Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120899 PC Minutes MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:03 P.M., on Wednesday December 8, 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 Webster. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners *Fahey, Mathewson, Webster, and Chairman Guerdero. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Senior Engineer Moghadam, Attomey Curiey, Senior Planner Fagan, Senior Planner Hogan, Project Planner Anders, Project Planner DeGange, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:13 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. 2. Approval of Minutes-November 3~ 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve the minutes, as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. 3. Appoint a New Co-Chair person Commissioner Webster nominated Commissioner Mathewson for the position of Vice Chairman of the Commission. Chairman Guerriero nominated Commissioner Webster for the position of Vice Chairman of the Commission. Commissioner Webster highly recommended Commissioner Mathewson for the appointment, and it was the consensus of the Commission to appoint Commissioner Mathewson as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission (Commissioner Fahey was absent). 4. Public Convenience or Necessity for Proposed Ultramar Gas Station By way of overhead maps, Senior Planner Fagan presented the staff report (of record), specifying the location of current licensed alcohol uses within proximity to this particular use. It was noted that Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:13 P.M., For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Fagan provided additional information regarding the justification for the findings of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) with respect to the 10 licenses issued to similar uses within the City; relayed that in the past, the Planning Commission had denied a PCN finding based on that particular use's proximate location to sensitive uses (i.e. school); and confirmed that the Police Department had relayed no opposition to the license issuance for this particular use. In response to Chairman Guerriero's querying, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that staff did not calculate the number of existing licensed establishments within this census zone; noted that at the December 15, 1999 Planning Commission meeting staff would present to the Commission additional information regarding the concentration of existing licensed establishments within corridors of the City, and further specify the types of uses in order for the staff to receive input from the Commission. Mr. Ron Bradley, 30348 Via Canada, relayed that there were no licensed establishments from the 1-15 freeway, east for 10 miles; noted the applicant's willingness to support Sting Operations in cooperation with law enforcement; advised that the applicant and his wife would be managing the store; reiterated that the Police Department expressed no opposition to the licensing of this particular use; and recommended that the Planning Commission make the PNC finding. Mr. Clara Ramsey, the applicant, provided additional information regarding the development plan for this particular use; and relayed that the beer and wine sales would encompass approximately fifteen to twenty percent (15%-20%) of the convenience store's revenues, noting the diminished value of the site if the beer and wine license was not issued. Mr. Wayne Hall, 4231 Agena Street, relayed concern regarding the proliferation of licensed alcohol establishments within the City, specifically with respect to off-site sales; noted that the majority of the illegal sales of alcohol occurred at these particular types of uses; and relayed that due to the proximate existing licensed uses, he was opposed to the finding of Necessity or Convenience. The Commission relayed their concludinf:l remarks, as follows: Commissioner Webster commended staff for the thorough previsions in the agenda material, specifically with respect to the cdteda data; and relayed that he could not justify the PCN finding due to the proximate location of the existing licensed uses. In concurrence with Commissioner Webster's comments, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that at this point he could not make a finding of PCN due to the existing licensed establishments, specifically in light of the location of the licensed use across the street. Commissioner Fahey advised that since she was not present for the staff report, she would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda Item. Chairman Guerriero relayed that per his previous contact with ABC regarding the number of existing licenses within this particular census zone he was concerned with the proliferation of such uses in this particular area; referenced his work with the School District, educating children and their parents with respect to the ills of alcohol and drug abuse; and noted that he would have difficulty supporting the finding due to the number of proximate existing licensed establishments. For Commissioner Mathewson, Chairman Guerdero noted that via his conversations with ABC, the concentration of licensed uses was directed by the City or the County thereof, and was, at times, politically based. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to deny the finding of Public Convenience or Necessity. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Plannin~l Application No. PA97-0307 {Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627) Request to subdivide an approximate 37-acre parcel into 19 commercial lots and one open space lot. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Chairman Guerdero relayed that due to the delayed attendance of the applicant, it had been requested that this Agenda Item be considered out of order, postponing the matter until the applicant arrived. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to hear this Agenda item out of order, postponing the matter until the applicant ardved. Chairman Guerdero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. (This Agenda Item was considered after Agenda Item No. 7. See page 8.) 6. Plannin.q Application Nos. PA99-0243 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29286); PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment, and PA99-0245 (Zonin~ Amendment) 1) PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) is a request to subdivide 9.75 acres into 38 single family residential lots and tow open space lots that comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification (3-6 dwelling units per acre); 2) PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) is a request to remove the subject site from the Specific Plan OveHay designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan and revert back to the underlying Land Use Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning of the General Plan Land Use map; 3) PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment) is a request to change the existing zoning map from Specific Plan Overlay (SP) to Low Medium (LB) Density Residential which is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Via overhead maps, Project Planner Anders presented a detailed overview of the staff report (per agenda material), highlighting the location of this particular proposal; relayed that due to the site's bifurcation by Margarita Road, both the applicant and staff concur that inclusion in the Specific Plan would be inappropriate; noted that to implement the revision, the proposal required a General Plan Amendment (although the Land Use designation would remain the same), a Zoning Amendment (due to the site's inclusion in the Specific Plan), and approval of a Tentative Tract Map; specified the proposed densities; clarified the access points; relayed that due to contact from the Airport Land Use Commission, the applicant had agreed to condition the project to review by the Airport Land Use Commission; and noted that the Tentative Tract Map had been developed in compliance with the City's Development Code, and the General Plan [relative to the Low Medium (LM) density requirements]. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Anders relayed additional information regarding the requirements of this particular project with respect to the Development Code, and with respect to adherence to architectural standards (which would be approved per a Director's Hearing). In response to Commissioner Webster's and Mathewson's quedes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks cladfled the access provisions, noting the proposed landscaped median on Margarita Road which would limit left-turning movements on Margarita Road; and clarified the right-of-way provisions, which would be consistent with the current circulation plans. Mr. Bill Green, representing the applicant, relayed concurrence with staff's comments; and for Commissioner Fahey, provided additional information regarding the restrictions PlanCornrn/minutes/'i20899 associated with the implementation of two outlets, with respect to concerns relayed from the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. Mr. Bill Storm, the applicant, was available for questions and comments of the Commission; and relayed concurrence with staff's comments. The Commission presented their conclusions, as follows: Commissioner Fahey noted that although she would have preferred larger lot sizes, which would be consistent with the current standards, she was not opposed to the proposed request. In light of the restrictions associated with the access issues associated with this particular site, Commissioner Mathewson relayed no opposition to the proposed project since the Public Works Department was satisfied with the provisions of access. Commissioner Webster relayed concurrence with the Tract Map, as proposed, due to the limitations of the site; recommended that with respect to the architectural standards, that the project be conditioned to require review of the Design Guidelines or a Product Review. Chairman Guerriero relayed concurrence with Commissioner Webster's comments. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; to approve staff's recommendation with the attached conditions. PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP (FIGURE 2-5) OF THE GENERAL PLAN {PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0244) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 640-003 AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) TO LOW MEDIUM (LM) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0245) ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911- 640-003. RESOLUTION NO. 99-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0243 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.75 ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-640-003. Add- . A Condition subjecting the project to review by the Airport Land Use Commission. · A Condition requiring the applicant to submit Design Guidelines for review by the Planning Commission or be subject to Product Review, per staff's and the applicant's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. The applicant provided assurance that this project would reflect sure quality; and relayed a preference that the project be subject to Product Review rather than Design Guidelines Review. Commissioner Webster clarified that the project I~ad been conditioned to either be subject to Design Guidelines Review, or Product Review, specifying the latitude. 7. Rancho Hi,qhlands Drive General Plan Amendment (Planninc~ Aoolication PA99-0451) Request to amend the General PLan Land Use Map to change the Land Use Designation for a portion of the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan from Open Space to Highway Tourist Commercial. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Relaying that this proposal, if approved, would be the fourth Land Use Element Amendment for the year of 1999, Senior Planner Hogan provided an overview of the staff report (of record); referenced sections of the Specific Plan (per agenda material) with respect to the Grading Plan, and the Open Space/Recreation area; provided additional information regarding the incorrect denoted acreage in the Planning Areas; with respect to Commission querying, relayed that while staff was of the opinion that a Specific Plan Amendment was not necessary, that if it was the Commission's desire, that the matter could be brought back to the Commission at a later date; and with respect to the proposed CIP Project to construct a pedestrian bridge over the Interstate, noted that the specific location of that project had not been determined. The Commission's cenclusionary comments were, as follows: Commissioner Webster queried the lack of provisions in this particular proposal with respect to the requirement to implement a Park and Ride facility, as well as, the requirement to have a Transportation Systems Management Team and the establishment of a coordinator (in Planning Area No. 2) and with respect to Planning Area No. 2, recommended that there be a Specific Plan Amendment to address the revisions in this particular area. In response to Commissioner Fahey's comments regarding the implementation of a Park and Ride facility, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that the original intent of the requirement was that there be consideration of alternative transportation details, noting that a Park and Ride facility would be one option; specified that the language was vague as to specificity, noting that the proposed pedestrian bridge could qualify as meeting this particular requirement. Commissioner Fahey relayed that since there had been no implementation of any alternative transportation plan, that if this particular site was not maintained as Open Space, this site would be the sole area available for meeting that criteria. Chairman Guerriero relayed concurrence with Commissioner Fahey's comments. VVhile concurring with staff's recommendation that revisions were necessitated, Commissioner Webster relayed that with respect to the Land Use Plan and the Grading Plan, this proposal was clearly identified as an Open Space/Slope area; noted the intent for provision of a buffer within this area between the High Density Residential and the Office Professional, and between the freeway and the development on site, which this area satisfied; relayed concern with exceeding the development within Planning Area No. 2, in conjunction with the lack of provision for an alternative transportation element; reiterated the recommendation for a Specific Plan Amendment; and relayed that he was not in favor of this proposal. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to deny staff's recommendation due to the following: 1) the proposal's nonconformance with the Specific Plan, and 2) the plan to develop additional acreage, rather than maintain an Open Space area, noting the associated negative impact with respect to traffic. Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. It was noted that at 6:58 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:09 P.M. At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 5. 5. Plannin.q Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627) Request to subdivide an approximate 37-acre parcel into 19 commercial lots and one open space lot. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Chairman Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this Agenda Item, and therefore left the meeting at 7:10 P.M. (It was noted that Vice Chairman Mathewson would now be presiding.) Via overheads, Project Planner DeGange presented a detailed overview of the project (of record); specified the location of the site, and the proposed lot sizes; relayed the negative effect of the traffic impacts associated with this particular project; specified the adverse effects regarding safety, queuing, merging, and weaving of traffic flows which had been expressed by the Public Works Department and Caltrans with respect to the applicant's proposed inadequate spacing between the 1-15 freeway southbound offramp and the proposed access into the site (which was approximately 160 feet); relayed that based on the traffic concerns, staff was of the opinion that the mitigating measures associated with the project did not adequately mitigate the impacts, and that staff had, therefore, performed additional analysis and developed an alternative access point (relocated approximately 250 feet to the west) which would adequately mitigate the impacts; noted that the project would be conditioned to submittal (at a future point in time) of a revised map, denoting a modified access point (250 feet west of the existing access point); provided additional information regarding the adjacent property owner's correspondence with the applicant due to the concern with respect to the prevision of access to the property to the south of this particular project, relaying that the correspondence and the response correspondence from the applicant's representatives had been provided for Commission review (per supplemental agenda material); advised that Deputy Director of Public Works Parks would provide additional information regarding the traffic issues; and with respect to the biological issues associated with this project, specified the mitigation measures, the permitting process, and the Resource Agency approvals required by the applicant. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks reiterated the traffic issues associated with this particular project; referenced a letter from Caltrans dated October 20, 1997, addressing concern with respect to the proposed limited intersection spacing from the 1-15 freeway offramp, noting that Caltrans had recommended that the distance be a minimum of 410 feet, rather than the proposed 160 feet; relayed that although the applicant had made efforts to work with staff with respect to the traffic concerns, that staff was of the opinion that the proposed access point would adversely affect traffic flows; advised that in order to mitigate the issue, staff had proposed an alternate plan, relocating the access point (250 feet west of the existing access point); and introduced Senior Engineer Moghadam, who would present, for demonstration purposes only, a simulated exhibit (via computer software), displaying the flows of traffic with the proposed access point, in comparison to staff's alternate recommended access point. Senior Engineer Moghadam reiterated the prima~ concem with the proposed access point was the proximity to the 1-15 freeway on-and off-ramps; presented a simulated demonstration model, displaying the traffic flows (which incorporated the traffic information from the applicant's data) with the proposed access provision, specifying the significant traffic problems with vehicles attempting to enter the left-turning lane into the project (relative to the inadequate spacing from the offramp); presented the altemate plan developed by staff which was inclusive of relocation of the driveway access 250 feet to the west, displaying the improved flow of traffic; advised that the benefit of the alternate plan was the provision for a longer distance for vehicles (from either the northbound or southbound offramp) to adequately position their vehicles into the appropriate lane for making a left-turn into the site; provided additional information regarding the improved traffic flow from southbound Front Street due to the configuration of this plan; and relayed that in light of the existing conditions in the area, that the alternate plan provided the most viable solution to the circulation issues. For Commissioner Webster, Senior Engineer Moghadam provided the rationale for the software's depiction of the median modification; clarified the restrictions associated with proposing a feasible circulation plan, noting that the alternate plan took into consideration realistic potential movement of vehicles. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that although the applicant offered additional right-of-way provisions, that with the implementation of the alternate plan, that the right-of-way provisions would not be necessa~; advised that the future potential project for a possible relocation of the southbound on-ramp and off-ramp could not be considered for this particular project due to the tentative nature of the proposal. For informational purposes, Senior Engineer Moghadam clarified that the software simulation display provision was new, and had been provided only for demonstration purposes, noting that the applicant's traffic data had been implemented into the program. For Commissioner Fahey, Senior Engineer Moghadam provided additional information to orient the Commission to the streets and configurations depicted in the simulated display. With respect to Vice Chairman Mathewson's comments, Senior Engineer Moghadam provided additional information regarding the differential of access to the site with the proposed access point, and the alternate access point, clarifying the impact associated with vehicles exiting the freeway, specifying the aspects of the alternate configuration which would alleviate this impact. With respect to the alternate plan, Parks provided additional information regarding the location of the signals, and the improved queuing with respect to the alternate plan. For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that the priority and intent of Caltrans was to avoid freeway congestion, noting that the timing of the street signal (controlled by Caltrans) would be affected by their intent to avoid vehicles backing up on the freeway; relayed that the alternate configuration plan would alleviate traffic congestion from Front Street southbound; noted that the Caltrans standard to maintain a minimum 410 foot distance with respect to spacing of signals was not PlanCom mlmlnute~120~99 differentiated by whether the area was urban or rural, noting that Caltrans' preferred spacinR was 525 feet. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed for comparative purposes, that the spacing from the Winchester Road southbound offramp to Jefferson Avenue was 400 feet, and that the spacing from the Rancho California Road southbound offramp to Front Street was 600 feet, noting that this particular project proposed spacing wes 160 feet. W~th respect to Fahey's querying regarding staff developing the alternate plan rather than the applicant, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the applicant's submitted provisions; clarified that the alternate plan would not need to be the final plan, and that the applicant could propose an alternate configuration as long as the 410 foot spacing was maintained; and noted that staff had agreed with the applicant's data with respect to traffic volumes and motions, and that the concern was regarding the weaving issues, the signal timing, and the inadequate provision for spacing. For Commissioner Fahey, Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that if the alternate plan were implemented, additional traffic analysis would not be necessitated; and for Commissioner Webster, provided additional information regarding the ultimate development of the Western Bypass Connection, and the potential to restdct the left- turning motions with respect to this project. In light of the future circulation plans, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the configuration developed by staff would be adequate. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, advised that with respect to the Conditions, at this point he would solely relay the applicant's opposition to Condition No. 14 (regarding the requirement to redesign the proposed access read); noted that although the applicant had been diligently working with staff for many months, he wes troubled with the timing of the presentation of the alternate plan, relaying that the plan had not been presented to the applicant pdor to this meeting; relayed that due to the new material displayed (which the applicant had not had the opportunity to analyze), there was great difficulty in addressing the reconfiguration; noted that the applicant was categorically opposed to the reconfiguration; advised that the applicant had been directed to address the concems referenced in the October 20, 1997 Caltrans letter; provided additional information with respect to the data included in the letter and the applicant's efforts to address the issues over the last year; noted that the applicant had additionally submitted a service station application, indicating that that particular site would be adversely impacted by the presented altemate configuration; relayed that the applicant had utilized an alternate computer software package for analysis, as directed by staff; advised that the applicant's proposed configuration would be a more feasible circulation plan in conjunction with the proposed future circulation elements for this particular area, than staff's configuration; via overheads, specified the proposed ultimate circulation elements with respect to the re-design of the Interchange, relaying that the alternate plan (inclusive of a double T-intersection) would most likely preclude the potential proposal for hook on- and off-ramps; with respect to the impact of the southbound offramp issues, noted that the applicant had provided mitigation for that impact, specifying the applicant's offer to dedicate, and/or bond, or construct an additional lane (denoted in the agenda material); requested a copy of the digital 10 information presented by staff in order to analyze the data; for Commissioner Fahey, clarified that the applicant developed their analysis from the information package the City had directed the applicant to utilize; and advised that per past conversations with the City (i.e. the City Manager, Councilman Roberts) the applicant had relayed their willingness to work with the City on the development of the Ultimate Interchange Design, noting that Development Agreements had been submitted. For Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the flooding issues, and the environmental impacts (specifying the numerous surveys which had been conducted by the applicant); and relayed that that the project had been conditioned with respect to these impacts, and that the applicant was agreeable to the conditions thereof. For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Markham clarified the applicant's additional property site, which encompassed portions of the Murdeta Creek bottom, noting that that property would be held aside for an Open Space parcel. In response to Mr. Markham's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the data utilized in the simulation model presented by Senior Engineer Moghadam was derived from the John Kain report (submitted by the applicant), and that the volumes that were implemented in each configuration presented were representative of the PM peak hour traffic volumes. In response to Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant had offered to accommodate the future reconfiguration plans for the 1-15; advised that the applicant's proposed plan would be more feasible with the Ultimate Interohange Revisions than the alternate plan developed by staff; and in response to Commissioner Fahey's querying with respect to postponing this development until the proposed changes for the Ultimate Interchange Design had been specifically identified, relayed that the applicant had been working on this development for two years, and three months. Mr. John Kain, traffic engineer representing the applicant, relayed that although simulation demonstrations could be helpful, that there were variations in the traffic queues that were represented in the display, specifically with respect to the number of vehicles accessing the project site, represented on the two configurations; noted that while he was sure that staff had not intentionally misrepresented the volumes, that variant elements were denoted on the circulation plans; and advised that the key ultimate solution would be to have staff and the applicant work in conjunction with Caltrans' proposed Loop Design for the Ultimate Interchange Design, in order to accommodate a long-term circulation element for this particular area. For clarification purposes with respect to the simulation display, Vice Chairman Mathewson confirmed that staff would not have intentionally misrepresented data. Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, attorney representing the applicant, relayed for the record that the applicant was opposed to Condition No. 83 (requiring the applicant to comply with the requirements of the Caltrans letter dated October 20, 1997); noted that the applicant had been working with staff with respect to this project since 1997, advising that with the added Condition of No. 83, the applicant could have concentrated their efforts on Caltrans standards rather than the expended efforts to work with staff, inclusive of the 1t conduction of five traffic studies completed in efforts to address staff concerns, and the holding of numerous meetings with staff, if in the final conclusion, the Caltrans standard was what the applicant was required to adhere to; for the record, reiterated the raquiraments referenced in the October 20, 1997 Caltrans letter (per agenda material), addressing the bulleted issues, as follows: 1) with respect to the proposed access to Front Street within the close proximity of the I- 15 ramps, and the required provision for submittals of acceptable traffic patlems on the City's streets, as well as the I- 15 ramps, relayed that the proposed plan does comply with the City's General Plan, and the zoning requirements, 2) with respect to the proposed plan's conflict with a plan by the City to upgrade Front Street and the ramps terminating there as well as the City's proposed Western Bypass, advised that the proposed plan was an intedm solution, acknowledging that the Circulation Element would be revised; recommended that the Commission support this proposed plan which would be a viable interim solution until the Ultimate Interchange Plan was developed, noting that staffs plan would not be instrumental in facilitating the proposed futura circulation improvements for this particular area, 3) with respect to the proposal being required to propose an alternate access point, raeiterated the willingness of the applicant to work with the City with respect to the Ultimate Interchange Design. Mr. Alhadeff relayed that perhaps the reluctance on the part of the City to accept the applicant's proposed plan may have been due to the perception of the applicant's increased property value due to the potential condemnation issues associated with the design of the Ultimate Interchange; reiterated that the applicant had made efforts to work with the City with respect to the Ultimate Interchange Design, submitting Development Agreements; with regard to the simulated configuration presentation, relayed that he was advised that a model could yield different results; referenced the staff report, indicating that staff was of the opinion that the proposed circulation plan would work for the intedm condition; indicated that the volumes referred to in the staff report were representative of the trip generation counts at build out; in conclusion, reiterated the applicant's desire to work with the City with respect to the Ultimate Interchange Design, submitting Development Agreements; reiterated that the applicant conducted five traffic studies in order to address the concerns of staff; with respect to Caltrans comments, relayed that the applicant should not be held captive to an existing condition, noting that the project was in compliance with the City' General Plan, Circulation Element, and Zoning requirements; for informational purposes, indicated that he had submitted data with respect to the past legal issues associated with this parcel and the property to the south of this particular project (per supplemental agenda material) regarding issues of access; and advised that it would have been helpful for the applicant to have had access to the simulation model rel~resenting staff's alternate configuration plan prior to this evening's meeting. Mr. Paul Eldridge, attorney raprasenting the adjacent property owner, relayed the location of the property of discussion located to the south of the particular project, noting that the property was currently landlocked; relayed that although his clients had expressed no opposition to this particular development plan, the recommendation was that the Commission condition the project based on the granting of access to this southem property; acknowledged that there were no legal mandates requiring the Commission to grant this access provision; advised that it should be the goal of any government entity to encourage the most effective and beneficial use of real property, reiterating that his client's property was currently landlocked; specified his client's willingness to work with the applicant to develop an equitable agreement which would 12 PlanCom mi minute'12~gg provide provision of access; cited the Govemment Code, with respect to rights of access; and implored the Commission to consider conditioning this project regarding access provisions to the property to the south of this particular proposal. Mr. Louis Kashmere, 29115 Front Street, relayed his concern with respect to the adverse traffic and access impacts associated with the particular project; noted the current high volumes of traffic in this area; advised that he would not be in favor of the proposed project until he was assured it would not negatively affect his adjacent property; suggested that the City investigate the rationale for the denial of this particular Tract Map when it was presented to the County, prior to the City's incorporation. Mr. Markham clarified for Mr. Kashmere the current traffic analysis with respect to the updated current traffic volumes; provided additional information regarding the previous submittal of a Tract Map to the County by the previous owners, which had been withdrawn, and not denied; provided additional information regarding the Land Use issues; recommended that the Commission approve this project, as proposed with the adoption of a Negative Declaration, as opposed to the requirement for an environmental impact report based on traffic issues; and in response to Commissioner Fahey's querying as to whether a continuance would aid in the addressing of expressed issues of concern, relayed that the applicant would desire an opportunity to analyze the simulation model configuration presented by staff. In response to Mr. Eldridge's comments, Mr. Robert Edmunds, attorney representing the applicant, provided a detailed overview of the issues associated with the access issues associated with the adjacent property (additional information provided in the supplemental agenda material with respect to the legal issues associated with the matter), noting that the legal issues of access were not in legal dispute, relaying that the property was purchased with the knowledge that the parcels were landlocked, specifying the options that were available to the owners; and recommended that the Commission let the issue be resolved in the marketplace. Attorney Curiey provided additional information regarding the Commission's power to condition the project with respect to the provisions of access to the adjacent property, if that was its desire. Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that staff would readily comply with the applicant's desire for the information related to the simulation model; reiterated that the model was solely for the purpose of a demonstration exhibit; and advised that staff did not base their analysis on the simulated model program, but utilized it as a mode of displaying their concerns and the altemate configuration plan. v~r~th respect to Senior Engineer Moghadam's comments, Mr. Alhadeff advised that these types of comments are what the applicant has had to deal with dudng the last few months. The Commissioner's concludin!:l remarks were, as follows: In light of the applicant's desire to review staff's traffic configuration, and the submittal of a plethora of supplemental agenda material which staff and the Commission had not had an opportunity to review, Vice Chairman Mathewson queried the Commission with 13 respect to continuing the matter; and relayed that he could not make an informed decision at this point. In concurrence with continuing the matter, Commissioner Fahey relayed that she could not support a configuration that did not take into account the Ultimate Interchange Design and the future potential cimulation elements; requested that staff address the landlocked property located to the south of this particular proposal with respect to the General Plan; and commended staff for their diligent efforts associated with the presentation of the simulation model, which visually clarified the concerns of staff. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the applicant had a right to have this project considered without the potential freeway and potential circulation revisions due to the fact that there was no approved study, no determined alignment or designated funding for the potential projects; and relayed that if the applicant opted to wait until them was a determined alignment, and designated funding, then at that point these issues could be considered Commissioner Fahey relayed that she could not support either presented configuration plan due to the variables that had not been adequately addressed. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the PSR could potentially be complete in a year, and that funding would then need to be addressed. In response to Commissioner Webster's querying, Attorney Curtey advised that if the PSR were complete, the Commission could consider the elements addressed. For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that although she recalled the past discussions with the applicant regarding a Development Agreement, that neither staff nor the applicant had pursued that specific issue. Due to the unresolved short-term and long-term traffic concems, Commissioner Webster recommended that in the interim pedod of continuance that there be an offer on the applicant's behalf to pursue the Development Agreement in order to address future Ultimate Improvements, rather than the City requiring that the issues be addressed; suggested that with the pursuit of the Development Agreement, that the applicant's proposed plan be approved, adding a Condition requiring provisions of a turn-around at the temporary west end of 79 South, and if need be that the project be conditioned to restrict a certain portion of the property until the Ultimate Interchange Design was completed; relayed that his recommendation would delete Condition No. 14; with respect to Condition No. 83, concurred with the applicant on deleting the condition, unless staff recommended maintaining the requirements, and ignoring the findings; with respect to the access issues related to the property located south of this particular project, recommended that staff and Counsel make a recommendation concerning that issue. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the matter could be continued to the January 19, 2000 meeting. 14 PlanCom mlmlnutes/~ 20~9 MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue the matter to the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected appreval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who abstained. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT ^. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted the provision of additional traffic data in the staff reports due to the expressed concern of the Commission; and queded the Commission as to the detail of traffic data desired. Commissioner Webster relayed that the Commission had relayed to Senior Planner Fagan that the traffic data's attached executive summary would be sufficient provision of data. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the current Caltrans project on the 1-15 freeway was to improve the condition of the inside edges of the freeway. B. With respect to Commissioner Webster's querying regarding the Meadowview Gold Course Application, Senior Planner Fagan provided additional information regarding the Director's Headng which requested the applicant's provision of additional information, relaying that the applicant had not yet responded. C. For informational purposes, Commissioner Webster provided copies of an article regarding planning issues. D. For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that although there had been discussions regarding updating the Land Use Element, that staff had not received direction from the City Council at this time. E. With respect Vice Chairman Mathewson's querying with respect to the proposal related to the Ultramar Gas Station use, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that that if the alcohol permit was not issued, the applicant may not pursue the development plan; Senior Planner Fagan relayed that if this project was to go forward it would not be required to implement a Park and Ride facility; and advised that staff would present additional information regarding that issue at a future point in time. F. Vice Chairman Mathewson relayed that at the area near the Cinema at the Promenade Mall, in the proximity area of the Farell's site, that there was a valet canopy that impeded pedestrian access. Senior Planner Fagan relayed that staff would contact Forest City, requesting the relocation of the canopy. For Vice Chairman Mathewson, with respect to the inadequate screening of the Power Center from the line of sight from Margarita Road, Senior Planner Fagan 15 relayed that when the applicant was completed with the screening application, staff would address the issue and provide an update to the Commission. H. Commissioner Fahey relayed that on the Meadowview side of the Cinema (at the Promenade Mall site) that the landscaping had been adversely impacted by pedestrian travel, requesting that staff address the issue with Forest City. ADJOURNMENT At 9:11 P.M. Vice Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, December 15~ 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula. Ron' G~eri'ie~, Cl~ airman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager 16