Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011503 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 15, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 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. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, OIhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Battalion Chief McBride, Senior Engineer Alegria, Principal Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, Associate Planner Rush, Associate Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 15, 2003. Director's Hearin,cl Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for December 2002. R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 I It is noted that this item was pulled for separate consideration. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and to pull Item No. 2 for separate consideration. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At this time the Planning Commission considered Consent Calendar Item No. 2. 2 Director's Hearin.q Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for December 2002. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that since Director's Hearing Case No. PA02-0622 was regarding a proposal for a Minor CUP, and was exempt from the requirements of a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN), it was handled at the Director's Hearing. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that restaurants did not require the PCN, as per State Law. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 2. The motion was seconded by Chairman Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planninq Application No. PA02-0397 A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 11,642 square foot executive office buildinq located at 27247 Madison Avenue, north of Sanborn Avenue, Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0397 (Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0397, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND ESTABLISH AN 11,642 SQUARE FOOT EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING ON A VACANT .95 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT 27247 MADISON AVENUE, NORTH OF SANBORN, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-272-012. R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 2 Via color renderings overhead, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the staff repod (of record), highlighting the revisions to the plan the applicant had implemented in response to the Planning Commission recommendations, noting the added projected structural offset in the center of the building, the enhancements to the parapet cap and the addition of four light sconces; advised that the applicant did not incorporate a revision in the canvas awning design although the Planning Commission had recommended this modification; and noted alternate architectural enhancements included in this particular proposal. For Commissioner Guerriero, Assistant Planner Preisendanz confirmed that the applicant had relayed at the last hearing the CC&Rs restriction which prohibited a tile roof from being installed in this business center; for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the added projecting architectural treatment on the front elevation; in response to Chairman Chiniaeff's queries regarding the implementation of curved windows on the front of the building and not on the side elevations, relayed the applicant's goal keep the alternate elevations simpler; and noted that the cap element on the building was a flat plain treatment. Mr. Kevin Brown, the applicant, provided additional information regarding the rationale for the windows being arched on the front elevation, noting that these offices would most likely have higher ceilings; with respect to the straight awnings, noted that the Bel Villagio project (a project the Planning Commission had recommended that the applicant visit) had also incorporated straight awnings, advising that on the sides of the awnings wrought iron spear treatments would most likely be added and the awnings made larger; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that there would be four large wrought iron coach-style lighting fixtures on the front of the building; and with respect to an alternate rendering depicting eight fixtures, confirmed his preference for four fixtures, advising that when the building was being constructed it would be a better time to gauge the mass of the building and implement the additional treatments needed to create balance. Referencing photographs he had taken of the Bel Villagio Project, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the addition of a similar pop-out treatment in the center of the front elevation of this proposed project would aid in breaking up the linear appearance. In response, Mr. Brown relayed his desire to maintain the linear appearance in order to implement a plan consistent with a timeless classic design style. Mr. Patricia Herron, architect representing the applicant, referenced the photographs of the Bel Villagio project, noting that that was a different type of project since it was retail whereas this particular project would be utilized for offices; and cautioned the Planning Commission with respect to recommending that too many light fixtures be added which could create a negative visual appearance. For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Herron specified that there were four light fixtures proposed; and noted, for Commissioner Mathewson, that she was unaware that one of the drawings denoted eight light fixtures. In light of the restrictions on this project due to the existing CC&Rs, which govern the roofing material, Commissioners Guerriero and Telesio relayed that they could support the proposal. R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 3 Although he was not excited regarding the proposed design, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would not deny approval of this project; and noted his desire to hear the comments of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Olhasso recommended that a tile inset treatment be added on the front elevation as well as a pop-out treatment, which had been previously recommended by Chairman Chiniaeff. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the building still had a box-like appearance, opining that the applicant could have implemented improvements; and recommended that the parapet be offset with the width of the cornice to break up the massing. Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he could support the recommendation to add tile insets. The applicant provided the rationale for not desiring the implementation of tile inset treatments. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who voted n_9o. 4 Planninq Application No. PA02-0387 & PA02-0388 Application to construct, establish and operate a 30,000 square foot office buildinq 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: 4.1 Requesting a continuance to February 19, 2003 Associate Planner Harris relayed that staff had received a request from the applicant requesting a withdrawal of the proposal. It is noted that this Item was withdrawn. 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0587 to construct, establish and operate two-story western re.qional corporate offices for KTM Motorcycles totalinq 43,161 square feet includinq research and development facilities and associated 2.06 acre outdoor test field located on the west side of Via Industria, between Roick Drive and Rio Nedo, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0587 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minutes/O 11503 4 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0587, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE REGIONAL CORPORATE OFFICES FOR KTM MOTORCYCLES TOTALING 43,161 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING ASSOCIATED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR MOTORCYCLE TEST AREA. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF VIA INDUSTRIA BETWEEN ROICK DRIVE AND RIO NEDO ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-320-001 THRU 004. Commissioner Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this item, and left the dais at this time. By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the project (of record), highlighting the proposed location, the site layout, the parking provisions, the two-acre test field, the architectural design which would be similar to the company's headquarters which was located in Austria, the three vertical elements, the proposed color application, the drought tolerant landscape plan, and the noise analysis which revealed that there would be no significant impacts; and advised that the applicant has agreed to construct an eight-foot berm along the frontage of the project and a seven-foot concrete wall on top of that (which was not required.) Mr. Walt Allen, architect representing the applicant, noted the plan to fast-rack the project, advising that staff was so efficient that it was the applicant who held the project up; commended the following individuals for their diligent efforts regarding this project: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Principal Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, Landscape Architect Elliot, Senior Engineer Alegria, Assistant Engineer Bostre-Le, Battalion Chief McBride, Deputy Building Official Harold, and Senior Inspector Smith; and for informational purposes, relayed that his padner was almost singularly responsible for the proposed design of this project. Mr. John Zolikoff, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the noise study, confirming that seven motorcycles would be the maximum being tested at one time, that the noise levels from the motorcycles varied per the use of varying types of silencers, that all of their motorcycles had some type of silencer, that with the incorporation of the berm and the wall (which was not required) the decibels would be further decreased; noted the applicant's desire to be a good neighbor; confirmed that seven motorcycles were utilized in the study; and echoed Mr. Allen's comments regarding staff's wonderful work regarding this project. For Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that staff was present when the noise study was conducted, advising that the study did not take into consideration the added berm and wall. Deputy City Manager Thornhill provided additional information regarding the noise readings taken up on the ridge (while he was present) which would not negatively impact any residents; relayed that the project was R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 5 conditioned to address any noise impacts if it were determined that there were negative impacts in the future at this use; and noted that there were no noise sensitive uses in the Industrial Zones. For Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant relayed that the height of the colored band at the top of the building was 33 feet. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was pleased with the architecture, that it was a benefit to the City to have this company's regional headquarters in Temecula; and commended staff and the architecture with respect to this project. Thanking staff for the clarification regarding the noise study, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he was pleased with the proposed design and would support the proposal. Commissioner Telesio welcomed the applicant to the City of Temecula, which was echoed by Chairman Chiniaeff. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner OIhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. 6 Planninq Application No. PA02-0308 A Proposal to construct and operate two industrial/warehouse buildinqs totalinq 22,664 square feet (Buildin.q A at 11,204 square feet and Building B at 11,460 square feet) on a 1.97-acre parcel located on the west side of Bostik Court, approximately 330 feet south of Winchester Road, Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02o0308 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0308, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS FOR WAREHOUSE, MANUFACTURING AND OFFICE USE, TOTALING 22,664 SQUARE FEET (WITH BUILDING "A" AT 11,204 SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING "B" AT 11,460 SQUARE FEET). THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BOSTIK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-037 R:PlanCom m/minutes/011503 6 Via renderings, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the staff report (per agenda material), highlighting the location, the access point, the architectural design, the enhanced articulations, the proposed color application, and the landscape plan including the proposal to landscape the slope. Mr. Shane Shaw, representing the applicant, provided a history of his experience with Associate Planner Associate Planner Thornsley, noting that he had provided recommendations for the applicant to further enhance the project, commending Associate Planner Thornsley for his great work regarding this project; and with respect to the slope at the rear of the property, relayed the concerns regarding the weekly maintenance of landscaping this area due to the two-to-one sloping, noting that the applicant was open to suggestions of the Planning Commission regarding this matter. Mr. Kelli Jones, representing the Westside Business Center Association, read into the record a letter dated December 17, 2002, from the Association, outlining the Board's concerns regarding maintenance of the proposed landscaping on the slope; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the Association was opposed to this portion of the landscape plan, noting that this proposal would not be consistent with the existing development in this area. Associate Planner Thornsley relayed that he had attempted to call the Association's representative but that he had been provided the wrong phone number on the previous referenced letter; advised that when this area was mapped, the Mitigation Monitoring Program required that these slopes be landscaped per the City's landscape standards ergo the development of this particular landscaping proposal on the slope; noted that most slopes in the City were two-to-one slopes; and confirmed that there was a mix of trees proposed on the slope, for Commissioner Mathewson, noting that most of the plantings were groundcover plants which would not require weekly maintenance. Mr. Don Slater, the applicant, relayed that in this area there was not one other slope planted as per the City's landscape standards, querying why this one project would be required to add this landscaping. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Ms. Jones confirmed that currently the Business Association maintains the slopes in this area. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding the existing landscaping at the developed sites in this area. Mr. Brian Murphy, 38332 Corte Algera, property owner in this area, relayed that he, too, was opposed to the higher landscape standards being imposed on this project, advising that the Planning Commission's determination regarding this issue would impact the project he was in the midst of planning in this area. For clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that this tract map was subject to being conditioned to landscape per the City's landscape standards (via the Development Code); advised that if the applicant had concerns regarding maintenance that the applicant should pursue installation of drought tolerant plants, R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 7 noting that staff could work with the applicant to investigate planting a different species of plant if that was the direction of the Planning Commission, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding it being typical that landscaping would be enhanced when development occurred. Mr. Shaw relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to being conditioned to work with staff regarding alternatives for the landscape plan subject to the approval of staff. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item in order that staff could work with the applicant regarding alternatives with respect to the landscape plan. (Ultimately this motion died for lack of a second.) Commissioner Mathewson advised that would not support reducing the number of plantings solely because alternate projects had not been conditioned as such. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he would support moving forward with the proposal, and that the applicant work with staff regarding implementing drought tolerant plantings as long as the minimum Code requirements were met. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Condition No. 9 (regarding landscaping) could be amended to reference the Planning Commission direction. .MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following: Modify- That Condition No. 9 be revised to state that a landscape plan shall be submitted and approved per the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and in conformance with the Design Guidelines. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0272, PA02-0271, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use desi.qnation from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, A Specific Plan Amendment for the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planninq Area 19 from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and to amend the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desiqn, construction and operation of a 48,427 square foot .qrocery store, a 16,640 square foot druf:l store, a 11,230 square foot shop building, a 10,000 square foot shop buildin~h and a 8,780 square foot shop buildinq, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throuqh 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 druR store located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway, Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 8 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02- 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. 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02- 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. 7.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02- 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 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 8,780 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. 7.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02- 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. Commissioner Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this Item and left the dais at this time. Staff presented the project plan Associate Planner Rush relayed that this matter had been continued from December 4, 2002 for the following reasons: 1) legal concerns, which were raised by the applicant at the last meeting, and 2) recommended site design modifications. Noting the research conducted, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the Zoning and the General Plan Land Use Designation (Neighborhood Commercial) that staff has been relying on was correct; provided additional information regarding ex parte communications with respect to this project, noting that a staff member had called and queried the Commissioners as to whether they had provided specific direction to staff to bring back a form of approval for this particular proposal; clarified that during this questioning there were no deliberations, or efforts to form a consensus or to direct the Planning Commission. For the record, Commissioners Olhasso, Mathewson, and Chiniaeff confirmed Assistant City Attorney Curley's statements regarding staff questioning the Commissioners with respect to direction that had been provided by the Planning Commission at the December 4, 2002 meeting, Commissioner Telesio noting that he did not receive a telephone call. Providing an overview of the proposal, Associate Planner Rush relayed the following: That per the Planning Commission's direction, the applicant and staff met on December 26th to discuss staff's concerns regarding the site plan; That the following concerns were addressed: 1) the east driveway entrance was moved further west, 2) the throat area was increased, 3) the drive- through for the drug store was relocated, 4) the building at the rear of the site was removed and the square footage added to an alternate building, 5) the trash enclosure and loading area issues were addressed regarding Shop C, and 6) the loading dock was relocated. That the following concerns were not addressed to staff's satisfaction: 1 ) the proposal still identified two additional access points which negatively impact internal circulation (staff recommending that there be one access point off of R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 10 each of the two streets, 2) adequate pedestrian linkages have not been created internally, and the buildings have not been clustered. That based on additional research, this site was approximately 8.49 acres (without the slope or the equestrian easement) which was closer to a Neighborhood Commercial designation than a Community Commercial designation; Referencing the table on page 4 of the staff report, indicated that there were no existing large-scale grocery stores in the City of Temecula on a parcel this small; and for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the figures denoting the acreage of each site were net figures, i.e., calculated without slopes; Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that all of the grocery stores denoted on the table were either within a mixed use project or a strip center, advising that the proposed project would primarily be a market; and relayed that with respect to the lack of pedestrian orientation with the proposed project, that not one of the grocery stores on the table were designed so that an individual could park and walk to all the buildings in the center, as staff had recommended being implemented into this project plan; Principal Planner Hazen clarified that staff's intent with the table was to indicate that when the applicant had stated that the proposed site was too large to be zoned as Neighborhood Commercial, that in the City of Temecula existing large-scale grocery stores were sited on larger commercial sites, as well as to demonstrate that these alternate sites were buffered by streets or non-single- family residential uses. The applicant provided an overview of the proposal Regarding this particular project, Mr. John Clement, the applicant, relayed the following: · That revisions were incorporated into the project at the request of staff; That all of the residents residing adjacent to the slope were notified (via a hand- delivered letter delivered approximately ten days ago) of the new site plan; that the applicant offered to meet and discuss the plan, that the applicant received one phone call and one letter in response, and that last night (January 14th) the applicant met with Mr. Harris and his family to discuss the site plan. That while the applicant disagreed with Assistant City Attorney Curley's findings regarding the Zoning and the Land Use designation, it was the applicant's desire to move forward with the project, relaying hopes that an agreement could be reached; · That the site was 9.77 acres per a survey that was conducted; That it was the applicant's opinion that a single entrance to the site would not be appropriate, and that the two proposed entrances on each of the two streets have been reviewed and processed through the Public Works Department; R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 11 For Commissioner Mathewson, clarified that staff had recommended that the market be relocated, and that the previous location which aligned the market away from the homes was the applicant's preference; · That of the 15 new comments staff provided regarding the project, the applicant was able to satisfy 12 of those comments; Mr. Brian Wolf, architect representing the applicant, relayed the following information regarding the project: That with respect to the pedestrian linkages, there was an 8-foot wide connection with a lavender hedge, olive trees, and benches which created a pedestrian orientation, additionally noting the seating area buffered to the landscaped slope, and the 30-foot-by-100-foot hardscaped opportunity for seating with landscaping; · That the corner tower treatment has been enhanced; · That with respect to the relocation of the drive-through at staff's request, noted his preference to the previous plan; · That with respect to the driveway issues, singular access (on each street) would be problematic; · That with respect to the reorientation of the loading area, that he supported this revision; · That the entry statement had been improved; and · That part of the landscaping setback was an equestrian trail, which would be an added community amenity, advising that this area would serve as an effective buffer. Providing additional clarification, Mr. Clement noted the following: That the hours of operation for the proposed Vons and Sav-On uses would be from 6:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M., noting Von's written agreement to restrict trucking deliveries to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., advising, for Commissioner Mathewson, that Sav-On has verbally agreed to match Vons restrictions; · That the applicant had requested the Zone change (to Community Commercial) at the direction of staff; and That this proposal was actually a Neighborhood Commercial project with consistent uses, under the total allowable building area, well in excess of the required distance to residential, well under the height restrictions, and that the sole consideration for an exception was the allotment of the size of the market, proposed to be 48,000 square feet. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Wolf confirmed that the pavement would be enhanced in the pedestrian area, noting alternate treatments proposed in this area, i.e., a fountain, seating amenities, light posts, and tree grates. R:PlanCemm/minutes/011503 12 In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement relayed that the mechanical roof equipment would be integral to the building and fully enclosed architecturally, Mr. Wolf clarifying that the applicant was willing to treat this screening architecturally to match the cornice of the building, advising that on the smaller buildings the equipment would be screened behind the parapets; and noted that if there was concern, a roof screen could be incorporated on the smaller buildings. With respect to the enclosed loading dock, for Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement relayed that the noise study was conducted without consideration of the full enclosure; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the dock would be fully enclosed with a roof and sides, advising that the door mechanism would be similar to a garage door, which rolled up onto the roof. For Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that it was his understanding that the block wall on the property line would serve as the mitigation for the noise impacts for the truck loading area. Referencing the Initial Study Document, Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted that on page 14, in Section 11 a., c., the study indicated that the source of the noise impacts was from vehicles traveling on Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway, advising that the enclosure would mitigate this particular impact; for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that Item No. 10 on page 14 (of the Initial Study) required the truck engines to be turned off during delivery operations. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that an updated noise study would be important for the applicant to provide, one in which the enclosure was taken into consideration. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Clement advised that the drive-through has always been pad of the Sav-On proposal, but that he could question the Save-On representatives as to whether inclusion of the drive-through was a deal-breaker issue for this use. The public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project, as proposed: Mr. Tony Harris Ms. Pamela Stangl Ms. Devin Darmento Mr. Paul Jacobs Ms. Christine Crawford Mr. Mike Crawford Mr. Don McLaughlin 41629 Code Higuera 31945 Camino Higuera 41665 Code Higuera 32370 Corte Zamora 32057 Code La Puerta 32057 Code La Pueda 32205 Code Chatado The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, due to the following concerns: o The noise, light, and traffic impacts; o Safety issues proximate to the middle school and the Association's playing fields along Meadows Parkway due to the increased traffic; o Alcohol being sold so near to the school and the residential development, recommending that the Planning Commission deny approval based on the two additional alcohol licenses this proposal included; R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 13 Questioned the need for another strip center; Environmental concerns, i.e., rainwater run-off, the hillside, trash overflow, and the handling of the trash at the market without a trash compactor; o Encroachment intowine country; o Truck delivery impacts; o Truck access; o The applicant's poor community relations; o A gas station being a permitted use at the site; The parcel size in relationship to the proposal; o The internal truck route which traversed over the area in front of the market which did not appear feasible, noting the likelihood of the trucks to exit onto Rancho California Road, relaying that this path would traverse over the primary walking area; o The noise impacts related to pressure-washing the parking lot which was typically done in the middle of the night; Mr. Jacobs noted that he did not receive the notice the applicant had stated was hand delivered; o Requested that the Planning Commission uphold the General Plan designation and solely allow Neighborhood Commercial uses on this site which limited the maximum size of a building to 33,000 square feet; That the argument which stated that one 50,000-square-foot building would generate the same traffic as two 25,000-square-foot buildings should be supported via a traffic study; o Urged the Planning Commission to not consider relevant preconceived notions of what might have been envisioned at this intersection more than a decade ago; o Suggested rezoning the area to Tourist Commercial as a gateway to Wine Country; o Relayed no opposition to the development of smaller stores, i.e., a Trader Joe's; o Questioned which Homeowner Associations had expressed support of the proposal, as was stated by the applicant; and o The proposed market was too close to the neighboring residences. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Jacobs relayed that he did not reside on the ridge, and, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that he would not be opposed to the development of residential units on the property. The applicant provided rebuttal In response to the expressed comments, Mr. Clement relayed the following information: · That a traffic study was conducted which reflected that the proposed project would be a form of traffic mitigation due to drawing customers from the local community; · That the data indicated that the total proposed square footage was under what was permitted in Neighborhood Commercial; · That the demographics of this area would not support the development of a Trader Joe's use or a Henry's; and For Commissioner Telesio, relayed that a Trader Joe's use would have the same locating dock configuration as proposed in this project, and that the additional square footage would be extended in smaller uses (1500 to 2500 square foot uses) which R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 14 the traffic study revealed would have a higher total traffic count than a larger use, as was proposed with this project. Mr. Wolf relayed the following information: For Commissioner Olhasso, that the applicant would be willing to restrict the hours of trash truck pickup and on-site maintenance to be consistent with the truck delivery times; · That the project's lighting would be in compliance with City Ordinances; · That the proposal would not generate more traffic than a Neighborhood Commercial project; and · For Commissioner Olhasso, advised that the exit proximate to Building E would be restricted to right-only exits (per the installation a median). Referencing the Initial Study, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the analysis did conclude that this project, as proposed, would generate less traffic than a Neighborhood Commercial proposal. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the formulas utilized for Neighborhood Commercial for traffic generated were higher per square foot than for Community Commercial, confirming, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that a 50,000-square-foot market would generate less traffic than two 25,000-square-foot markets. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Larry Markham noted that a letter dated October 22nd from the Rancho Vista Estates HOA expressed support for the project; advised that the applicant had utilized the City provided list of HOAs as well as its names, addresses and phone numbers; and noted that he had attended Mr. Harris's HOA meeting and the Temeku Hills HOA meeting for informational purposes. The Planninq Commission relayed closinq comments For informational purposes, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that in response to her previous request for demographic information, that data was provided to her at this hearing which included income and dwelling units existing, as well as future forecasts for the two-mile radius of this center; advised that there was an economic need for this center; that the small scale of the center (in comparison to centers such as the Ralph's' Center at Butterfield Stage Road/Highway 79 South) would be more user-friendly, noting her preference for this size of a center from a planning perspective; that although she was not pleased with the big box drug store use on the corner, that if this satisfied staff's requirements to create a main street orientation with Buildings C and D that she could accept the proposal; that she was pleased with Building E and the proposed walkway; that the Specific Plan anticipated residential development in this area when this area was designated Neighborhood Commercial and that these services were now needed in this area; relayed that prior to developing a Trader Joe's use, the traffic counts would have to be much higher (per a requirement of Trader Joe's); and opined that Tourist Commercial Zoning would not be appropriate at this site. Referencing the public comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed that those with concerns regarding the proposal were those that resided proximate to the project site; R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 15 clarified that the sole differential between this proposal and a Neighborhood Commercial project was the square footage of the grocery store, and not the total square footage of the project; reiterated that the testimony from staff was that smaller buildings (totaling the same square footage) would generate additional traffic; relayed that in the eady planning stage the County had determined that there would be a need for this type of center at this padicular location, advising that that need now exists; noted that with a few minor revisions he could support the project, advising that to remove the drive-through component from the proposed Save-On use would address a few of the concerns; and relayed that the proposed truck route on site should be revised. Commissioner Mathewson advised that the concerns expressed by the residents regarding this project (i.e., traffic, lighting, truck deliveries, pressure-washing, etc.,) would be impacts experienced whether this site was developed as Community Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial, reiterating that the fundamental differential was the size of the proposed market and that the resulting difference would be the massing, noting that in his opinion this impact was not significant as long as the roof mounted equipment was screened; reiterated that this project, as proposed, would generate less traffic than a Neighborhood Commercial site; noted that while there were issues that needed to be addressed, he would not oppose the proposed change in the Zoning and the Land Use designation; relayed his concern regarding the noise impacts from the truck deliveries, noting that it was important to him that the updated noise study be provided; concurred with the recommendation to remove the drive-through; and opined that the site plan needed to be revised with respect to the Save-On location, the loading dock, and the internal circulation; and urged the applicant to work diligently to address these issues with staff and to make additional efforts to outreach into the community. Providing a historical overview of the this particular property, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the original plan for this site was to have a market and gas station developed in order to serve this residential area; relayed that the proposed project would generate lesser impacts than a Neighborhood Commercial project; concurred that the on-site circulation needed to be addressed, offering the following recommendation: that the circulation route for trucks entering the site should be pass Meadows Parkway, turning in right at the easterly driveway, coming straight in, backing into the loading dock on the alternate side of the building and then exiting on Meadows Parkway; relayed that he was not opposed to the larger-sized market; recommended that there be a condition added, restricting all drive-through and gas station uses; advised that he was not opposed to the proposed driveways; and in response to the applicant, noted that the Planning Commission was not recommending a revision with respect to the relocation of the buildings on site due to a consensus not being met. In response to Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's representatives relayed that the loading dock could be located fudher back on the building, confirming that this area would be screened, as previously described; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that typically the drug store uses desired to have the building front orientation to the street. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was not strongly in support of a drug store use on this site, concurring with the recommendation to remove the proposed drive-through element; and advised that she was not pleased with the front entry of the drug store use facing the street. R:PlanComm/minutes/011503 16 Since the Planning Commission discussions were leaning towards continuing this matter, Assistant City Attorney Curley apprised the Commission that staff would revise Recommendation Nos. 7.1-7.4 to reflect recommendations of approval as well as including the Planning Commission's recommended revisions (including the associated resolutions), and that staff would bring back the revised recommendations to the Planning Commission. In response, the applicant relayed agreement. Providing specific direction, Commissioner Mathewson relayed hopes that both staff and the applicant would work arduously to address the issues of concern, reiterating his desire for the applicant to bring back a revised noise study addressing the impacts with inclusion of the enclosed loading area. Commissioners Olhasso and Mathewson clarifying to the applicant that the Planning Commission did not desire to have this project brought back until the recommended revisions had been implemented. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the February 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Additional discussion ensued between staff and the applicant regarding the scheduling of meeting times to discuss the project, Assistant City Attorney Cudey advising that staff would be available to meet with the applicant, Director of Planning Ubnoske noting the importance of the applicant's entire development team being present at the meetings, relaying the past difficulties when the applicant's architect had not been present. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner OIhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that staff would be providing additional information regarding Code Enforcement. Relaying kudos, Commissioner Telesio recognized Assistant Planner Preisendanz, noting that he was the 2002 Employee of the Year. Commissioner Mathewson requested that staff direct applicants to provide consistency with respect to the information provided, i.e., drawings, and renderings, and that the material presented represent the applicant's intended proposal. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the City currently had this policy in place, advising that staff could either note the discrepancies in the staff repod, or it could be relayed to the applicant that the item would be continued until the data provided was consistent. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske' queries, it was relayed that Commissioner Guerriero and Chairman Chiniaeff would be able to attend the national conference held from March 29th through April 2nd. R: PlanCom m/minutes/011503 17 Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the Code Enforcement repods wou~d be becoming more detailed in the near future. Updating the Planning Commission regarding recruitment efforts, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Department would be recruiting once again for the position of Associate Planner. ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular adjourned meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, January 29, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ~hiniaeff, -- [.J~ Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:PlanComrn/minutes/011503 18