Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout021600 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 16, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday February 16, 2000, 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 Fahey. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Fagan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner DeGange, and Project Planner Thornsley, Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Approval of Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 16, 2000. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from December 15, 1999 PlanCommlminutes1021600 2.2 Approve Minutes from January 5, 2000 3 Director's Hearing Update RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Receive and File 4 Findinq of Public Convenience or Necessity for the High Socety Billiard and Dart Club, located at 28950 Front Street, Suite 102-105 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Support a Finding of Convenience or Necessity MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. (This motion was ultimately amended, Consent Calendar Item No. '1 being considered separately.) Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that it had been recommended that the agenda be revised. At this time the Commission considered Consent Calendar No. 1 (the Agenda) separately. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant for Agenda Item No. 8, requested that the item be continued to the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved that the Agenda (Consent Calendar Item No. 1) be amended, and that Agenda Item No. 8 be continued to the March 15, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who abstained. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-4 (Item No. 1 being amended in the previous motion). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Planning Application No. 99-0239 (Development Plan) and Planning Application No. PA99-0373 (Tentative Parcel Map 29406), located at the knuckle of Enterprise Circle West (225 feet west of the intersection of Enterprise Circle West and Commerce Center Drive) - Project Planner John DeGange RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PlanComm/mlnutes1021600 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0239 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF TVVO INDUSTRIAL SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS TOTALING t4,593 SQUARE FEET ON A 1.86-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE KNUCKLE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST (225 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST AND COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-480-015; 5.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0239 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines; 5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0373, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29406 TO SUBDIVIDE A t.87 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) PARCELS WITHIN THE BUSINESS PARK ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE KNUCKLE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST (225 FEET WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE WEST AND COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE) ON AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-480-015: 5.4 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0373 pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines Providing an overview of the project, Project Planner DeGange presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the two-building development plan; relayed that in 1998 the Planning Commission approved a project on this site which encompassed a larger single building, noting that the applicant was of the opinion that the market and the site would be better suited for a two-building project; specified the access points, parking areas, inclusive of the parking that would be fenced with wrought iron, the proposal to subdivide the project into two parcels, clarifying that each parcel was required to meet standards with respect to landscaping, parking, and all other aspects of the Development Code; relayed that shared access agreements and shared landscape maintenance agreements would be required as a condition of the final map; with respect to the architecture, noted that both buildings were identical as far as design and coloring with the exception of Building No. 1 which was slightly smaller, and had a tapered articulation element which made provision for the easement; clarified that the previous approval was for a larger building, relaying that staff was of the opinion that this particular project which PlanComm/mlnutes/021600 appearance of the buildings by adding additional features (i.e., a project entry statement, accent diamonds, design entry wall); and with respect to landscaping, relayed that each parcel would provide twenty-five percent (25%) landscaping, as required. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the letter from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (per agenda material), Project Planner DeGange relayed that Mr. Larry Markham, the applicant's representative had worked with Flood Control concerning this matter, as well as with the previous application which was approved on this site. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that staff had reviewed this condition with previous applications, concurring that Mr. Markham could further address the matter. Via overheads, Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, via overheads, specified the location of the project site inclusive of the drainage channel that currently exists, the flood plain line which was outside the boundaries of the project site with the exception of within the drainage easement of the existing manufactured channel which was maintained by the property owner's association; clarified that this project would not impact that area; relayed the discussions with Flood Control regarding the following: the Flood Control topographical map as opposed to the design topographical map, and the re-grading of the property subsequent to the 1993 flooding event; advised that Flood Control would not retract their letter; noted that the applicant did not see the need for (Development Plan) Condition No. 53 (regarding the obtaining of a Flood Plain Development Permit); and relayed that the applicant was of the opinion that ()Parcel Map Condition Nos. 28, and 29 (regarding obtaining a Flood Plain permit) were, additionally, not necessary. In response to Commissioner Webster's quedes regarding Flood Control's letter, specifically the comment regarding the dedication of a 22-foot access road adjacent to the top of the channel, via overheads, Mr. Markham specified the right-of-way that Flood Control owned, relayed that Flood Control owned the entire channel down to Old Town Temecula; clarified that there was no need for the referenced access road, noting that it would dead-end into the parking lot of the adjacent building; and advised that alternate properties were not required to provide additional right-of-way provisions, clarifying that Flood Control does not have a permit to impact the banks (i.e., mowing). Commissioner Webster referenced the item in the Flood Control's letter conditioning this project to participate in a funding mechanism for the ultimate flood control improvements; and queded whether a condition should be added to address this matter. In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant would be opposed to an added condition that other projects in the watershed area were not required to be subject to. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding Condition No. 53, clarifying that if the project was not in the flood plain the requirement would not be applicable, noting that this was a standard condition for a project adjacent to a flood plain. In response to Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Mr. Markham requested that with respect to Condition No. 53 that the term if required be added, if the condition was not 4 Plancomlt~minutes~021600 deleted. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed no opposition Mr. Markham's recommendation. Mr. Brian Fonk, the applicant, thanked Project Planner DeGange and the Planning staff for their diligent efforts with respect to this project; for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the rear fenced parking area, noting the desire of potential buyers to have secured parking. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the architectural treatments on the north elevation of Building No. 2, and the west elevation of Building No. 1, Mr. Jeff Rabbit, architect representing the applicant, relayed that the referenced north elevation was adjacent to a six-foot block wall which was located on top of a three-foot bank, noting that this elevation was completely screened from the stre~t; and only partially visible from the adjacent property; with respect to the referenced west elevation, noted the location of the drainage easement, large-scale landscaping, and the adjacent parking area; specified the building articulation, noting the color differentiation, the banding, the reveals in the concrete panels, the diamonds, and the pillar effects; relayed the point on the building that the existing block wall would reach; provided additional information regarding the capping decorative feature; and clarified that the proposed project was the result of the diligent efforts by staff and the design team, noting that the applicant was of the opinion that this was a decorative approach for this type of building. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner DeGange clarified that the applicant had not submitted a color palette since the previously approved colors had not been revised. For Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Rabbit specified the area for the proposed fencing, relaying that the fencing would be six-foot wrought iron picket style; and noted that the applicant would be agreeable to the project being conditioned with respect to all fencing being required to be wrought iron. With respect to landscaping, Chairman Guerriere commented on the current problem regarding 1-, 5-, and 15-gallon plants not being satisfactory in size due to the shortage of these plant sizes on the market; and queried whether the project could be conditioned, requiring the landscaping to be inspected by the City's landscape architect pdor to installation of the plantings. In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, Senior Planner Fagan confirmed that per pdvate and the City's landscape architect's comments the plantings have been smaller due to the shortage of material; and advised that staff explore the matter further rather than conditioning this particular project, noting that the solution may be to increase the quantity. Chairman Guerriere relayed the negative impact for the applicant if the City's landscape architect does not accept the plantings after installation, advising that if the issue was initially addressed, time and effort could be saved. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that if staff was to pursue his recommendation, the contract with the City's landscape architect would have to be amended; and noted that the landscape architect for the project should know the appropriate size of 1-, 5-, and 15-gallon plantings, and could inspect the plants prior to installation. PlanComm/minutes/021600 For Chairman Guerriem, the applicant's representative relayed that the applicant's landscape architect could be required to sign a letter of compliance that the plant installation was in compliance with the proposed landscape design plan, or that a maintenance bond could be posted guaranteeing that the landscape would be maintained. W~h respect to the condition requiring the installation of sidewalks, Mr. Markham relayed that since this was the sole site with sidewalks in the entire interior of the subdivision, that it was his request that the applicant be required to make a cash payment for a future point in time if the City constructed sidewalks on the remainder of the park in lieu of installing the sidewalks; with respect to the parcel map condition regarding archeological resources, relayed that this property was rough-graded in 1980, assuring the Commission that there were no archeological resources on the site; reiterated the desire to have the conditions regarding the flood plain which were previously addressed (see page 4), deleted; with respect to (Parcel Map) Condition No. 30, regarding recordation, recommended that it be amended to be required p#or to the sale of either building. The concluding remarks of the Commissioners were, as follows: Commissioner Fahey recommended that the project be conditioned to install solely wrought iron fencing; commented that she preferred this particular project to the one that had been previously approved on this site; noted that while she was in favor of additional articulation that since the elevations of discussion were not easily seen she would not recommend requiring additional articulation; relayed her support of the project; and with respect to the landscape issue (smaller plantings being represented as larger plants), advised that this matter was not relevant to the conditions of this particular project, but instead a matter to be addressed via staff procedure. Commissioner Mathewson queried staff regarding the last two conditions addressed by the applicant, as to whether staff was in concurrence with the requests, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that if there were no archeological resources found on the site, it would not be a requirement of the project; and relayed that staff preferred to have Environmental Constraint Sheets on all parcel maps. Commissioner Mathewson relayed his support of the project. Commissioner Telesio concurred with the applicant's request to provide a cash payment rather than to install a sidewalk at this point in time; with respect to the landscaping issue, queried whether a bond could be issued for this matter; and relayed his support of the project. Chairman Guerriero reiterated his concern regarding the previously discussed landscaping issue, relaying his opposition to notifying the applicant after installation that the plantings were not the correct size and would need to be replaced. With respect to the landscape issue, Attorney Curley recommended that a specified standard be set by the City with respect to the required minimum height of a 1-, 5-, or 15-gallon plants in order to ensure that a certain performance standard of plants; and relayed that the City's landscape architect could address the matter by redefining the requirement since the size stated was inaccurate. 6 Pla n Corn m,'mln ut es/021600 For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the landscape issue was not project-related but industry-related, noting staff's reluctance to condition this particular project with respect to the landscape matter. In response to Commissioner Fahey's queries regarding further defining the landscape requirements without conditioning this project, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the Development Code would need to be amended in order to expand the language addressing 1-, 5-, and 15-gallon plants and to further define staff's interpretation of what each size should be; and for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that if this project's landscape was undersized that staff would pursue the matter. Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect for the applicant, confirmed that there was a problem with the availability of plants, advising that this project would most likely not be landscaped for approximately eight months, noting that the shortage may be over at that point in time; provided additional information regarding the ultimate size of plants in relation to the spacing available; while concurring with the Commission' s desire to install the proper sized plants, advised that smaller plantings would be healthier and outgrow larger plants; noted that he would be opposed to conditioning the project with respect to this issue; provided additional information regarding the landscape plan; advised that for this project he would inspect all the plantings prior to installation; and noted that the tree installations were specified as to height and width, suggesting that for the future all plantings could be so specified. With respect to the landscape issue, Commissioner Telesio, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the Commission could rely on the integrity and knowledge of the project's landscape architect with respect to adequate sizing of the plants while making the applicant aware that improperly sized plantings would be required to be removed; and advised that the project not be conditioned with respect to the matter. Commissioner Webster relayed that within the General Plan, one of the main policies was excellence in architecture for all zoning classifications, and for all sides of a building, noting that the Design Guidelines provided avenues to implement that policy; advised that in his opinion this project did not meet the architectural standards due to his previously addressed comments; and recommended that if this project was to be approved, that staff work with the applicant to add additional articulation on the west elevation of Building No. 1, and on the north elevation of Building No. 2. In response to the Commission comments, the applicant provided additional information regarding the project's enhanced elements in comparison to the surrounding projects; and in response to Commissioner Webster comments, noted that the adjacent property was an automotive use. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to move staff's recommendation with the following modifications; Add- A condition requiring that the fencing behind both buildings be required to be wrought iron. PlanComm/minutes/021600 That (Development Plan) Condition No. 53 be modified to add language stating required. That staff investigate the matter of the applicant bonding for the sidewalk rather than installing it. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey. (This motion ultimately passed, see below.) For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Mathewson confirmed that the motion was silent with respect to architecture. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who voted n_9o. 6 Planning Application No. PA99-0472 (Development Plan) located on the southwest corner of Diaz Road and Reminqton Road (41906 Reminqton Road) -Associate Planner Carole Donahoe RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0472 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 62,100 SQUARE FOOT MINI-SELF STORAGE FACILITY WITH A 2- STORY OFFICE, RESIDENT MANAGER'S QUARTERS, AND A COVERED RV STORAGE SPACE ON 3.92 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DIAZ ROAD AND REMINGTON ROAD (41906 REMINGTON ROAD), AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-370-014 Associate Planner Donahoe provided a detailed overview of the proposed project (of record), highlighting the location of the site, the zoning specification as Light Industrial (LI), the site design, the hours of operation, the 24-hour gate accessibility, and the architecture inclusive of the detailed enhancements and the surrounding wall height variations, which provided a breakup of the wall massing; appdsed the Commission of the additional recommendations, revisions, and conditions added to the project by staff, as follows: With respect to the aluminum gddwork proposed on the pop-out elements for the provision of visual interest, noted that staff was of the opinion that the elevation along the southeast comer (adjacent to the Zevo parking area) was sparse and due to the visibility from Diaz Road had conditioned the project, requiring that the gridwork element be wrapped around to the southeast wall, as well (denoted in Condition No. 8b). PlanComm/minutes/021600 With respect to the height of the perimeter walls proposed to be 14 feet at the location of the RV storage space, relayed that the project had been conditioned to limit the vehicle storage canopy to 14 feet in order to assure that there was no visibility from the street (denoted in Condition No. 10). With respect to the proposed landscaping plan, relayed that it was the opinion of the City's landscape architect that the Queen Palms proposed along the south and west walls would be inappropriate in this area due to the fact that this species of tree was effectively utilized as an accent tree, noting that this area would be better suited with a tree providing a crown for the purpose of breaking up the massing of the wall; and advised that staff had, therefore, recommended that an alternate plant species be proposed (denoted in Condition No. 7a). With respect to the landscaping planter proposed on the west property line, noted that staff had conditioned the project to increase the planter width to four feet; and with respect to the planter proposed to buffer the parking spaces, relayed that staff had conditioned the project to increase this planter area to a minimum of five feet. Specified that the City's landscape architect had recommended that 36-inch boxed, and 48-inch boxed sized trees be installed for quick vegetation, noting for the Commission's consideration that the project had not been conditioned with respect to this recommendation. Relayed that with respect to the Agenda, under Recommendation, an additional component should have been added, stating the following: Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0472 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that with respect to the City's landscape architect's recommendation to add larger plantings, specifically 36-inch and 48-inch boxed trees, that this matter had not been added in the Conditions of Approval; specified that the material proposed at the canopy area would be a metal material with a matte finish, conditioned to a maximum height of 14 feet; confirmed that the height along Diaz Road would also be limited to a 14-foot maximum height; with respect to the exterior elevations along the west and south portions of the project, specified that there would be two types of paint color application proposed to breakup the massing, that there would be a reveal treatment (which would be the same color as the adjacent stucco), and a cap element on the wall, confirming that the wall was long and expansive; noted that the gridwork was not proposed or conditioned to be added along this particular area; and specified that the parcel west of this particular project was currently vacant. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner Webster relayed that with respect to the wall area, the Design Guidelines required the planting of vines, noting that the applicant had proposed planting Boston Ivy around the 3erimeter of the site. With respect to the Design Guidelines standard regarding the provision of offsets, Commissioner Webster noted that the applicant had proposed offsets along the public view points; and queried why the offsets had not been extended around to the alternate sides of the project. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe noted that staff was of the Pla nCo m mhnin ut es,'021600 opinion that in light of the fact that this project was located within a Light Industrial area, that the proposed landscaping would be sufficient. For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that with respect to future development on the west property boundary, staff would most likely require perimeter landscaping with setbacks. Chairman Guerdero recommended that the berming currently located along Diaz Road be continued along this particular site in order to provide continuity. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the proposed wall would replace the berming; and confirmed that at a future point in time Diaz Road was proposed to be a four-lane road. In light of the fact that at a future point Diaz Road would be heavily traveled, Chairman Guerriere relayed concern with respect to the view of the wall expanse from Diaz Road, specifically on the south side of the building. Associate Planner Donahoe provided the material and color board for the Commission's review. Mr. Kenn Carrell, representing the applicant, relayed that with respect to the concern regarding the expanse of the wall, that the wall along the south side of the site was solely 12 feet in height (noting the typical industrial wall height as between 24-30 feet), specifying that this portion of the site faced the loading dock of the adjacent property; relayed the enhanced articulation elements proposed on the most visible portions of this area; for Commissioner Webster, provided additional information regarding the blue tone of the paint application, noting the desire to create a contrast between the base and the upper color application; advised that the stucco finish had been proposed via staff recommendation; and specified that the cap treatment was a minor detail treatment, measuring approximately two inches in width. Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect representing the applicant, for Commissioner Webster, relayed the restrictions associated with the recommendation to replace the palm trees with an alternate tree, specifying the three-foot wide planter area; noted the proposed plan to soften the visual impact of the wall expanse with the provision of vines; relayed that in his opinion, if the Commission concurred with staff's recommendation to remove the palm trees, that the plan to propose any trees in that area should be deleted due to the size constraints of the landscaping area; advised that larger shrubs (installed as a scalloped treatment) could be added to the area of discussion; reiterated the impact of proposing a tree with a larger canopy due to the size restrictions; noted that in his opinion the proposed Boston Ivy would provide an effective contrast against the blue tone of the paint application; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the existing landscaping located on the adjacent property (the Zevo Development). In response to Chairman Guerriero's previous comments, Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that there was existing berming along Diaz Road, noting that the berming was a requirement of the Westside Business Center where parking was adjacent to the street. 10 PlanCornmimlnutes/021600 Mr. Vince Didonato relayed that if it was the Commission's desire to continue the berming along this site, the applicant would be agreeable; and provided additional information regarding the vine plantings proposed to soften the visual impact of the project. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Vince Didonato clarified the concept of adding scalloped shrubbery plantings (installed at varying heights) with the proposed ivy; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the Sycamore Trees existing on the adjacent property. The Commission relayed concluding comments, as follows: Commissioner Fahey relayed that after the additional information provided by the applicant's landscape architect, she had no objection to the proposal to plant palm trees; with respect to the impact of the wall expanse, relayed that perhaps the applicant could propose additional treatments to break up the massing, noting that the proposed ivy may serve as an adequate screening provision due to the fact that this portion of the site faced the adjacent property's loading area; commended staff and the applicant on their diligent efforts associated with the features proposed on the street side of the project; and relayed that overall, she would support the project. Commissioner Mathewson noted that overall he also could support the project; relayed that the proposal to plant palm trees would not address the impact of the expansive wall, and relayed concurrence with the applicant's landscape architect's proposal to plant shrubbery at this location, recommending that this proposal serve as an alternative to softening the effect of the wall. Relaying concurrence with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the palm trees would be ineffective at this location, noting that the adjacent existing Eucalyptus Trees would break up the massing of the upper reaches of the wall, relaying that with additional bushes, and the proposed ivy, the wall would be adequately screened; noted the visual inconsistency of the mix of planting palm trees adjacent to the existing sycamore trees; and relayed that he would support the omission of the palm trees with the additional plantings described by the applicant's landscape architect (the scalloped shrubbery treatment). Relaying concurrence with the omission of the proposed palm trees, Commissioner Webster relayed that in his opinion there should be either no trees, or larger-sized trees added to replace the palm trees; with respect to the conditions that staff had added to enhance the project, expressed commendation to staff with respect to a job well done; suggested that if the Commission had a concern regarding the expanse of the wall, there could be additional architectural treatments added (i.e., additional split-face brick); and advised the he was in concurrence with Chairman Guerriero's recommendation to continue the berming on Diaz Road at this particular site. Chairman Guerriero relayed his concern with respect to the visual impact of this particular project from Diaz Road, noting that even with the plantings of vines on that particular wall, there may need to be additional trees or an alternate architectural treatment to break up the expanse; and queded the potential of staff requesting the PHS development (the southern adjacent use) to add additional landscaping on the property 11 PlanCommimlnutes/021500 line. In response, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that requiring the adjacent property to add landscaping would most likely not be feasible. For Chairman Guerriero, Associate Planner Donahoe provided additional information regarding the wall on the east end of the south elevation of the project, noting that the applicant had been conditioned to add additional gridwork to this particular portion of the project. In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, the applicant's representative relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to adding an additional 100 feet of gridwork in the area of discussion, MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve the project, including staff's recommendation to adopt a Notice of Exemption (See page 9, under the 5th bullet) with the following added conditions: Modify- With respect to the west side of the project, that no trees be planted in this area, recommending that staff require future development to install trees at this particular location. With respect to the south side of the project, that the palm trees be replaced with alternate larger-sized evergreen trees suitable for this particular area via the City's landscape architect's discretion. Add- That berming along Diaz Road be added per Chairman Guen'iero's recommendation. With respect to the aluminum gridwork treatment (denoted in Condition 8b.) specified that a hundred feet of additional gridwork shall be added for the provision of visual interest. · That the recommendations setforth by staff be added. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey. (This motion ultimately passed. See page 13.) For Commissioner Mathewson, Commissioner Webster clarified that the motion had included the replacement of the palm trees with evergreen trees, maintaining the shrubbery plantings, as proposed. Associate Planner Donahoe reiterated the Commission's comments for clarification with respect to the conditions included in the motion, as follows: With respect to Condition No. 5, noted that there would be an additional section h. added, to add berming along Diaz Road for provision of continuity of the existing berming. In response, Chairman Guerriero specified that he recommended that the berming also wrap-around onto Remington Road, as well. 12 PlanCommJminutesJ021600 With respect to Condition No. 7a, relayed that the Queen Palms would be eliminated from the south and west perimeter planters, that the palm trees would be replaced with evergreen trees in the south planter area, and that there would be additional clustered shrubs and ivy. In response, Commissioner Webster specified that the shrubs and ivy were not conditioned, and would remain as proposed. Regarding Condition No. 8b, specified that the gddwork treatment shall be added for a hundred feet. In light of the previous comments expressed by the applicant's landscape architect, Commissioner Telesio queried whether the conditions added by the Commission would present a hardship with respect to replacing the palm trees with an alternate tree in light of the restrictions associated with the size of the planting area. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that if staff could not replace the palm trees with an altemate evergreen tree suitable for the southerly location that additional shrubbery be installed. Commissioner Fahey advised that if the City's landscape architect who had originally recommended the installation of larger alternate trees could not find a suitable tree, that staff could investigate an alternate solution. Commissioner Webster, echoed by Chairman Guerriero, clarified that the motion did not specify a size of tree. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. 7 Planning Application No, PA99-0476 (Development Plan) 5 & Diner, located on the east side of Ynez Road south of Winchester Road north of the north mall entrance, RECOMMENDATION 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0476 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,205 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (5 & DINER), ON A .73- ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD NORTH OF THE NORTH ENTRANCE TO THE PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-320-037, AND LOT 'N" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495. 13 PlanComrn/minutes~021600 7.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0307 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations Project Planner Thornsley presented an overview of the staff report (via agenda material), highlighting location, access, size of the building and the overall site, landscaping, and parking, specifying that the parking provisions had exceeded the requirements; with respect to architecture, relayed the 50's era style of the building design; relayed that staff was recommending that Condition No. 54 (regarding the sprinkler system) be deleted; for Chairman Guerdere, provided additional information regarding the trash enclosure area, and the exterior of the service areas; for Commissioner Webster, relayed that staff would not be opposed to striking Condition No. 6f. (Regarding the trash enclosure); advised that the project had been conditioned regarding installation of the drive aisle (Condition No. 6e.), providing additional information; presented the color and material board to the Commission; noted that the rendering in the agenda packets had been revised, clarifying the differentials (i.e., removal of the rounded glass block corners); for Commissioner Mathewson, specified the exterior areas with respect to the portions that would have a shiny-finish, and the quilted stainless steel areas; and advised that the applicant had complied with Condition No. 6a. (regarding the conceptual site layout). In response to Commissioner Fahey, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that the Park and Ride facility, and the transportation issues associated with the Malls' Specific Plan would be addressed by Associate Planner Donahoe. Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that staff was still investigating the matter, advising that she would update the Commission. Mr. Dan Cardiff, the applicant, for Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, provided additional information regarding the decision to not utilize the block wall comer treatment in the final design plan, and clarified the visual appearance of the glass front doors; presented a rendering of the site at night; and for Commissioner Webster, after specification of the extedor stucco locations, relayed that the rationale for utilizing the stucco was for a positive visual appearance. The Commission relayed its conclusions, as follows: After commenting on the 50's style of the building, Commissioner Telesio relayed his support of the project. Commissioner Webster recommended that the project replace the exterior stucco application with stainless steel. For the record, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he had had communication with representatives from Forest Development, noting that this site had been discussed; while relaying his support of the project, noted that he would concur with the recommendation to replace the stucco, minimally on the side elevations, echoed by Chairman Guerriero; and relayed his recommendation that the glass comer treatments reflected on the original rendering be added back into the design. 14 PlanComm/minutesJ021500 With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's quedes regarding the Design Guidelines for the mall, specifically referencing the requirement that the design be consistent with the mall design, Project Planner Thomsley provided additional information regarding the discretion of the Planning Commission with respect to this matter. Commissioner Fahey relayed that she supported the project, as proposed. Chairman Guerriero commended the applicant for the great project. In response to the Commission comments, the applicant relayed that he would be agreeable to replacing the stucco with stainless steel on all the elevations with the exception of the rear elevation. For the applicant, Project Planner Thornsley provided additional information regarding the landscaping in the rear of the building, relaying the intent to provide a buffer. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public headng; and to approve staff's recommendation with the following modifications: Delete- · That Condition No. 6f. (regarding the trash enclosure) be deleted. · That Condition No. 54 (regarding a sprinkler system) be deleted. Modify- That the design of the building be modified to reflect the stucco solely on the rear elevation. · That the glass blocks would be included in the front corner treatments. That staff work with the applicant regarding the landscape in the rear of the building. The motion was seconded by Chairman Guerdero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Planning Application No. PA99-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) Mar,qadt~ Canyon, located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79 South/future Western Bypass - John DeGange RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: 15 PlanComm/mlnutes/021600 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627) A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37- ACRE PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (SOUTH) I FUTURE WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210- 047); 8.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97- 0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627); 8.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97- 0307 Tentative Parcel Map 28627) (This Agenda Item was continued to the March 15, Planning Commission meeting.) COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS With respect to the monuments at the Power Center, Associate Planner Donahoe provided an update. Regarding the Forest City monument, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that the project was expected to be completed by March 3, 2000. With respect to the landscaping on Margarita Road, and the screening of the loading docks, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that staff and Chairman Guerriero had met with the applicant and his representatives on February 15, 2000, advising that the applicant was proposing to add additional trees. Chairman Guerriero commended Associate Planner Donahoe and Senior Planner Fagan for their diligent efforts associated with ensudng that the applicants follow through with the standards and conditions setforth in conjunction with their projects. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that Senior Planner Fagan was going to be leaving City Planning staff, noting that he would be greatly missed; and wished him well in his future endeavors. 16 PlanCommlmlnutes1021600 ADJOURNMENT At 9:14 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, March '15, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron G'uel~iefo, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager 17