Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021903 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, February 19, 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 Commissioner OIhasso. ROLL CALL. Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Cudey, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Principal Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, Associate Planner Rush, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 19, 2003. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of November 6, 2002. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of November 20, 2002. 2.3 Approve the Minutes of December 4, 2002. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 1 2.4 Approve the Minutes of January 15, 2003. 3 Director's Hearing Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for January, 2003 MOTION: Commissioner OIhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who abstained from Item No. 2.1 and Commissioner Olhasso who abstained from Item No. 2.2. COMMISSION BUSINESS Development Review Process It is noted that staff distributed a copy of the detailed updated Development Review Process to the Planning Commission, which was further addressed during the Director's Report. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planninq Application No. PA02-0272, PA02-0271, 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 Villa.qe 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 48,372 square foot grocery store, a 13,217 square foot dru~l store, a 11,571 square foot shop buildinq, a 10,568 square foot shop buildinq, and a 9,603 square foot shop building, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throuqh at a 13,217 square foot druq store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot grocery store and a 13,217 square foot dru~l store, located on the south side of Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway, Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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. 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 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. 4.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217 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 Jeff the dais at this time. Staff presented the proiect plan By way of overheads, Associate Planner Rush presented a brief overview of the project (of record); noted the revised table of permitted uses for this particular project (as per supplemental agenda material); highlighted the revisions to the site plan, as follows: the access point along Rancho California Road has been shifted further to the east, the drive-through element has been relocated to the south elevation with a single drive aisle, the drug store has decreased in size by more than 3,000 square feet, parking has been located directly adjacent to the drug store, the drug store entrance has been re-oriented, the drive aisle at the rear of the market has been eliminated, a fire turn-around point has been designated, and the truck circulation route has been revised with which staff was satisfied; and with respect to the Sav-On use, relayed that staff received a letter from Sav-On stating their need for the drive-through component. Addressing the queries of the Commission, Associate Planner Rush noted the following: · Confirmed that although the Planning Commission recommendation was to remove the drive-through component of the Sav-On use, it was the opinion of the Sav-On representatives that this element was a vital portion of their business; · Confirmed that staff was satisfied with the circulation reconfiguretion; · Specified that the loading area woutd be screened with a combination of landscaping, berming, and a wall with a vined trellis; · Noted that the Sav-On representatives did not specify whether all the drive-through business would be lost without the drive-through or if it was anticipated that customers would walk into the store; · Confirmed that the drug store entrance was relocated to the southeast corner of the project from the northeast; · Confirmed that there would be landscaping on all four sides of the building; · Noted that the applicant did submit a revised noise study; · Relayed that with the mitigation the noise levels would not exceed the standards established, confirming that the noise impacts from the truck movements at the residences falls below the 65 ambient; R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 4 · Specified that the air conditioning units noise levels would be mitigated via architectural elements and a parapet wall, and that the study took into consideration the screening of the units; · Confirmed that the trucks would be required to turn off their engines during delivery, advising that the mitigation measure could be revised to require a second stacked truck to also turn of its engine; · Confirmed that installation of a solid wall at the ridge point was not part of the mitigation; · Advised that if this site developed as a Neighborhood Commercial site, the overall square footage could be the same or more, confirming that this particular proposal was under the overall target square footage for Neighborhood Commercial. The applicant provided an overview of the proiect Mr. Clement and Mr. Wolf, representatives of the applicant, presented the project proposal, noting the following: · That since the last Planning Commission hearing when this item was considered, the applicant has met with staff addressing all of the previous concerns; · Specified the truck travel circulation route, confirming, for Commissioner Telesio, that the market trucks would back into the loading dock; · Confirmed that the Sav-On representatives specified their need for the drive-through component due to the desire to provide the community service for the sick, handicapped and iii customers of being able to access the pharmacy via a pick-up window, advising that Sav-On strongly desired this component, confirming that if the drive-through was eliminated Sav-On would not proceed with efforts to be a tenant in the center; · That some of the reduced square footage at the drug store was added to Building D; · Noted the main street amenities, including the widening of the pedestrian areas; and the extension of enhanced architectural articulation at the front of the project; · By way of a sight line section rendering, specified the screening elements of the proposal; · Specified locations which would be appropriate for restaurant uses; · Via a computer program analysis, relayed that the truck path was feasible and would be adequate for the Fire Department trucks; · Provided additional information regarding the architectural enhancements on the front elevations, confirming that the signage on the renderings of the market correctly indicated the functions which would be in the building, confirming that Vons had approved the elevation and that if the project was approved this particular proposal would be constructed; and · Relayed that the current plan with the Vons representatives was to move the manager from the existing Vons to the new store, noting the tremendous success of the current Vons. The public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project, as proposed: Mr. Bert Obregon 333 S. Grand Los Angeles/also a part time resident in Vintage Hills Mr. Paul Jacobs 32370 Corte Zamora Ms. Jenifer A~varado 41528 Riesling Court R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 5 Ms. Pamela Stangl 31945 Camino Higuera Mr. Tony Harris 41629 Corte Higuera Ms. Marie Jewett 41651 Cypress Point Way Ms. John Stangl 31945 Camino Higuera Mr. Jodi Harris 41629 Code Higuera Ms. Petra Valasakos 41665 Code Higuera The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, due to the following reasons: o Opined that the traffic study was incomplete, outdated and inaccurate; Opined that the noise study was incomplete due to being based on the inaccurate traffic study; o The mitigation measures do not address the traffic impacts; o It appeared that the Planning Commission determined to approve this project against staff's recommendation prior to the first hearing ever taking place; The proceedings for this project have not been impartial; o The applicant has offered nothing to warrant a zoning upgrade; o Stated that the applicant misrepresented wrought-iron fencing behind the proximate residences as a sound barrier which the Planning Commission did not challenge; o A supermarket wou~d generate additional traffic trips; o The General Plan does not state that residents should be located less than a mile from a grocery store; The Planning Commission would most likely suffer an embarrassing rejection if it approved this project with the proposed oversized building due to the likelihood of the City Council overturning the Planning Commission's decision as had occurred recently regarding a hotel project with an oversized building; o If the Planning Commission adhered to the General Plan, this particular proposal could not be approved; Queried whether the portion of Rancho California Road in this area would be widened; Queried whether there would be additional signals placed at residential tract entrances; o Opined that the residents of the City were not well-represented on the Planning Commission; o Opposed to the proposed size of the market; Appreciated the recent revisions implemented; o The view of the building from the adjacent residences; o The truck access route traversed through the main street portion of the project which was designed to be pedestrian-oriented; o Concurred with the Planning Commission's previous recommendation to eliminate the drive-through; o Queried the anticipated traffic volumes at the shopping center in comparison to the proximate Albertson's Shopping Center; Noted the importance of keeping the wine country free from commercial development; A Vons market would not serve as a good gateway to wine country; o Noise impacts; Concern regarding the property not being well-maintained; Queried the enforcement of the restricted store hours, and the construction hours; Signage, specifically regarding the big red letter lighted signage on the Vons use; R; PlanComm/minutes/021903 6 o Concern regarding truck stacking; Light impacts; o Relayed appreciation to the Planning Commission for serving on behalf of the community; The wrought-iron fencing on the adjacent residences was not adequate for mitigating the noise and view impacts; o The proximity of the market to the residences; and Noted that it appeared the Planning Commission was not interested in the public comments, failing to provide eye contact when comments were being expressed. For Mr. Obregon, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there would be ingress and egress off of Meadows Parkway. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Jacobs stated that a grocery store would generate more traffic than a Trader Joe's type of use. It is noted that Mr. Orbregon (a part-time resident in Temecula) submitted a written statement to staff outlining his concerns regarding the project. The applicant provides rebuttal In response to comments expressed, Mr. Clement, Mr. Kain, and Mr. Mercado, representatives of the applicant, relayed the following information: · This particular project would serve as a traffic mitigator; · The noise generated from the project was significantly lower than the existing noise impacts from the City streets; · The existing slope on the property was well-maintained, and that the applicant was open to residents communicating landscaping concerns, i.e., removal of fallen tree limbs; · That the project has been reduced by approximately 5,000 square feet verses what was addressed in the traffic study; · That the traffic study was conducted in 2001, with a forecast of seven percent (7%) yearly growth in forecasting future traffic, noting the conservative factors built into the study; · With respect to the access issue, relayed that the Rancho California Road access has been evaluated with no left turns out of the site, noting the assumed traffic movements which were taken into consideration; · With respect to the public comment whereas it was stated that most of the traffic for the center would be generated on weekends, that if this factor was realized that would become a fourth factor in conservatism in the analysis since the traffic study assumed activity occurring within the peak hours; · Confirmed, for Commissioner Mathewson, that a trip generation analysis was conducted in September of 2002; · For informational purposes, noted that the highest generating store in terms of traffic per thousand feet would be a 7-Eleven use standing alone, confirming that the smaller the size of the commercial building, the higher the trip generation rate per square foot, clarifying that dividing the buildings square footage into smaller uses would not reduce traffic; · Confirmed that when comparing Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial in overall square footage of the site, Neighborhood Commercial would R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 7 generate more traffic, confirming that this proposal included less overall square footage than was permitted in Neighborhood Commercial; · Acknowledged that there may be an indeterminable amount of U-turn movements initially in the residential areas, although this factor would not create a capacity concern or be a significant negative factor, relaying the more convenient routes available at signalized intersections; o In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the growth factor figured into the traffic analysis was more than reasonable, advising that Senior Engineer Moghadam was comfortable with the assumptions utilized in the traffic study, and for Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, confirmed that in overall square footage, Neighborhood Commercial produced more traffic than Community Commercial; · For Commissioner Olhasso, provided additional information regarding the line-of- sight of the project from the adjacent residences backyards, noting the proposed dense landscaping proximate to the wrought-iron fencing, clarifying that there would be no activity at the back of the building; · Specified the remote relocated location of the screened trash enclosure areas, confirming that the trash enclosures could be roofed with ventilation; · Reiterated that the hours of store operation for Vons was from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and Sav-On from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.; · For Commissioner Telesio, specified that the traffic study demonstrated that the traffic eastbound on Rancho California Road was fairly insignificant, confirming that the marketing perspective was an approximate two-mile radius, that there would be approximately 30,000 residents within that radius, that the draw would come from half-way to each of the proximate markets, i.e., half-way to the Albertson's to the west, and the Ralph's to the north, and to the shopping centers to the south on Highway 79 (South), advising that typically grocery stores are traveled to as to the most convenient, closest market; o Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding staff's support of the left-in access at Rancho California Road, confirming that the Public Works Department has the option of closing this access point in the future, if it was determined necessary; · For clarification, noted that the Conditions of Approval prohibited any type of drive- through on this site other than the specific pharmacy pickup; · In response to Commissioner OIhasso, confirmed that the project was also prohibited from permitting a gas station; · For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the building was moved closer to the hill to gain additional pedestrian area, relaying that the applicant was agreeable to moving the building back; and clarified that with the moving of the building, the landscape buffering was significantly increased, while the building was only moved five or six feet. At 7:35 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:41 P.M. The Planninq Commission offered closinq comments For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that the project did not exceed the permitted height under Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial; and advised that since this was part of a Specific Plan the Planning Commission could make reasonable recommendations in terms of the environment. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 8 Since the proposed maximum height was approximately 30 feet, which would be the height of a two-story home, an office building, and other uses, Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that rather than requiring that the height be reduced that the screening be required to be adequate, i.e., increase the density of the landscaping on the slope. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that typically projects were conditioned to be continuously maintained. With respect to the concern expressed regarding the height of the building, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the height was under what should have been expected since it was under the maximum height of the current zoning; and concurred with addressing the issue of sight and noise via increased landscaping or the installation of a wall. Referencing the noise study, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the proiect was not required to mitigate with installation of a wall; concurred that increased landscaping would aid in screening the project, in particular recommending the installation of larger evergreen trees of a faster growing species, Commissioner Telesio recommending that the larger trees be placed at the top of the slope, Chairman Chiniaeff noting that various trees grow faster if installed at a smaller size. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the City's Landscape Architect could provide recommendations. Discussion ensued regarding requiring the installation of a block wall. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the drive-through component of the Sav-On should be eliminated. Additional discussion ensued regarding the internal truck route traversing through the pedestrian area. Mr. Clement noted that 58-foot trailer trucks would be delivering to the Sav-On use, advising that Sav-On receives deliveries approximately twice per week, and Vons five times per week, Director of Planning Ubnoske relaying that the delivery times for the Sav-On use would be restricted to the hours from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Mercado relayed that the existing Vons generated a volume of approximately $30 million a year, which far exceeded the average, and that this proposed market would most likely capture some of the volume from the neighboring stores. Noting that he did not have the expertise regarding the marketing issues of this project, Commissioner Mathewson advised that his focus was determining whether this project made good planning sense from a variety of factors, opining that this was the charge of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that in the previous planning by the County, this site was planned for commercial to service the larger community to come, relaying that the potential impacts associated with a commercial project existed when the proximate residents purchased the property. in response to a few negative comments expressed regarding the Planning Commission during the public comment period, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she served on R: PJanComm/minutes/021903 9 the Commission to serve the community which she loves; noted that she took under serious consideration the public comments expressed for every project, referencing the notes she takes during that period of the meeting; and advised that she was proud of the work of the Planning Commission and stood by the recommendations this body forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Chiniaeff opined that this was a logical site for this type of use; that the project would reduce traffic; that the proposed site plan appeared to be the most appropriate for the uses; that the truck traffic would be minimal; and that there should be added landscaping on the slope. With respect to the revised Schedule of Permitted Uses, the Planning Commission made the following revisions: · Recommended that the following uses be deleted as permitted uses; o Animal hospital/shelter o Antique restoration o Auditoriums and conference facilities o Automotive part- sales o Community care facilities o Congregate care housing for the elderly o Day care center o Emergency shelter o Equipment sales and rentals o Garden supplies and equipment sales and serve o Hardware stores o Movie theaters o Musical and recording studio o Nurseries retail o Nursing homes/convalescent homes o Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 square feet o Parcel delivery services o Pest control services o Radio and broadcasting studios, offices o Recycling collection facilities o Sports and recreational facilities · Recommended that the following uses be modified: o Offices, professional services with less than 3,000 square feet, including, but not limited to business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, Real Estate, insurance be permitted (Note: The modification being the allowable maximum square footage being revised to indicate 3,000 square feet.) o Restaurants to be permitted solely as a conditional permitted use and that lounges be prohibited. Director of Planning Ubnoske additionally advised that the footnotes (on page 5) on the Schedule of Permitted Uses would be modified to create consistency with the matrix modifications of the Planning Commission. R: PlanCornm/minutes/021903 10 For the public, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that drive-through uses were not permitted, Commissioner Telesio recommending that restaurants be permitted solely via a CUP which was added to the modifications (as noted in the above modifications) Additional discussion ensued regarding the requests for permits to sell alcohol, no opposition being expressed. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following modifications: Modify- That the landscaping plan along the slope be modified and that the applicant be directed to work with staff to provide evergreen landscaping and a plan that was acceptable to the Planning Director as per the direction the Planning Commission provided in the minutes of the meeting; · That the Sav-On Drug Store be modified to exclude the drive-through component; and · That the Schedule of Permitted uses be modified as specified in the Planning Commission recommendations denoted on page 10 of the minutes, in the bulleted section. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0340 To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in association with a future retail commercial shopp[nq center located on the southeast and southwest corners of Pechanqa Parkway and State Hi.qhway 79 South, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0340 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 11 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0340, A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A RETAIL/COMMERCIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX ON A 14.3 ACRE SITE. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PECHANGA PARKWAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 961-010-001,004 &005. By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Harris presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the location of the site, the previously adopted Development Agreement (DA), the proposal to create guidelines and criteria in order for the future projects on site to be processed via an Administrative Development Plan, the 14 individuals sites on the parcel, the buildings' proposed frontage onto the driveway, the three access points, the two architectural styles, the architectural enhancements, the color schemes, the signage plan, the landscaping plans, the business association which would oversee the landscape maintenance on the parkways, slopes, entry statements and all common areas; noted the staff recommended added conditions, as follows: that the buildings be required to add either real or spandrel glass along the street elevations for visual interest, that the freestanding signs have architectural elements on all sides of the sign, requiring that street addresses be incorporated into each sign, and that the actual sign standards of the DeveLopment Code be incorporated into the comprehensive Land Use Plan; relayed that one of the conditions of the approved parcel map was that the parkways along Pechanga Parkway and Highway 79 (South) be installed prior to the occupancy of the first building on the property, advising that staff was also recommending that the major entry statements at the corners at Pechanga Parkway and Highway 79 (South) be installed at the time that either one of those properly corners were developed and that the minor entry statements be installed on both sides of the driveway at such time as the first abutting lot is developed; and noted the requirement that the rear slope along the southern property perimeter be installed prior to occupancy of the 1st building permit. In response to Commissioner OIhasso and Telesio, Associate Planner Harris advised that there was no rendering for the major tenant, that the represented elements in the guidelines would be required to be incorporated on all the buildings regardless of size; and for Commissioner OIhasso, relayed that the individual projects would need to get approval via the Planning Department. For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that this proposal was undergirded by a DA, advising that the developed proposal was of derivative from the DA, and that the intended goal of this program was to streamline the projects as was done with the mall stores. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Harris confirmed that there would be CC&Rs for the property. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 12 Referencing Exhibit I and page 6 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would be opposed to metal canopies being installed over the pump islands, recommending that the language be strengthened with respect to the roof treatments for the service stations. Mr. Brook Morris, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the Design Guidelines and criteria, noting the goal to create a unique project style with visually pleasing features, relaying the two architectural styles, the alternatives in the color scheme, the colored renderings of each of the elevations of each type of building, the requirement for each building to incorporate the enhanced articulation elements (i.e., stone treatment, cornices element, tile materials) into each building, advising that the efforts with respect to the proposal was to ensure a good final product; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the language which he referenced where metal roofing could be utilized could be deleted, advising that as the proposal evolved, the permitted materials have changed; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the project would be much less intense than was allowed with an approximate eighteen percent (18%) lot coverage in lieu of the approximate thirty percent (30%) permitted; noted the location of the 12' block wall in the vicinity of Pechanga Parkway/Highway 79 (South) which would aid in screening the project from the residents in this area, as well as the landscaping; confirmed that a gas station would be permitted on the east corner but not on the residential side of the project; and provided additional information regarding the right-oF way and rear slope landscaping, the signal installation, and the access points. For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the median project was not part of the requirements for this project, noting the monies which would be used for that project; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that at this point there were no partial medians planned as part of that particular median project. Commissioner Guerriero relayed a desire for a more dramatic monument/entry treatment (i.e., a water treatment) welcoming people to Temecula since there was no element as such in the southern part of town; and suggested that the City and the applicant jointly participate in creating a unique element at this location. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's comments regarding the monument treatment, Mr. Morris noted the maintenance issues associated with water treatments, advising that he was open to recommendations. Commissioner Mathewson noted that an enhanced monument treatment would not need to be a water treatment, suggesting that this location would be an appropriate place for art in a public place. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Morris relayed that with respect to the landscaping there would be Master CC&Rs on the property, there were lien rights if the property was not maintained, advising that typically the manager installed all the landscaping (with the exception of the perimeter area adjacent to the buildings) and then the individuals were billed; and relayed that there would be master maintenance of all the parking lot, parkway, and slope landscaping. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Morris relayed that the building setbacks would vary, Director of Planning Ubnoske advising that staff would investigate and add language to the Design Guidelines to restrict the development of one long linear structure along the street frontage in lieu of four or five buildings. Mr. Morris relayed that he would not be opposed to the restriction of the development of a 250' building on the street, but that he R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 13 could not agree to restricting the building length below 80' or 125' due to that being in the range of a buildable size. For Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Morris relayed that the building layout was such that the front of the buildings would face the internal driveway road, confirming that there would be glass treatments on the street elevations; and for Commissioner Guerriero, relayed that there would be seating areas, entries with trellis, and enhanced paving which could also be implemented into the seating areas, noting areas which would be appropriate for seating elements. In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Morris noted that the photo depictions were included in the exhibits as examples since the applicant assumed that existing projects in Temecula would have elements pleasing to the Planning Commission since these projects were approved by the Commission, advising that the applicant would be willing to remove any photograph examples that the Planning Commission would recommend deleting; with respect to the "Wine Country" architectural style, relayed that this style was more rustic than the Mediterranean style with an antiquated appearance; and referencing Exhibit Fl, noted the stone treatments, the trellis elements, the raised border treatments, relaying that these particular detailed treatments tie into the "Wine Country" theme. Mr. Mark Broderick, 45501 Clubhouse Drive, spoke in opposition of the project, noting his concern regarding the dangers associated with the proposed access and egress points and the heavy traffic existing in this area; and suggested that the developer deed this property over to the City, a monument be constructed, and citizens' lives be saved. in response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Morris relayed that the driveways have been approved in the traffic study, providing additional information regarding access to the site. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that these points were reviewed with Caltrans, noting that the City and the developer have been working with Caltrans, which has resulted in the right-in only driveway. Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the proposal, while noting his pleasure with the proposal for the buildings to face inward, relayed that the Design Guidelines were not specific enough to ensure unique high-end products. Commissioner Telesio noted that the materials denoted were adequate, but that the guidelines lacked the specificity to provide assurance regarding what the finished product would be. Commissioner Olhasso noted that she would not be comfortable until she had more details regarding the appearance of the major tenant. Commissioner Mathewson queried what changes the Planning Commission could affect in light of the existing DA. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the Planning Commission had complete discretion regarding the Design Guidelines, confirming that per the DA, the individual projects would be reviewed at a staff level. Concurring with Commissioner Olhasso, Commissioner Mathewson relayed his discomfort with inclusion of some of the photograph exhibits, noting the inconsistencies when compared to the renderings. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 14 Director of Planning Ubnoske suggested deleting the photograph exhibits, and that in lieu of the photos there be actual architectural details, e.g., cornices, window, and railing treatments. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the guidelines be more specific as to what encompassed a Mediterranean style. Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that different photographs of exemplary architecture could be included with specific denotations regarding which treatment was being represented (i.e., specific call-outs). Concurring with Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that the applicant should not limit photographs to pictures of Temecula, the Planning Commission suggesting that the applicant visit cities such as Palm Desert, Newport, Carmel Mountain Ranch, Ranch Santa Fe, and Del Mar. Commissioner Olhasso advised that Temecula was continuing to raise the bar with respect to architectural expectations. Echoing Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the guidelines should address the mass of the large buildings, advising that while the Planning Commission would no longer accept an architectural plan similar to the Cosco building (neither the old building or the new one), that the new Kohl's building in the Redhawk area had architectural details on the back of the building which were pleasing. Recapitulating the Planning Commission comments for clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed the following: the Planning Commission was recommending that additional language be added to the guidelines which would address breaking up the linear line of the buildings, that specificity be added regarding the Mediterranean sty[e, that there be provision of a rendering of a typical seating area, that an elevation for a major tenant be provided, that the existing photographs be removed and be either replaced with new photographs, that there be call-outs regarding the specific treatment being represented in the photograph, or that actual architectural elements be added, and that the metal material be prohibited from being utilized for roofing, in particular on service stations; and clarified that the CUP projects within this parcel would be reviewed at a Director's Hearing, and not at the Planning Commission level. Chairman Chiniaeff echoed Commissioner Guerriero's previous comments, noting that since this site was a gateway project to Temecula that there be a pleasing monument treatment included in the proposal, and that the buffering standards be strengthened between the commercial and the residential area. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this matter to the March 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 16.) For clarification for the applicant, Commissioner Telesio relayed that if it was the applicant's understanding that existing development in the City of Temecula was the level of design the Planning Commission would approve, advised that the existing development was primarily approved by the County, that the bar had been raised with respect to design standards in the City of Temecula, and recommended that the applicant visit previously recommended cities in order to incorporate unique elements. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 15 Referencing Exhibit El, Commissioner Mathewson noted that the photographs provided as Mediterranean Design features did not specify which features were being called out, recommending that there be additional specificity. At this time voice vote was taken regarding the motion reflecting unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS A. Commending staff, Commissioner Olhasso applauded the architectural work completed on the KB Homes Project in Crowne Hill. B. Commissioner Guerriero relayed that the tree planters in the sidewalk area at the Cosco site had been cemented in. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that staff would address this matter. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Referencing the Development Review Process Report, which had been provided to the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided a general overview of the process, advising that the revised process was working well. ADJOURNMENT At 9:46 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular meeting to be held on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ~..-,,,~'~n~n'~ W'. Chinia'~'ff, ' ~(~ - - - Debbie Ubnoske, Chairman Director of Planning R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 16