Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout062100 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 21, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday June 21, 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 Mathewson. ROLLCALL Present: Absent: Also Present: PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. None. Planning Manager Ubnoske, Senior Engineer Alegria, Attorney Diaz, Senior Planner Hogan, Senior Planner Rockholt, Associate Planner Donahoe, Associate Planner Thomas, and Minute Clerk Hansen. 2 1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 21, 2000. Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.2 Approve the minutes of May 3, 2000. PlanComm/minutes/062100 MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Cost Plus, Inc. at the 40456 Winchester Road located on the southwest corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road. Project Planner Thomas Thornsley Senior Planner Rockholt presented the staff report (per agenda material); relayed that a Finding of Convenience or Necessity was required for this request due to the number of licenses previously issued in this particular census tract; provided an overview of the criteria analysis, noting that this particular use would offer unique features not found at other similar uses (i.e., imported home furnishing, wine, and beer). Mr. Peter Impala, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the Cost Plus uses located throughout the country, noting their good standing with the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC); relayed the unique merchandise the use offered, noting that the alcohol sold on site was not refrigerated; for Commissioner Webster, advised that the alcohol sales encompassed approximately fifteen percent (15%) of the total business sales; noted that the alternate Cost Plus uses were licensed to sell beer and wine; for Chairman Guerriero, provided an overview of the type of products the use sold; and for Commissioner Mathewson, reiterated that the applicant would most likely not proceed with the project without the license to sell beer and wine. The Commission relayed concluding remarks, as follows: Commissioner Telesio relayed that based on his experience in visiting alternate Cost Plus uses, he concurred with staff that the store offered unique merchandise; and in light of the support from the ABC, noted that he could support the Findings. Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Fahey, concurred with sta~s position with respect to the Findings of Public Convenience or Necessity. While supporting staff's conclusions, Commissioner Mathewson relayed his discomfort with the fact that the applicant would not go forward with the project without the license to sell beer and wine. Chairman Guerriero reiterated that there was a proliferation of the off-sale and on-sale of alcohol in this particular census tract; relayed that since in his opinion this use did not offer unique memhandise that he would not support the Findings for Public Convenience of Necessity. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the Findings for Public Convenience based on the unique merchandise the use offered. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who voted n_go. PlanComm/minutes/062100 4 Director's Hearing Update RECOMMENDATION 4.1 Receive and File VVith respect to the Temecula Beer & Wine Garden use, Chairman Guerriero relayed that originally the use was proposed to be for the purpose of wine tasting, noting that it had evolved into an outdoor bar; and advised that in light of the location being adjacent to the transportation hub that this could be a hazard. In response to Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided an overview of the issues of discussion at the Director's Hearing regarding the Beer & Wine Garden use, advising that the use was operating under a Conditional Use Permit; and for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that there was no specific definition of the term beer & wine garden. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Planning Application No. 00-0072 - Development Plan - Ridge Park Office Center (located on the north side of Ridge Park Drive, between Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive. Associate Planner Carole Donaho~, RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt the Categorical Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0072 (Development Plan); 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-024 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00q)072, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 56,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE COMPLEX, CONSISTING OF TEN (10) BUILDINGS ON FOUR (4) ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, BETWEEN RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 940-3t0-028 AND 032 Associate Planner Donahoe provided an overview of the proposed development plan (of record), highlighting the location, the zoning, and the adjacent businesses, noting that most of the street trees located at this site would be maintained and various trees would be relocated; via overheads, presented the site design, noting the clustering design, the 20-foot setback, and the proposed monument signs; provided a color sample and material board for the Commission's review; and relayed the revisions to the Conditions of Approval (per supplemental agenda material), noting the addition of Condition No. 88, 3 PlanCommlminutes10621 O0 regarding compliance with the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, and the addition of Condition No. 15c, regarding a reduction of wall signage. Commissioner Webster queried the interpretation of the Development Code with respect to the schedule of permitted uses within the Light Industrial (LI) zone, noting that offices were permitted at 50,00 square feet, specifically querying whether the square footage allowed applied to a single building or to the total square footage of the proposed buildings. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe advised that staff had had discussions with respect to this portion of the Development Code, relaying that staff was of the opinion that the project should not be penalized due to the proposed campus-type setting. Commissioner Webster noted that with the General Plan designation as Business Park (BP) and the zoning being Light Industrial (LI) that there was a distinction with respect to the permitted uses under 50,000 square feet which were not allowed in LI but were allowed in BP, and queried whether if this project had been'proposed at less than 50,000 square feet staff would have supported the project. In response, Associate Planner Donahoe clarified that in the LI zone the intent was for large-scale uses; with respect to the General Plan's description of Business Park which underlines this project, referenced language stating the intent for business and employment centers that offer attractive and distinctive architectural design, innovative site planning, and substantial landscaped individual quality, clarifying that this particular project would qualify. For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske reiterated that the previously made comments had been discussed with staff, noting that there was concurrence regarding the intent of the LI zoning standards, relaying the plan to avoid small buildings; noted that this project was over 50,000 square feet, and that it clearly met the intent of the guidelines; and concurring with Commissioner Webster's comments, relayed that when the General Plan was updated, that staff would also be reviewing areas of the Development Code. Ms. Cynthia Davis, representing the applicant, noted what a pleasure it had been working with Associate Planner Donahoe; relayed the applicant's desire to work with the Planning Department to create an environment for local businesses to expand and to have the opportunity to own their own building; for Commissioner Mathewson, advised that there was a potential for phased development if it was a condition of the lender; and for Commissioner Webster, provided the rationale for locating the project at this particular site. Ms. ^lbia Miller, P.O. Box 1377, Elsinore, relayed her opposition to additional building development, noting her preference for open space areas; and queried the environmental review for this project. The Commission relayed closinR remarks, as follows: Commissioner Telesio noted that this site was suitable for the proposed development, commending the architectural design of the project; and relayed his support of the proposal. PlanCommlminutes/062100 For Ms. Miller, Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson clarified the environmental issues associated with this particular site which had been previously graded. Commissioner Webster noted that with respect to the General Plan and the Development Code, he concurred with staffs interpretation; and recommended that this project go forward. Commissioner Fahey commented that this was an impressive project and could be utilized as an example, noting the variety of buildings; and relayed that she would strongly support this particular development. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with the previous Commission comments, noting that with respect to the architectural treatments it would be his desire for additional development in the City of Temecula to incorporate similar features; and relayed his support of the project. Chairman Guerriero noted his support of the project. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve staff's recommendation with the addition of Condition Nos. 15c (regarding a reduction of wall signage), and 88 (regarding compliance with the Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District), as outlined in the supplemental agenda material. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. It was noted that at 6:44 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 6:50 P.M. 6 PlanninR Application No. 99-0261 - Planned Development Overlay - TEMECULA CREEK VILLAGE (located on the south side of State Route 79 (south) east of Jedediah Smith Road. Associate Planner Denice Thomas RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 79 (SOUTH) EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-010- 006, AND ADDING SECTIONS t7.22.130 THROUGH 17.22.138 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. 4 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-026t)" Pla nCommlmin utes/062100 Via overhead maps, Associate Planner Thomas provided an overview of the project (per agenda material), highlighting the location of the site, and the impacts of the land-use changes; specified the zoning encompassed in the Planned Development Overlay (PDO); with respect to the circulation, noted that the applicant was proposing to delete the proposed Via Rio Temecula read that would traverse the site; relayed that the General Plan amendment had not been approved at this time, advising that the Planning Application No. was PA99-0371 and was submitted on September 5, 1999, noting that the applicant had been in communication with the Public Works department; relayed that the applicant was proposing an ordinance which would include Design Guidelines which would ultimately be adopted into the Development Code; relayed that the initial study reviewed solely the land use changes; and noted that when specific projects were proposed, that specific environmental impacts would be reviewed. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the deletion of Via Rio Temecula, Senior Engineer Algeria relayed that staff had reviewed the alignment of this road and the parcel map to the south of this project, providing additional information. Senior Planner Hogan noted that when the General Plan was originally prepared the circulation map this particular road was not precisely located, relaying that it was a conceptual road intended to link with the existing roadway south of the homes located to the east and ultimately to link with Jedediah Smith Road; advised that the preliminary traffic analysis revealed that this road would have limited trips and hence the Planning and Public Work Departments would be recommending approval of this amendment when it was presented before the Planning Commission; and for Commissioner Webster, advised that staff had no knowledge with respect to a proposed timeframe for creek improvements, or if the creek would be improved in this area. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan clarified the conceptual location of Via Rio Temecula, confirming that there was no project between this proposal and the creek. In response to Commissioner Webster, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that during the circulation update process there had been an additional creek crossing added from the vicinity of this area across Temecula Creek, noting that the exact location had not been identified and was not a part of the current circulation element. For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that if there were concerns regarding Design Guidelines that those comments should be expressed at this time, advising that the proposal, if approved, would become the zoning and the standards for the property unless the Commission opted to not proceed as proposed, and to add language that allows for future changes or flexibility. With respect to the parking requirements (referencing page 3, paragraph C), Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern regarding the adequacy of the parking requirements, noting the potential for restaurant uses of this site; and requested that this language be stricken from the Design Guidelines and be developed at the time specific developments are presented. Additional discussion ensued regarding the anticipated trip generation (ATG). Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the initial study was solely based on the zoning, noting that when the development plans were presented there would be a detailed traffic and biological analysis. PlanComm/minutes10621 O0 Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the ATG's would be corrected prior to this data going forward to the City Council. For the record, Chairman Guerriero, and Commissioner Webster relayed that they had met with the applicant and the applicant's representatives. Mr. Chris Smith, representing the applicant, provided a history of their development in the Temecula area; presented a project history since the late 1980's inclusive of past proposals and litigation, noting that for the past year-and-a-half the applicant had been working with the City with respect to a site plan which culminated into this particular proposed project; and for Commissioner Mathewson, reiterated that the project would generate more than 2,000 trips a day. Mr. Timothy Jay Miller, attorney representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the proposal, referencing the General Plan; and relayed further specification regarding the Z3 zoning designation. Mr. Daniel Gehman, representing the applicant, addressed the Design Guidelines developed for this specific proposal; relayed that access to the uses which would most likely be frequented often would not require a vehicular trip away from the site; specified the proposed village area, the retail/support services area, and a series of pedestrian/bicycle paths which would link the various functions of the site together; and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that with respect to the pedestrian path along the creek, various concepts for access from this area to the residential area, noting that the specific route had not been identified. With respect to the area along the creek, Associate Planner Thomas advised that staff would recommend that the path be accessible to the public. In response, Mr. Gehman relayed the applicant's agreement with the recommendation. Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, relayed for the record that this proposal was not consistent with the City's approved Growth Management Plan; referencing the policy, noted that Genera/Plan amendments and changes of zones should be denied within the City that result in increased traffic levels during the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) Planning process; and relayed the following additional language: analyze the circulation system impacts as they re/ate to proposed land-use changes along the 79 SouthA/Vinchester corridor and the 79 South Corridor. Traffic modeling shall be performed for any changes as part of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) process. The cities shall verify the results of the modeling; and advised that this project had not been adequately modeled or verified. For Mr. Lynn, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that this proposal did not currently have a density range attached to the residential area, noting that staff was of the opinion that with the proposed mixed uses, this project would be effective in keeping vehicles off the streets and providing areas where people could live and walk to services, advising that the proposal was consistent with the General Plan, clarifying staff's support of the project; and noted that Mr. Lynn raised a good point with respect to the Growth Management Action Plan. PlanComm/minutes/0621 O0 In response, Mr. Lynn reiterated that the proposed project encompassed a change of zone; and queried whether the City's General Plan would be changed to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan. In response, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that the General Plan would be amended, noting that elements of the Growth Management Action Plan would be taken into account. Ms. Albia Miller (relaying at this point in the meeting that she was a resident of Wildomar) noted her concern with additional development, specifically with respect to traffic impacts; and noted her recommendation for the City to focus on environmental issues. Mr. Smith urged the Commission to consider an equitable decision with respect to the landowner, noting the current tax cost of $200,000-250,000 per year that the applicant had paid for the infrastructure in this area; and advised that the village concept would be successful at this particular location. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, for clarification, Senior Planner Rockholt relayed that based on the General Plan's analysis, there would be 480 ADT's per acre, noting that there were 32 acres which would encompass approximately 13,000 ADT's, relaying that the traffic analysis data for this specific proposal had denoted 11,400 trips per day. The Commission relayed its conclusions, as follow,~: Commissioner Fahey relayed concern with respect to clarification in the staff report regarding the traffic impacts, recommending that the Commission not move forward with this project until the matter had been clarified, and until there was additional specificity with respect to how this project corresponds with the Growth Management Plan adopted by the City Council; advised that if the traffic thresholds were lower than what was originally planned for this area, then the Growth Management Plan Guidelines would be met; and recommended continuing the matter. In concurrence with Commissioner Fahey, Commission Mathewson recommended continuing the matter; relayed his concern with respect to the Design Guidelines, the consistency with the Growth Management Plan, and the proposed zone change to allow for high density residential; in light of the fact of the pending housing element update which would be presented to the Commission at a future date, noted that he was not in a position to approve an additional multi-family area without a good basis of what the updated housing element would reveal in terms of policies and guidelines; relayed that at this point he would be uncomfortable approving any project that encompassed a multi- family residential area; and noted that while he was a strong supporter of the village concept, it would be his desire to have the housing element data prior to moving forward with this proposal. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he shared a level of discomfort with the unknown factors, noting that he would like to see a draft copy of the housing element in order to review the density issues; advised that he favored the village concept; and relayed that he would be reluctant to approve the project until the previously-mentioned issues were addressed. PlanComm/minutes/062100 Commissioner Webster relayed that this project was completely in conformance with the General Plan, noted that the proposed mixture of uses would be appropriate for this location; with respect to the Growth Management Policy, which was prepared by the City Council without input form the Planning Commission or any of the City's Commissions, noted that it was in direct conflict with the City's goals and elements in the General Plan; advised that there was an existing Growth Management Element within the General Plan that had specified standards, noting that the City had not followed through with the guidelines; reiterated that this project was in conformance with the General Plan, reiterating that the Growth Management Policy was not; advised that with respect to future development approvals within this project site the crucial issues would be the schedule of permitted uses and the Design Guidelines; relayed that the Design Guidelines should be more specific, recommending minor enhancements to the Design Guidelines, specifically with respect to the multi-family residential area; noted the extreme shortage of high density affordable housing; advised that to ensure an effective village center, there would need to be a higher core of residential surrounding the village center; with respect to the layout of the multi-family residential area, recommended modifications with respect to the perimeter parking, recommending more of a garden- style apartment complex; with respect to the far west end of the property in the retail/support commercial area, recommended that this area comply with the Neighborhood Center Guidelines within the City's Design Guidelines; and recommended moving forward with this project with the modified Design Guidelines. Chairman Guerriero relayed that he, too, was in favor of the village concept; advised that due to the lack of employment in this area, ultimately the residents residing at this location would be driving in order to commute to work; relayed that he had discussed with the applicant his concern regarding the multi-family density area while acknowledging the lack of affordable housing in Temecula; noted that his primary concerns were the traffic flows on Highway 79, and the high density areas and its impact upon the schools; relayed that in his opinion the Growth Management Plan was designed for large-scale developments (i.e., Wolf Creek); and noted that he concurred with Commissioner Webster in moving forward with the project with modifications with respect to the density range and with respect to the traffic impacts. For clarification, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the traffic study did show a reduction in the generation of traffic trips based on the zoning change by approximately 1500 trips a day; with respect to the housing element update, advised that she did not foresee any negative impacts with the State regarding adding additional multi-family areas; and advised that it would be 30-60 days before the draft form of the element would be presented to the Commission. Commissioner Fahey relayed that while this project was an appropriate development for this area, that it was vital that the staff report was accurate; recommended that the Growth Management Plan be addressed; concurred with revising the Design Guidelines; and recommended continuing this matter to address these issues. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue this item to the July 19, 2000 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion was amended.) 9 PlanComm/minutes/062100 Mr. Smith respectfully requested the Commission to vote for or against the proposal, noting his opposition with respect to the continuance; and relayed that the applicant's traffic engineer was available for questions. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to deny the project, as proposed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and roll call vote reflected denial of the motion, as follows: 2/310/0 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Mathewson, and Telesio. Fahey, Guerriem, and Webster. None. None. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the project and that the Commission provide specific guidelines with respect to the Design Guidelines being modified, that specific data be relayed to the City Council with respect to the traffic study, and that there be clarification with respect to the Growth Management Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster. (Ultimately this motion was withdrawn.) Planning Manager Ubnoske suggested that the Commission's comments could be e- mailed to staff in order to ensure that all concerns were relayed in the staff report prior to the item being presented to the City Council. Commissioner Webster recommended that the revisions be specified at this time in order for the applicant to comment. Commissioner Telesio relayed that his concern was respect to the high density, the traffic impacts, and the relationship between the proposal and the Growth Management Plan. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Smith reiterated staff's comments that the project would decrease the trip generation by 1500 trips a day, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the proposal was for a PDO which staff would be reluctant to move forward on with the project without the establishment of Design Guidelines. Commissioner Webster recommended that the City's Design Guidelines be adopted with this project, with the understanding that as specific projects proceed through the development process, additional detail would be investigated. Commissioner Fahey commented regarding development projects coming before the Planning Commission, relaying that there would be an opportunity to apply the Growth Management Policy standards at that time. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed her concern with respect to the PDO being adopted with the City's Design Guidelines, requesting that height and setback standards be established. At this time, Commissioner Fahey withdrew her previous motion. 10 PlanComm/min utes1062100 MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve the project with the following modifications: to adopt the Village Guidelines setforth in the applicant's proposal and to reference the City's Design Guidelines for the multi-family residential, retail, and commercial areas. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Commissioner Mathewson relayed that due to the issues that have not been addressed, he could not support the project at this time. Commissioner Telesio noted that he could support the continuance; and relayed that it was the applicant's desire that the Commission vote to either approve or deny this project, opting not to have the item continued. For Commissioner Fahey, Attorney Diaz confirmed that the Commission could move to continue the matter, if that was the desire. At this time roll call vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion, as follows: 3121010 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Fahey, Guerriero, and Webster. Mathewson, and Telesio. None. None. COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Fahey relayed that for future redesign projects, staff may want to visit a Rancho Bernardo site that had been recently redesigned, commending the strip mall's new appearance; and specified that the site was located on the corner of Pomerado Road and Rancho Bernardo. For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that in August the Commission appointments would be made for the expired terms. With respect to the memorandum summarizing the mall site issues, Commission Mathewson queried whether the landscaping berm at Margarita Road behind the Power Center had been fully addressed. In response, Chairman Guerriero provided additional information, noting the applicant's willingness to place additional landscaping in the area. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he was concerned with the visual appearance of the plastic barrier proximate to the middle loading dock that was torn. Chairman Guerriero noted that the roadwork on Margarita Road, south of Moraga Road had still not been completed, advising that the area was a traffic hazard. With respect to the Promenade housing tract across from the mall site, Chairman Guerriero noted the lack of landscaping on the berm. 11 PlanComm/minutes/062100 Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that there had been irrigation problems, and noted that she would follow-up with this issue and provide Chairman Guerriero an update. Chairman Guerriero commended the McMillin Development for their landscape efforts, which greatly enhance Rancho California Road. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske commended Associate Planner Donahoe for her efforts in the development of the memorandum regarding the mall site concerns. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the City's operating budget and the CIP would be presented to the City Council next week. ADJOURNMENT At 8:32 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, July 5, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. R'on Gu~rri~, Chairm--an - D~bbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager 12