the proposed center would not be compatible with its surroundings · That if approved, there could be the potential sale of alcohol 60' from his resident · That the proposed project would decrease the property values of the neighboring homes. Respondinq to the public, the applicant/applicant representatives stated the followin.q: · That Vons had completed a demographic analysis and it reflected the support of the proposed grocery store · That the proposed center would function as a neighborhood center and, therefore, as per the traffic study, would be viewed as a traffic mitigator That the delivery trucks would not travel on Meadows Parkway; that truck entry would be on Rancho California Road; that Meadows Parkways could be designated as a no truck delivery street That the residents have indicated a willingness to accept a Neighborhood Commercial center; that the project meets or falls below the standards of Neighborhood Commercial (lower in height, density, greater setbacks); that the only difference would be a larger grocery store (48,000 square feet) That project packages were sent to four different homeowners associations; that Mr. Markham had met with two homeowners association boards to provide information; that a meeting was offered to all homeowners associations; that a letter of support was received from one association and no interest was expressed in meeting with the project representatives; that project packages were as well sent to 18 abutting pmper~y owners. In response to the Planning Commissioners, the applicantJapplicant representatives stated the followin.q: · That the market study specified trade areas · That, as originally presented to staff two years ago, because of the culvert, there will be no building located on Rancho California Road It was noted by staff that staff had never been supportive of a grocery store of this size and that when location of the market was considered (into the eastern corner), a 48,000 square foot grocery store was never of discussion That the allowable massing, as per Neighborhood Commercial, would be 25% building to land area coverage; that the proposed project will be at 22.5%; that the allowable height standard for neighborhood commercial is 35'; and that the proposed project will be at 28'. Further addressing the site plan and the proposed layout, Principal Planner Hazen noted the following: · That the proposed site design is inadequate · That two entrances are being proposed off Meadows Parkway · That the center access off Rancho California Road is driving the design of this project; that staff is desirous of one driveway off Rancho Califonria Road · That in order to access any of the two proposed patio areas one would have to cross major access points · That in order to access Building E, one would have to cross a main driveway entrance R:Plan Comm/min ut es/120402 15 · That there will be a dead end driveway in the corner located near the proposed drugstore · That the grade differential between the streets and parking lot will be approximately 4' to 5' downgrade · That in order to access Building F, one would have to cross a drive aisle. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's comment to address the General Plan issue, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that because this application was not submitted with the request for a Planned Development Overlay (PDO), staff has not addressed that issue with the applicant; that staff has addressed the Development Agreement with the applicant; and that the primary issue of concern is the site design. Commissioner Olhasso relayed her objection to the construction of a gas station in this center. Recognizing the site design issues, Commissioner Telesio noted that until zoning issues are resolved the Planning Commission will not be in a position to take action. Assistant City Attorney Curley provided information with regard to the Development Agreement and the zoning issues and noted that he would anticipate providing additional information by the next Planning Commission meeting. If the applicant were held to construct a 25,000 square foot grocery store, Commissioner Telesio questioned whether or not the applicant would be willing to proceed. If the applicant were not willing to proceed, Mr. Telesio noted that there would be no need to proceed with the redesign of the center. Whether the zoning were to remain Neighborhood Commercial or changed to Community Commercial, Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated staff's concern with the massing of the proposed 48,000 square foot grocery store and its location on the site plan. In light of staff's recommendation to construct a 25,000 square foot grocery store, Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Telesio and questioned why the Commission would continue to discuss the matter if the applicant were insistent on constructing a 48,000 square foot grocery store. Having been personally involved with the site plan of discussion in the late 1980s, early 1990s, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the original concept for the property of discussion was a neighborhood-oriented shopping center with a grocery store and a gas station in an effort to keep individuals from driving to the Plaza which was, at that time, the only shopping center with the exception of Stater Brothers which was across the freeway; that the intent of the center was to reduce traffic trips on Rancho California Road; and that in terms of a 48,000 square foot grocery store, if the proposed size were not approved, the remaining allowable square footage could be utilized by several smaller stores and, thereby, generating just as much traffic as a 48,000 square foot grocery store. Reiterating comments made by Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Olhasso noted that the area of discussion was intended to serve the surrounding neighborhoods and that considering its close proximity to the residential homes, she would not concur with the property function as a Tourist Commercial Highway center. Ms. Olhasso suggested that the site plan issues be addressed; that a grocery store be permitted in order to serve the neighborhood it was intended to serve; that gathering areas such as those at Tower Plaza be considered; and that the proposed hours of operation are unacceptable. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that staff and the applicant continue its efforts to resolve the site layout issues to ensure the neighboring residents' concerns are addressed. Echoing previously made comments, Commissioner Telesio reiterated the original intent of the subject site - to serve the neighborhood; stated that by serving the neighborhood, traffic trips would be reduced on Rancho California Road; that the proposed concept is sound but that the site design needs to be addressed; and that those issues should be addressed by the applicant and staff. Responding to the Commission's direction to revisit the site design and to concurrently address the legal issues with regard to zoning, the applicant's representative confirmed that a gas station will not be constructed on the subject site and relayed a willingness to continue the matter to the January 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to continue the matter to the January 15, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. The Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to continue meeting with the neighboring residents. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS A. For Commissioner Olhasso, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the Code Enforcement Report will be presented to the Commission at its January 15, 2003, meeting. B. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the issue of parked cars on Ynez Road (located on the dirt lot) is being addressed. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Wirth regard to Agenda Item No. 5, Planning Director Ubnoske reiterated that staff has and will continue to work with the applicant and advised that there would be a considerable difference between a 48,000 square foot grocery store and a 25,000 square foot grocery store and 25,000 square feet of other buildings, giving staff a greater flexibility with the site layout versus working with one massive building. Ms. Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that Saied Naaseh has accepted the Senior Planner position; that Kelly Mclntyre has accepted the Administrative Secretary position; and that interviews have been scheduled for next week for the Associate Planner position. With regard to Administrative Secretary Mclntyre opening the Commissioners' mail in an effort to apprise the Commissioners of upcoming events, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that because of his frequent visits to City Hall, there would be no need for her to open his mail; Commissioner Olhasso voiced no objection to her opening her mail; Commissioner Telesio noted that unless the mail is marked confidential, he would have no objection to it being opened; and Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Telesio and noted that all e-mails should be sent to his work e-mail address. ADJOURNMENT At 9:43 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:PlanComm/min ut es/120402 1 8