Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111799 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER t7, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:03 P.M., on Wednesday November 17, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Naggar. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, Naggar, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Engineer Alegda, Attorney Curiey, Senior Planner Fagan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner DeGange, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Public Comments portion of the meeting was considered out of order; see page 13. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Approval of Minutes-October 20~ 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the minutes, as wdtten. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3. Director's Hearing Update Senior Planner Fagan was available for questions from the Commission. PlanComn~minutes/111 ?9g PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Planning Application No. PA99-0296 (Tentative Tract Map No. 24136) Request to subdivide 99.8 acres into 397 residential lots and 22 open space lots. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (of record), highlighting location, access, densities, and landscaping; noted that staff had received expressed concam from the adjacent neighboring residents regarding the potential for the development of apartments; advised that when the residents were notified that this particular project was proposing a senior community, the residents concerns were allayed, and there was no opposition to this particular project; for Commissioner Webster, noted that if in the future the applicant opted not to restrict occupancy to seniors only, that the applicant would have to revise the map, or not record it, clarifying that the proposed map was designed for a senior-occupied development. Mr. Bob Davis, representing the applicant, advised that there was a significant reduction in the traffic trip generation associated with a senior housing development in comparison to regular residential dwellings, noting the additional variant between retirement senior communities, encompassing non-working residents, and senior communities, encompassing working residents. In response to Commissioner Naggar's queries with respect to the degree of sloping, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided clarification regarding the permitted 2/1 ratio for sloping in this particular area. For Commissioner Naggar, Senior Planner Fagan provided additional information regarding the controversial sloping at the Campos Verdes site; and noted that the slopes on this particular project were located on the perimeter of the project. Via overhead grading maps, for Commissioner Naggar, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks further specified the location and degree of the proposed graded sloping at this particular site; and with respect to circulation, noted that Margarita Road would have two lanes of travel in each direction when the first phase of the project was completed; advised that the proposed Margarita Road Improvement Project (included in the ClP) had been funded for the design portion of the project, and would be inclusive of a center raised landscaped median with left-turn lanes, and two lanes of travel in each direction; relayed that although the City would reimburse the applicant, this particular project (as well as, the Home Depot Project) had been conditioned to install the signal at Margarita Road/De Portola Road prior to occupancy; and advised that this project was not conditioned to construct additional road improvements due to the lack of a nexus between the impact of traffic generated from the particular proposal and the traffic generation on Margarita Road. PlanConlm/minutesJl 11799 By way of photographs, Commissioner Naggar relayed his concem with respect to the front setbacks in the garage area, and the negative pedestrian impact if the setback did not allow enough room for vehicles to park in the ddveway without blocking the sidewalk. Senior Planner Fagan advised that the driveway setback standards were part of the criteria specified in Specific Plan, which had already been adopted. In response to Commissioner Naggar's querying, after additional investigation of the previously approved exhibits, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that a minimum 18- foot driveway setback (measured from the curb, or the sidewalk) would be permitted on the senior project. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the sidewalk would be six feet wide, inclusive of a six-inch curb. Senior Planner Fagan noted that the variant in the measuring of the setback (from the curb, or the sidewalk) was due to the streets in the subdivision solely installing sidewalks on one side of the street, and that the dwellings without sidewalks, therefore, would be measured from the street. For Commissioner Fahey, Associate Planner Donahoe confirmed that the standards associated with the sidewalks and setbacks had already been approved in the Specific Plan; and clarified that approval of this project would be based on the development providing a senior community, noting that if the applicant decided to allow non-senior residents, there would most likely be a required design change. Attorney Curiey specified that the Specific Plan criteria for this particular project would be limited to accommodating senior residents, noting that if the applicant elected to allow non-senior occupancy, at that time the applicant would have to come back to the City to modify the approval; advised that the land use entitlements were enforceable; and noted that a Condition could be added requiring that any modifications in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) of the property be reviewed by the City Attorney pdor to becoming effectual. At this time Chairman Guerriero closed the public headng. Although the lot sizes were small, Commissioner Naggar relayed that he could support the reduced lot sizes since the project was designed as a senior community; and recommended that the driveway setback standard be revised to maintain a minimum of 20 feet. For Commissioner Naggar, Attorney Curley advised that the most appropriate time to have modified the setback standard would have been when the Specific Plan was presented and approved; noted that the subdivision proposed at this time did not incorporate the design elements; relayed that it could be recommended that the applicant attempt to extend the length of the setback, if possible; and provided additional information regarding the adoption of a Specific Plan. Commissioner Naggar queried whether the Commission's purview was inclusive of regulating the densities within the specified range. PlanComm/minutes1111799 Attorney Curley advised that if the Commission could make a finding that this particular project was not in compliance with the approved Specific Plan, it would be within the purview of the Commission to deny, or Condition the project regarding that matter; and relayed that the finding in the staff report (of record) stated that the project was within the parameters of the stipulated densities. For clarification, Senior Planner advised that the denoted density specified in the proposal was the minimum density proposed for the subdivision. Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Fahey, recommended that there be an additional Condition of Approval (COA), stating that the CC&R's could not be amended or otherwise modified without the review of the City Attorney, in order to regulate the restricted senior-only occupancy. Commissioner Mathewson relayed concurrence with the above-mentioned additional COA; and with respect to the setback distance, requested staff to direct the applicant to strive to maintain a minimum 20-foot front setback. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to approve staff recommendation, and to add the following additional Condition: PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0296 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24136, AMENDMENT NO. 2) TO SUBDIVIDE A 99,8 GROSS ACRE PARCEL INTO 396 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 2'1 OPEN SPACE PARCELS LOCATED NORTH OF DE PORTOLA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF MONTELEGRO AND LEENA WAYS, WITHIN PLANNING AREA 8 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219 (PALOMA DEL SOL) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 950-471-001 THROUGH - 021 AND 950-472-001 THROUGH -026 AND 950-473- 001 THROUGH -017 AND 950-481-001 THROUGH -015 AND 950-482-001 THROUGH -024 AND 950-020-004, - 027 AND -029. Add · A Condition stating that the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) associated with this project shall not be amended or otherwise modified at any time without the review of the City Attorney. The motion was seconded by Commission Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PlanCommlrnin utes/l 11799 5. Planning Application No. PA97-0376 (Development Plan) Request to design and construct 152,000 square foot wholesale retail warehouse and associated gasoline station situated on a t 6.24-acre site. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Via overheads, Project Planner DeGange provided a detailed overview of the project (of record), noting that this particular project was being proposed in two phases; highlighted site design, location, access, the location of the tire center, landscaping, and architecture (inclusive of the enhanced articulation designed for the purpose of breaking up the massing of the building); relayed that the applicant and staff had worked for approximately a year on the proposal for this particular project, noting the applicant's willingness to cooperate with staff's recommendations; for Commissioner Webster, provided additional information regarding Condition No. 9 (associated with regulating the outdoor display area); for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the gasoline sales area would solely sell gasoline; and specified that the tires sales area would be inclusive of two service bays; and provided additional information regarding the landscape screening of the bay doora. With respect to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Mitigation Monitoring Program for area No. 2, Commissioner Webster relayed his queries regarding the lack of provisions for a Park and Ride Facility; and noted that since each Development Plan was required to provide a supplemental traffic analysis, recommended that for future projects staff forward that data to the Commission. In response to Commissioner Webster's query, regarding the requirement for the City to provide a Transportation Systems Management Program, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the program was not available for review, noting that it had not been completed at this time. For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided clarification regarding the relocation of the signal during Phase II of the project; referenced Condition No. 44 (per supplemental agenda material), relaying that left-out movements would be restricted; and advised that the project would be conditioned to install a raised median (denoted in Condition Nos. 43, and 44). In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer representing the applicant, relayed that the existing facility was approximately 120,000 square feet, noting that due to the increase in square footage (to 152,000 square feet) the proposed facility would generate twenty-six percent (26%) additional trips; and advised that in conjunction with the additional trips generated from the gas sales area, the total increase would be approximately thirty-five percent (35%). In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments regarding the proposed raised median, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there would be left-turning lanes installed in the 14-foot median area, noting there would be an attempt to maintain a PianComm/minutesl111799 minimum four-foot width in that specific area; and specified the portion of the median that would potentially be landscaped. For Chairman Guerriero, Senior Engineer Alegria relayed that the distance from Ynez Road to the restricted driveway entrance would be approximately 600 feet. Mr. Peter Clement, architect representing the applicant, provided an overview of the proiect, addressing the following: · Introduced the development team for this particular project. · Presented the site planning of the building footprint, specifying the location of the perimeter road around the building, the loading area, and the tire sales area. · Noted the access provisions at the site. · Noted that the applicant was in the process of negotiating with the Regional Water Quality Board in order to obtain clearance for the Phase II proposed plan to cover the channel, and implement an additional access point at the future mall access road. · Provided further specification regarding the shipping\receiving area, specifying the truck access; and noted the limited deliveries and receiving times which take place prior to the store opening due to Cosco operating their own depot facility. Presented an overview of the gas station access, relaying the designed provisions for the associated traffic movements. Mr. Mike Greer, landscape architect representing the applicant, relayed the following: · Noted the applicant's efforts to develop a landscape plan consistent with the Specific Plan and Cosco's standards which was to install a Iow maintenance landscape plan with an aesthetically pleasing appearance. · Relayed that the project had exceeded the landscape requirements. · Provided additional information regarding the proposed caf6-type outdoor eating area, inclusive of colored paving, pedestrian-scale lights, canopy treatments on the building, and additional landscaped planters separating the outdoor eating area from the driveway. · With respect to the receiving area, highlighted the screening, inclusive of an approximate 8-foot wall, and the installation of evergreen pines. Specified the driveway treatments, inclusive of accent planting, and hedging (with the addition of trees) proposed around the perimeter of the parking lot; and relayed the proposed plan to screen the tire sales area. · Relayed the corner design landscape elements, consistent with the mall treatments. Mr. Clement continued his presentation, addressing the following: PlanCom~minutes/111799 Specified the enhanced architectural detail treatment, inclusive of the tile inlay, the smooth-faced and split-faced block, and the cornice elements, designed to add visual interest. · Noted the additional amhitectural enhancements located at the tire center, inclusive of the peaked roofs, and the trelliswork. · With respect to Condition No. 20 (regarding application, fees, and recordation) requested that the condition be modified to be required prior to a Certificate of Occupancy, in lieu of prior to the Issuance of Building Permits, noting that the Condition, as stated, would censtdct the permitting schedule process. · With respect to Condition No. 31 (regarding the Tentative Parcel Map) requested that the condition be modified to be required prior to a Certificate of Occupancy, rather than prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit, as stated. With respect to Condition No. 18 (regarding bicycle racks) requested that the number of bicycle racks required be reduced to a minimum of 10-12. For Chairman Guerdero, Mr. Clement confirmed that this particular project would be similar in design to the Santa Barbara Cosce site. In response to Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Clement further specified the parking provisions; and relayed that if the applicant was restricted from the implementing the proposed channel improvements, that there would still be adequate provisions for parking. With respect to Chairman Guerriero's comments regarding the area at Ynez Road between the new mall access and Overland Drive, Mr. Clement initially relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to adding a 2-3 foot berm in order to reduce the visual impact from Ynez Road. Regarding the above-mentioned additional landscaping, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that there might be existing restrictions regarding the blocking of the view corridor, restricting the applicant from adding a berm; and advised that the project could be conditioned to add the additional berm per staff recommendation in order to investigate the feasibility of the recommendation. After additional discussion with the applicant's civil engineer, Mr. Clement relayed the restrictions that could potentially restdct the installation of a berm (in the area of discussion). For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Clement further specified the landscape planters in the gasoline sales area; and for informational purposes, relayed that it would be an unmanned gas station, by which gasoline would be purchased via the use of a membership card, followed by the use of a debit or credit card; for Commissioner Fahey, specified the hours of operation of the gas station from approximately 6:30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.; relayed that there would be increased queuing, and four pump islands to alleviate the traffic impact due to the vast number of patrons who utilize the gas sales area; with respect to Commissioner Webster's comments regarding if in the future there was traffic 7 PlanConu~minutesJ111799 impacting the mall perimeter read due to the gas sales area, noted that the applicant would most likely install an additional pump island to mitigate that impact; specified the matedal of the canopy and cornice elements at the gas sales area; provided additional information, with respect to the pop-out wall elements, and the fascia elements; and relayed that although there would not be a pedestrian pass (denoted in the Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan) installed, there would be additional width in the ddve aisles. Mr. Edc ArmstronR, civil en,clineer representin,cl the applicant, presented the followinR: · With respect to the Chairman Guerdero's recommendation to install a berm along Ynez Road, relayed that there was a proposed grass filter swale for storm water run-off, which would conflict with the installation of a berm; and for Commissioner Mathewson, further specified the location of the filter swale. · W~th respect to Commissioner Mathewson's quedes regarding the permitting for the proposed channel improvements, noted that the applicant had received clearance from the Army Corps of Engineers, relaying that the permit (401 Permit) requires clearance from the San Diego Regional Water Control Board, noting that this clearance was in the process of being negotiated, specifying the issues at hand; and relayed that within a three-month pedod the applicant would be appdsed of the Regional Board's final conditions; and noted that the existing condition of the channel was growth due to hydroseed. With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's concerns, Project Planner DeGange relayed that the project had been conditioned to architecturally screen the air conditioning units if there was visibility from the line-of-sight at Ynez Road. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Greet further specified the landscape plan with respect to the loading dock area, noting the proposal to install 15-gal'Ion pine trees. With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's concerns regarding adequately screening the loading area, Mr. Clement relayed that the applicant would be willing to add additional trees or larger-sized trees, if that was the desire of the Commission. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Clement noted that all of the lettered signage would be illuminated. Project Planner DeGange relayed that there were no required motorcycle parking spaces for this proposed project due to the project exceeding the overall parking requirements. Mr. Clement further specified the provision for handicapped parking, noting the approximate five-foot walkway. In response to Commissioner Fahey's quedes regarding an alternate plan if the applicant was restricted from installing the additional parking dudng Phase II of the project, the applicant relayed that there would be additional analysis conducted; and noted that the applicant would be willing to have the project conditioned to submit an additional landscape plan if the proposed Phase II plan was not implemented, as proposed. 8 PlanC omm/minutes/ll1799 The Commission relayed their concludin,q remarks, as follows: · ~ Commissioner Fahey relayed that she could support the request to reduce the number of bicycle racks required (denoted in Condition No. 18); and recommended conditioning the project to submit an additional landscape plan if the Phase II plan was not implemented. ~ Commissioner Mathewson applauded staff and the applicant for the excellent work associated with the amhitectural articulation which effectively served to break up the mass of the building; and recommended that additional landscaping be added in the following areas: 1) the loading dock, 2) the gas station area, and 3) along the northern elevation adjacent to the perimeter read; concurred with the request for a reduction in the bicycle racks requirement, and the request to revise Condition Nos. 20, and 31 (to revise the conditions to be required to Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy); and relayed his support of the project. ~ Regarding the Planning Application, Commissioner Webster relayed the following comments: with respect to the gas station, relayed concern regarding the lack of parking provisions if this area was utilized during Phase I; with respect to the east elevation, recommended the addition of additional pop-out elements to improve the continuity; with respect to the west elevation, specifically, at the tire installation area, recommended the addition of a roof element; requested that staff review the size of the trim and fascia details in relation to the size of the building to ensure that the articulation was adequately substantial; and within the parking lot area, requested staff to ensure that there would be adequate shopping cart storage provisions. > With respect to the CEQA portion of the project, Commissioner Webster relayed that he could not make a finding of consistency due to the outstanding issues with the Mitigation Monitoring Program; recommended continuing the project until these issues had been addressed; for Commissioner Naggar, relayed that there were specific Mitigation Measures required for the Specific Plan that had not been implemented; noted that the Mall, the Power Center, and the Cosco development projects compdse the majority of the Specific Plan, advising that he could not make a finding of consistency due to the Mitigation Measures not being addressed at any of the aforementioned sites; for Senior Planner Fagan, specified his concems, as follows: the lack of provisions for a Park and Ride facility, a Transportation Systems Management Program, and a Transportation Systems Plan. The followin,q discussion ensued re,qardin,q Commissioner Webster's comments: With respect to the Transportation System Management Program, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the standard procedure was for the employer to provide the alternate transportation program after the onset of operation; specified that the plan had been prepared for the Mall site, and the Power Center site, relaying that it would be prepared for the Cosco development at a future point in time; and recommended that the project be conditioned to submit a Transportation Management Program prior to an Issuance of a Building Permit. For Commissioner Fahey, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that there was property located east of this site within the Specific Plan which could be utilized for a PlanComm/minutes/111799 Park and Ride facility at a future point in time; relayed that a portion of the Mall site could be fenced off for provision of a Park and Ride facility; and confirmed that there were altemate project sites that could fulfill the provisions of a Park and Ride Facility within this Specific Plan. For information purposes, Attorney Cudey advised that while the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) did reference the existence of a Park and Ride facility pending, it did not appear to require the facility as a mitigation measure; noted the lack of cladty with respect to requiring implementation of a Park and Ride Center; and relayed that the clear requirement was for a future Transit Transfer Station. Referencing Mitigation Measure No. 27, Commissioner Webster advised that the Transportation Management Program had been required to be submitted prior to or concurring with development approval. With respect to the Park and Ride facility, Commissioner Webster relayed that the major tenants have filled the Specific Plan Area, noting the limited available options for resolving the traffic impact for the projects; and advised that while the language of the mitigation measures lacked specificity, it was his interpretation of the document that there should be a Park and Ride facility implementation plan at this point in time. In response to Commissioner Fahey's comments, Commissioner Webster reiterated the requirement for a Transportation Management Program to be submitted pdor to or concurring with development approval. Referencing Mitigation Measure Nos. 27 and 27.3, regarding the specific process, Senior Planner Fagan relayed the language referencing review and approval of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans, stating mitigation milestone p/for to the Issuance of Building Permits, advising that the language would adequately address this issue. With respect to Commissioner Naggar's quedes regarding the Park and Ride Facility, Attorney Curley relayed the vagueness of the language with respect to this particular issue; and advised that there was a requirement for the provision of a future development of a Transit Transfer Station, reiterating that the requirement states that provisions be made (i.e., a comprehensive plan). Commissioner Webster relayed that he had addressed the aforementioned EIR issues at the time the initial mall site plans were submitted; and, additionally, specified that the City was required to provide a Transportation Systems Management Program to be implemented. For Commissioner Webster, Associate Planner Donahoe relayed that per discussions with Senior Engineer Moghadam, it had been noted that the mall site was not a desirable location for the Park and Ride facility due to the mall site's existing attraction of traffic; and for informational purposes, relayed that there was an existing facility located at W~nchester Road and Ynez Road. For Commissioner Naggar, Attorney Curley relayed that he could not advise the Commission as to whether the Mitigation Measures had been met; and advised that the Commission could rely on the Public Works Department for that information. 10 PlanComm/minutes/111799 With respect to the Park and Ride facility referenced (located on Winchester and Ynez Roads), Commissioner Webster relayed that this facility was not located within the Specific Plan Area. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would need to provided further investigation to address Commissioner Webster's cencems; with respect to the Transportation Systems Management Program, advised that there was an existing bus system within the City, inclusive of a bus turnout at the mall site; noted that a separate consultant had been hired to address the mitigation issues for this project, relayed that staff could obtain additional information via additional investigation; and relayed that at this time Commissioner Webster's comments could not be specifically addressed. The Commission's concluding remarks continued, as follows: > Commissioner Webster recommended continuing the proposed project in order for staff to address the previously discussed concerns. ,- Commissioner Naggar relayed that he could support continuing the project in order for staff to obtain additional information; commended the applicant for his cooperation in working with the City to develop the proposed project; and commented on the asset that this particular project would provide by reducing the vehicle trip generation on W)nchester Road by 6,000 trips. Attorney Curiey advised the Commission that if the project was to be continued, that the Commission relay their comments regarding the request to revise the COA's in order for staff to bdng back the amended conditions. > Relaying all due respect to Commissioners Webster and Naggar, Commissioner Mathewson relayed his opposition to continuing this project due to the issues of concern not being specifically associated with this particular development; recommended that the issue of provision of a Transportation Systems Management Program be conditioned to be provided pdor to the Issuance of Permits; and with respect to the Park and Ride facility, recommended that staff address that matter, and then bdng back to the Commission the location and timing specification of the implementation of the development of the facility. > Relaying concurrence with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner Fahey relayed that it was not appropriate to condition this particular project with respect to the Park and Ride facility; and concurred with conditioning the project with respect to the Transportation Management Plan. Mr. Clement relayed concurrence with Commissioner Mathewson's and Fahey's comments. ,- With respect to the revised Condition No. 43 (denoted on the supplemental agenda material) Chairman Guerriero recommended that the term landscaped median be added back into the Condition, which had been deleted, noting the need for landscaping in that area; and requested that staff work with the applicant to strive to install additional landscaping on Ynez Road, and the mall access road. ti PlanCommlrninutes/l 1 'J 799 For Commissioner Naggar, Attorney Curley reiterated the requirement in the Monitoring Mitigation Program for prevision for development of a future Transit Transfer Station, which was identified in conjunction with a future Park and Ride facility to be provided; and confirmed that staff could address the issue at a future point in time in light of the remaining properties in this regional center. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; approve staff recommendation, with the following modifications: additional landscaping (inclusive of trees) at the loading dock, additional screening around the gas sales area, decrease the bicycle rack requirement to a minimum of 12 bicycle racks, incorporate the revisions to Condition Nos. 20, 31, 43, and 44 (per supplemental agenda material), add an additional condition conditioning the project to submit a landscape plan if the Phase II proposal was not implemented, as proposed, and add an additional condition conditioning the project to submit a Transportation Systems Management Plan prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion. (This motion was revised in order to add additional conditions). Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the project be conditioned to screen the loading dock with the assurance that the area would be completely screened. With respect to the Planning Application, Commissioner Webster reiterated his recommendation that the east elevation be improved with additional pop-outs, and that the roof element above the tire installation area be modified per his previously mentioned recommendation. Commissioner Webster relayed his opinion that this particular project was not consistent with the EIR. AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff recommendation, with the attached modifications. PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0376, DEVELOPMENT PLAN - THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 152,000 SQUARE FOOT WHOLESALE RETAIL WAREHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED GASOLINE STATION SITUATED ON A '16.24 ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 910-130-047, 9t0-130-052, AND 921-090-048. Add · Additional landscaping (inclusive of additional of larger-sized trees) at the loading dock in order for the area to be completely screened. · Additional landscape screening at the gasoline sales area. 12 PlanComm/minutes/t 11799 · Add an additional Condition with language stating that the project submit a landscape plan if the Phase II plan was not implemented, as proposed. · Add an additional Condition with language stating that the applicant be required to submit a Transportation Systems Management Plan prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. · Add additional pop-out elements on the east elevation in order to improve the continuity. Modify · Revise Condition No. 18 to reduce the number of required bicycle racks to from 38 to 12. · Revise Condition Nos. 20 and 31 to be required prior to Certificate of Occupancy (which would revise the Condition Nos. to reflect Condition Nos. 49, and 50 due to the conditions being re-categorized) · Revise Condition Nos. 43, and 44 as stated in the supplemental agenda material (proposed by the Department of Public Works). · Modify the roof detail elements above the tire installation area per staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster who voted no. At this time the Commission heard the Public Comments portion of the Agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Edward Lindsey, 42375 Camino Merano, representing the Vintage Hills Planned Community Association Board, relayed his concem regarding Parcel No. 27 within the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan ( inclusive of 15 acres, zoned Neighborhood Commercial) with respect to the location of the two proposed entrances off of Pauba Road due to traffic impact associated the location of the entrances. For Mr. Lindsey, Senior Planner Fagan clarified that the proposed location for the driveways were solely conceptual at this point in time, noting that the City had not received a development plan for this site; advised that the Public Works Department would review the access and circulation aspects of the project at the time the development plan was submitted; and relayed that there may not be a Neighborhood Commercial Project proposed at that site. At this time the Commission continued with the regular order of the Agenda, and heard the Planning Manager's Report. 13 plpnCemm/minutes/111799 PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Senior Planner Fagan relayed that the cdteda for the Findings of Convenience or Necessity associated with alcohol establishments would be presented to the Commission at the end of December; and relayed that there would be provision of a GIS map, denoting the existing alcohol uses within the City. B. With respect to the elements associated with the Traditional Neighborhood Design, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that there would be a presentation brought forward to the Commission in December or January. C. Senior Planner Fagan relayed that staff was in the process of preparing a presentation regarding Development Agreements which would be presented to the Commission in the spdng of 2000. D. With respect to Commissioner Webster's request that the traffic reports be included in the agenda material, Senior Planner Fagan relayed the technical nature of the documents; and advised that the executive summary attached to the report be considered for inclusion on the agenda material. E. In response to Chairman Guerfiero's recommendation that a traffic accident report from the Police Departments associated with the specific area be included in the provision of matedal for development projects, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that he would further address the matter with Planning Manager Ubnoske. F. With respect to Commissioner Webster's recommendation to resolve the Mitigation Monitoring Program measures for the previously discussed Specific Plan, Senior Planner Fagan advised that staff would resolve the issues, updating the Commission with respect to clarification of the language and provisions for the Regional Center. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. Due to his recent election to the City Council, Commissioner Naggar relayed the effective work of the Planning Commission due to their extensive review and discussion of important issues associated with the projects; commended Chairman Guerriero for his dynamic work in chaidng the Commission; and relayed that it had been a pleasure to serve on the Planning Commission. B. With respect to County Supervisors Buster's and Venerable's recent decision to postpone the approval of the Johnson Ranch EIR until fudher discussion with the City of Temecula, Commissioner Naggar commended the Supervisors for their action. C. Commissioner Mathewson relayed best wishes to Commissioner Naggar with respect to his recent election to serve on the City Council; and relayed that he looked forward to working with him in that capacity. D. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planer Fagan relayed that the Wolf Creek Project would be presented to the Commission in mid-February; and advised that 14 PlanCom~minu~e~/11179~ the Roripaugh Ranch Project was still in the process of being analyzed by the Council-appointed Ad hoc Committee. E. Chairman Guerriero commended staff for their diligent efforts associated with the Cosco Project. F. Chairman Guerriero applauded Commissioner Naggar for his recent election to the City Council; and relayed that he would be missed on the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 8:47 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to an adjourned regular meeting on Wednesday, December 8, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron (~u~er6, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager 15