Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout022002 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 20, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, February 20, 2002, 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. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Deputy City Manager Thornhill, Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Director of Public Works Hughes, Senior Engineer Alegria, Senior Planner Hogan, Assistant Planner Preisendanz, Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner McCoy, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 20, 2002. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of February 6, 2002. R:PlanComm/minute~022002 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planninq Application No. 01-0485 (Development Plan) - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0485 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0485, DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 10,926 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE / RETAIL BUILDING ON 1.14 VACANT ACRES. GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD AND SOUTH OF DARTOLO ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-080-014 Via overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the project plan (of record), highlighting the location, the size of the proposed facility (a 10,927 square foot dental office/retail building), the enhanced landscaping, the trellis treatments consistent with the medical building located to the west of this property, the tower elements with Spanish tile, and the applicant's willingness to relocate the building at staff's request in order to provide additional landscaping along the frontage. Mr. Richard Finkel, architect representing the applicant, relayed that the owner of the property would be the building's largest tenant; noted the plan to design this project similar to the adjacent medical building (at staff's direction) inclusive of continuing the trellis treatment, the color treatment, the red tile roof, and the glass elements; reiterated that the applicant opted not to utilize the allowable zero lot line in order that additional landscaping could be added; in response to Commissioner Guerriero's recommendation to add veneer articulation at the rear portion of the project in order to break up the sameness appearance, reiterated the applicant's efforts to maintain aesthetic consistency with the adjacent medical building; specified the elaboration on this particular building (the indentations and pop-outs on the building at the southern end, the color changes between varying elements, the trellises, the column treatments, and the red tile roofing), and while opining that additional enhancements would not improve the visual impact, noted the applicant's willingness to incorporate Planning Commission recommendations into the project; and provided additional information regarding the R:PlanComm/minute~022002 2 tower element, and the differences between this proposed building and the existing adjacent one. While commending staff's efforts with the applicant regarding attempts to create consistency in design with the adjacent medical building, Commissioner Olhasso advised that with the lack of a second story the glass treatment was not as dramatic as in the adjacent project, opining that this padicular design provides a squatty appearance with matching paint colors and wood trellises; and noted that she could not support the proposed elevations. Noting the Planning Commission's efforts to ensure that there was quality architecture being implemented throughout the community, Commissioner Mathewson concurred with previous Commission comments, recommending that the building design be enhanced in order to add visual interest; and for Mr. Finkel, specifically recommended addition of a rock or tile treatment to the columns in order to break up the massing. Advising that it was difficult to visualize the project in the provided two-dimensional exhibits, Mr. Finkel requested clear direction regarding the Planning Commission's recommended design revisions. Providing specific direction, Commissioner Guerriero recommended adding additional veneer adicutation (i.e., rock, brick, or stone). Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the massing of the stucco walls on the west elevation (due to the lack of a setback) be addressed. Noting the Planning Commission's previous discussions regarding the level of design expected on projects, Commissioner Telesio relayed the comments regarding efforts to create consistency with the surrounding buildings, advising that staff has worked with this particular applicant to incorporate a design consistent with the medical building; and questioned the equity of requiring the applicant to redesign the project when it was his understanding that the applicant had been willing to implement staff's recommendations. Commissioner Olhasso opined that this particular proposal was not equal in architectural design to that of the adjacent medical building, reiterating the building's squatty appearance, and the lack of visual interest on the west elevation, relaying her disappointment with the proposed quality of design. Concurring with Commissioner Telesio that the Planning Commission needed to provide staff with a clear definition of what the Commission was seeking (from a design perspective) in order to approve proposed projects, Chairman Chiniaeff specified the differences between this particular project and the adjacent medical building, relaying that this proposal was for a smaller building, and on a smaller site, advising that options were restricted on this particular parcel; and concurred with the recommendation to further enhance the west elevation which was of the greatest concern, querying whether there was a rock treatment on the adjacent medical building. In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments, Commissioner Mathewson clarified that his concern regarding the p,roject was the lack of quality in the architectural treatments. For Commissioner Guerriero, Assistant Planner Preisendanz noted that staff worked with the applicant during the past four-month period, specifying the added architectural R:PianComrrdminute~022002 3 relief requested by staff and implemented by the applicant (i.e., additional relief on the windows, the added trellis treatments, the enhancing of the tower element, and the tile treatment), relaying that the original proposal had been less articulated, and the building location had been reconfigured; noted the restraints of the parcel; specified the landscaping located on the west elevation on the adjacent site which would create relief; reiterated that the Code allowed for a zero lot line which the applicant did not utilize; and confirmed that the landscape plan encompassed 21.8% of the site, and did not include the landscaping on the parkway on Highway 79 (South) which was a Caltrans right-of- way. Mr. Finkel further specified the pop-outs and indentations on the building creating changes in the form of the building, the trelliswork, the roof elements, the varying color treatments, the enhancements added to the side of the building, and the changes in parapet heights; and noted the applicant's willingness to add additional articulation to create a differential between this project and the adjacent building. In light of the landscaping located on the adjacent parcel, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that this feature would aid in breaking up the massing on the west elevation, further noting the proposed articulation, which would create interest. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Finkel specified the proposed screening of the air conditioning equipment; and relayed that it would be feasible to add a similar parapet treatment on the west elevation, extending toward the hip roof, advising that the brown elements could be increased in height to break up the long straight parapet appearance. Commissioner Guerriero recommended that a stone treatment (i.e., river rock) be added to the west elevation. Due to timing factors, Mr. Finkel requested that the proposal be approved in its conceptual form and that there be an added condition for the applicant to work with staff regarding the recommended architectural enhancements which staff could subsequently present to the Commission. In response, Commissioner Guerriero noted that the revisions to the project should be brought back to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the March 6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to work with staff to implement the Commission's recommended architectural enhancements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Since the recommendations encompassed solely two revisions (the modification to the parapet and the added veneer treatment), Commissioner Telesio queried the rationale for bringing the project back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Olhasso noted that she would have a greater level of comfort if the revised design plan were brought back to the Planning Commission. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Commissioner Telesio who voted n_9o. At 6:46 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 6:55 P.M. R:PlanComm/minute~022002 4 4 Plannin.q Application No. 00-0138, 0139, 0140 and 0152 (General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Development Plan and a Tentative Parcel Map) - Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner 4.1 Recommend to City Council, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072; 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0138, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REALIGN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M) LAND-USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARIES OF A 23 ACRE SITE; PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0139, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO), AND THE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PDO DOCUMENT, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0140, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 160 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND EIGHT RETAIL / OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 68,700 SQUARE FEET, AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00- 0152, A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBDIVIDING 3 LOTS AND CREATING 8 LOTS, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 944-290-012, 013,014. Staff's presentation By way of overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz provided an overview of the project plan (per agenda material), relaying the following: 1) the proposal to amend the General Plan in order to realign the current vertical designation to a more horizontal orientation which would allow for the Commercial and Office portion of the property to be located along Rancho California Road and the Medium Density to be located along the southerly portion of the project, 2) the proposal to amend the Zoning Map which would allow for a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) and will provide the Development Standards and Design Guidelines for future development, 3) the proposal to develop a 160-unit apartment complex with garages and carports on the southern portion of the project site, R:PlanComm/minute$1022002 5 and Commercial/Retail/Office buildings on the northerly portion, and 4) to subdivide the site (three existing parcels) into eight parcels via a Tentative Parcel Map with seven of these parcels being in the Commercial/Office area, and one remaining in the Residential area. Continuing his presentation, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that staff has been working with the applicant regarding this particular project for over two years, addressing land use compatibility (primarily with neighboring residents in the Starlight Ridge, The Villages, and the Temecula Ridge Apartments) and buffering elements, advising that due to these issues of concern, staff requested the applicant to submit a PDO which will require an increased setback along the easterly portion of the property (25 feet), and require an additional setback along the southerly portion of the property that abuts the apartments in Starlight Ridge (noting the requirement for a 25-foot landscaped buffer), relaying that the closest building along the southerly portion would 65 feet, the closest apartment building along the easterly portion would be 45 feet, noting the requirement for enhanced landscaping to fudher the buffering of the property from the adjacent homeowners; via maps, specified the area within the PDO where the Commercial buildings would be required to be one story in order to lower the impact to the adjacent homeowners to the east; relayed that within the PDO area, the apartment complexes will be required to be kept at a two-story level maximum (with a 35-foot height limit); advised that in order to provide land use compatibility through the PDO, staff is requiring the applicant (in order to retain staff's recommendation for approval) to remove the gas station which is proppsed at the front entry of the project, noting that staff was of the opinion that this use would be more vehicular-oriented rather than pedestrian-oriented; and concluded that it was staff's opinion that this project plan would provide a better project than was originally designated under the General Plan and zoning. For Chairman Chiniaeff, via overheads, Assistant Planner Preisendanz provided additional specification regarding the easterly edge of the property with respect to the relationship between the height of the one building (which was at a distance of 45 feet) and the adjacent lots (Lot Nos. 2, 5, and 6) in the Starlight Ridge development. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, specifying how the height of this building would relate to the pad elevations of these adjacent lots. The applicant's presentation Mr. Barton L. Buchalter, the applicant, thanked City staff for their efforts regarding this particular proposal, noting that since approximately 1998 this project has been through numerous machinations; noted his willingness to continue working with staff, now the Planning Commission, ultimately the City Council, as well as the surrounding residents, to make efforts to ameliorate the concerns expressed; with respect to the fear expressed from various residents regarding an increase in traffic and crime with the development of an apartment complex, relayed that based on other projects that this particular company has developed in the community, this project development would be an asset to the community; noted that this family has a history of building the highest quality project feasible and maintaining ownership after the project's completion; specified the allowable uses with the current zoning, and the vast improvement with the current proposal; provided additional information regarding the Commercial area; apprised the Planning Commission of the community meeting the applicant held with the Portofino Apartment and Woodcreek Apartment communities (inviting 688 residents and/or families) to review the project plan, advising that during the four-hour event only one R:PlenComm/minutes/022002 6 negative comment was expressed whereby a resident noted a desire to exclude the proposed gas station; with respect to the gas station use, noted the relative importance of this use due to the associated economic viability of the project, clarifying that this use would be restricted, as follows: no alcohol sold on the premises, limited hours, and high architectural standards; and relayed that with these restrictions, the benefits of including this use in the project would outweigh any detrimental impacts, additionally noting the lack of gas stations in this area. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, presented the project plan; provided a brief history of the property, the previous zoning, and the proposed PDO; noted the efforts of the applicant to mitigate the impacts related to the view shed; relayed the benefit of being able to eliminate left-turn movements into the Target Center (to enter the Mobil gas station), the Texaco gas station, and the Shell station with the inclusion of the proposed gas station; introduced the development team members who were available to answer questions; with respect to the letters staff received today (dated February 13, 2002, and January 29, 2002, from representatives of the Starlight Ridge, Alta Vista, and The Villages Homeowners Associations), advised that the applicant would address these comments in written detail prior to City Council presentation of the project; and with respect to architectural design, noted that the applicant was open to architectural comments from the Planning Commission. The applicant addresses the Planninq Commission's questions For informational purposes, Commissioner Olhasso noted that for future projects, it would be her preference that three- and four-story projects be developed in Temecuia; with respect to this particular project, recommended that the European-styled design of the retail area be carried over to the apartment architecture; and recommended the inclusion of tot lots in the project plan. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Markham provided information regarding the applicant's view of what constitutes an "amenity," advising that it would be an element that enhanced the project (i.e., a pool, a recreation room, an exercise room), creating a more attractive high quality apartment complex which would be an asset to the community, noting the applicant's openness for input from the Planning Commission regarding a definition for the term "amenity:' specified the proposed access points in the project, additionally noting the pedestrian access points; advised that the signage for the gas station would most likely be a Iow profile monument sign, relaying that the applicant would be willing to come back to the Planning Commission for review of the signage plan for the Commercial area, and in particular the gas station when a sign program was developed. Addressing Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Mr. Markham confirmed that the minimum landscape setback requirement on the eastern portion of the project proximate to the Commercial area was 25 feet, 45 feet on the eastern side proximate to the residential area, 65 feet on the south, and approximately 25 feet on Rancho California Road; specified the pedestrian linkage from the Multi-family area to the Commercial area on the western portion of the project, providing additional information regarding the design of this access which met ADA requirements, confirming that while there was no pedestrian access route on the east side of the access road, there was a possibility that a route could be incorporated into the slope, advising that the project was designed to encourage all the pedestrian access on the western side. R:PlanComm/minutes/022002 7 For Commissioner Guerriero, the applicant's representative noted that the Portofino Project's setback was approximately 15 feet (Commissioner Guerriero relaying that the Temecula Ridge Development had a setback of approximately 120 feet), Mr. Markham advising that this particular project's setback along Rancho California Road for the Commercial area was 25 feet from the property line which constituted 31 feet of landscaped setback including the area behind the sidewalk, additionally noting that there was also a slight grade difference. For clarification, Mr. Buchalter noted that the property owner inherited certain elements included in this project, and subsequently made revisions as staff directed, and time allowed; and in response to Commissioner Olhasso's comments, advised that the applicant would not be opposed to revising the design of the apartment complex, implementing a more contemporary style. For the Planning Commission's information, Senior Planner Hogan confirmed that a clear definition of what constitutes an "amenity" has not yet been determined (as the term relates to the Growth Management Plan), noting that both the Planning Commission and the City Councit have struggled with this term. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape architect representing the applicant, specified the various trees proposed which would provide varying heights, some color, screening, and a softening effect on the wall, advising that when the trees mature the building would nearly completely be screened; confirmed that the majority of the trees would be 24-inch box size, providing additional information regarding each species growth rate; and advised that the applicant would not be opposed to increasing the size of a portion of the trees if that was the desire of the Planning Commission. The public is invited to comment The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project: Mr. A. G. Kading Ms. Carolyn Fritchey Mr. Robert Oder 2000 Rancho California Road 42763 North Star Court 29911 Mira Loma Drive The above-mentioned individuals were in favor of the project for the following reasons: · The zone change was preferable. · Impressed with this ultimate proposal, noting the changes the project has undergone. · The proposed retail center will be a stabilizing influence for the Multi-family areas. · In favor of the proposed service station if a high level of architectural design were to be implemented. · Noted that alternate projects this particular company has developed have been exemplary. · Relayed a desire to obtain information regarding the uses in the retail center. · Per comments relayed at a National Association of Homebuilders Conference, advised that "amenities" were described as any element, which could assist in the improvement of the lifestyle in an apartment (i.e., a gated complex). · After attending an informational meeting regarding the project, noted that numerous concerns were allayed, in particular the grading plan (which would lower the site), the R:PlanComm/minutes/022002 8 location, the design, the proposed permitted uses at the Commercial Center, the fact that this property owner has a history of continuing ownership after development of projects, and the owner's contention that he will continue with the ownership of this property, and the proposed fencing. · As an 18-year resident residing adjacent to this property, opined that it was an individual's responsibility to obtain information regarding parcels surrounding one's residence, advising that she had known for years that this property was planned to be a Commercial/Multi-family development. · Emphasized the importance of the rights of property owners to develop on their own land. · Advised that the concerns of the residents residing proximate to the project site should be addressed, if feasible. · The benefits due to the shopping center with its pedestrian links. · The need for apartments in Temecula, and the probable decrease in rental prices as the demand is met. For informational purposes, Mr. Oder noted his concurrence with Commissioner Olhasso's comments regarding the recommendation for future apadment projects to be taller, and fewer to be of the traditional box-shaped design. The following individuals expressed opposition to the project: Mr. David Boucher Mr. Scott Hanson Ms. Marli Calabrese Ms. Laura Hanson Mr. Thomas Chisham 42797 Twilight Court 42298 Cosmic Drive 42059 Cosmic Drive 42298 Cosmic Drive 42422 Agena Street The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: · Concerned regarding air quality and noise impacts associated with this project. · Desired a greater buffer between the project and the surrounding areas. · Opposed to the proposed gas station. · Concerned regarding the view of the parking lot from the street. · Expressed a preference for the development of professional offices rather than retail uses. Decreased property values. · Noted a preference for the development of condominiums in lieu of apartments, in particular, at the top portion of the project. · The natural rural character of the community would be decreased with implementation of this project. · Recommended that there be more of a transitional project (i.e., office buildings) developed and not a major commercial center. · Read a letter (which was submitted to staff) written by Ms. Debra Moreno who could not attend this hearing but had concerns regarding the project, the letter including comments previously expressed, as well as a concern regarding traffic impacts. · Inadequate access points for children traveling to school. In response to Mr. Boucher's comments regarding the negative impacts this project would have on his view shed, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that if this property was graded fiat, a single-family home would be proximately the same ultimate height as this multi- R:Pla n Comr~min ut es/022002 9 family unit with the proposed grading plan. In response, Mr. Boucher additionally noted his preference for multi-family units for ownership, and not as rentals. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Scott Hanson noted that his residence did not back directly adjacent to the project, reiterating his concern regarding noise impacts. For the record, Chairman Chiniaeff noted the Planning Commission's receipt of two letters, which staff received today, February 20, 2002 (dated February 13, 2002, and January 29, 2002, from representatives of the Starlight Ridge, Alta Vista, and The Villages Homeowners Associations), which were previously referenced by Mr. Markham. It is additionally noted for the record that a petition with 27 signatures attached to the letter of February 13, 2002 (which outlined concerns regarding the project) was submitted to staff, as well as the letter from Ms. Moreno, which was read into the record during the public comment period. The applicant's rebuttal Mr. Markham further addressed the following issues: Concurred that this project would have no greater impact regarding the view shed than would a single-family home, which Chairman Chiniaeff had explained earlier. Relayed that the setbacks had been increased at the direction of staff (between the time of last year's and this year's community meetings). Provided additional information regarding the PDO, which is a zoning document; and noted that the least intensive commercial area was located proximate to the single- family homes (in Sub-area A). With respect to concern raised regarding the maintenance of the property since it was for rental occupants and not for ownership, specified the alternate projects in the community that this company owns and maintains. Relayed that the project was conditioned to design and construct a signal, which would additionally assist the Portofino residents. Advised that it was likely that the primary cause of the noise impact that residents are experiencing was derived from the traffic onramps on Rancho California Road and would not be as a result of this project, noting that Mr. Dodson could further address this issue. Noted that the project was conditioned to build an 8-foot high wrought iron fence along the property line, which will be consistent with the fencing along the Kading property, relaying that this fencing would aid in addressing various concerns of the surrounding residents. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, provided additional information regarding the development of condominiums and the associated construction liability issues. Mr. Buchalter provided the following information: Clarified that this property was purchased due to the existing Multi-family zoning, specifying the effods to make numerous improvements in the project plan. With respect to the ownership vs. rental issue, specified that this particular company solely develops rental projects (i.e., high-end apartment complexes), additionally noting the success of the Ryland Development, which was located adjacent to the Portofino Apartment complex. R:Pla n Comrn#nin ut es/022002 1 0 o In response to Commissioner Olhasso, noted that the project will have high-speed connectivity (i.e., fiber, Digital Subscriber Line.) With respect to traffic issues, Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer representing the applicant, noted the following: Provided additional information regarding the location of the proposed signal (Director of Public Works Hughes noting that the distance from Cosmic Drive to this location was approximately 740 feet). Confirmed, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that the uses allowed per the existing General Plan would have generated more trips than will be generated by this particular project, noting that with Professional Office uses there would have been a greater impact during peak periods. Relayed that a conservative discount of trips was factored into the data for the anticipated internal trips between the Residential and the Commercial areas; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the relationship between particular types of permitted uses and the associated impact with respect to an anticipated reduction in trips. The Commission deliberates For informational purposes, Commissioner Olhasso noted that with respect to letters from the public for Planning Commission consideration, that if the information is received on the day of the hearing (as were the two letters referenced at this particular meeting) there was inadequate time for the Planning Commission to thoroughly review the comments, recommending that information be submitted at an earlier date. Noting that Starlight Ridge was one of her favorite communities, Commissioner Olhasso thanked the residents who attended this hearing in order to express their comments to the Planning Commission; with respect to the remarks noted regarding a preference for the development of condominiums vs. apartments, relayed that from a crime prevention standpoint, apartments were more easily policed due to the single ownership; and with respect to this particular project expressed the following recommendations: That this project be conditioned to participate in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program; That the trees proposed to be installed adjacent to the residential area be increased in size; That this project be conditioned to have staff investigate park amenities, specifically considering inclusion of a tot lot; and That the architectural design on the apartment complex be brought back to the Planning Commission for review prior to construction. After echoing Commissioner Olhasso's comments, in particular that the zoning for this area had been identified and the residents could have obtained information regarding the future development of this property located adjacent to the residential area, Commissioner Telesio expressed the following recommendations regarding the proposed project: Concurred that the design of the apartments should come back to the Planning Commission for review, noting hopes of the architectural style being consistent with the proposed design of the Commercial area; and R:PlanComm/minutes/022002 11 With respect to the proposed gas station use, relayed that he could support the inclusion of this use at the proposed location subject to the landscaping plan being adequate, and the signage subdued, recommending that this use also be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval of the specific plans; Addressing the proposed plan, Commissioner Mathewson relayed the following recommendations: With respect to the proposed gas service station, relayed his opposition to inclusion of this use, noting that the negative impacts could not be adequately mitigated; With respect to the architectural design of the Commercial area, advised that he was impressed with the proposal; Regarding the permitted uses in the Commercial area, noted concern regarding adequate parking provisions if the uses were high attractors (i.e., the Trader Joe's use located on Winchester Road); Recommended that there be an additional pedestrian linkage incorporated on the eastern side of the project accessing the Commercial area (to be located down the slope face from the apartment pad level to the Commercial pad level); and With respect to the amenities issue, as it relates to the Growth Management Plan (GMP), recommended that there be investigation pursued regarding implementing a trails system to and from this site, if feasible, noting that if this system was not feasible that there be consideration for imposing an additional fee, an amenity fee, to be deposited into a fund to be used for recreation facilities in the community; and opined that on-site amenities did not fulfill the GMP requirements due to not benefiting the community, as a whole. With respect to this particular proposal, Commissioner Guerriero noted the following recommendations: Advised that he was strongly opposed to the inclusion of the gas station due to traffic and environmental impacts; With respect to the proposed signal, noted his opposition to locating a signal in this area in light of the existing five signals, recommending that an alternate plan be investigated; With respect to setbacks, recommended that there be efforts to increase the 25- foot setback; With respect to community amenities, relayed that it appeared that this project was not proposing any amenities which would benefit the community, as a whole; Recommended that a certain portion of the apartments be allocated for Iow- income/affordable housing; Queried why patio homes could not be incorporated into the proposal, noting the plethora of apartments in the area; and With respect to the negative view shed impacts, concurred with the resident's comments, recommending that there be the elimination of one story of the building in the area where the residential views would be negatively impacted. Chairman Chiniaeff made the following recommendations regarding this particular project: With respect to the apartment complex elevations, concurred with the need for improvement, noting that to create consistency with the architectural style proposed for the Commercial area would be appropriate; and R:Pla n ComraJmin ut es/022002 1 2 With respect to the landscaped setbacks, recommended that proximate to Sub- area A (along the eastern podion of the project), that this setback be increased in order to screen the project from the houses located in this area. Commentinq on the permitted uses in Areas A, B, and C, the Planninq Commission made the followin,q recommendations for the City Council's consideration: That Animal hospitals be deleted; That Appliance sales and repairs not be permitted in Areas A or B; That aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios solely be permitted in Area B via a CUP; That Automotive parts sales be removed as a permitted use in Areas A and B; That Bowling alley be deleted; That Community care facilities and Congregate care be deleted; That Furniture sales be deleted; That Garden supplies and equipment sales and service be deleted; That Grocery story, retail and specialty be permitted solely by CUP in Area B and that the size of the use be limited to less than 10,000 square feet. That Health and exercise clubs be solely permitted in Area B via a CUP; That Laboratories, film, medical (deleting research or testing) be added as a permitted use in Area B; That Nursing Homes be deleted; That Private utility be deleted; That Parcel delivery services be deleted; That Senior citizen housing be deleted; That with respect to Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales that there be a restriction prohibiting outside storage; That Temporary Real Estate tract offices be deleted; and That Wedding Chapels be deleted. With respect to the gas station use, Chairman Chiniaeff noted his support of the inclusion of this use, subject to the use being well-screened, and with exemplary architectural design, advising that he would visit the gas station located in the Dana Point area, which had been referenced by the applicant as an example of what would be proposed at this site; and with respect to the overall project plan, concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's concept regarding imposing an amenity fee as a recommendation for the City Council's consideration. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Markham and Mr. Kading specified the off-site installments proposed with the Temecula Ridge Project in order to offset the GMP's requirements for amenities. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that the signal would be installed in conjunction with the project's development, advising that staff would not want the signal installed until it was warranted, noting that the timing of the installation would be affected by the project's phasing; and confirmed that if the Commercial area was proposed in Phase I of development, that the signal would be installed at that time. In light of Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner Olhasso queried whether this project was conditioned for park mitigation fees to pay for active fields in the R:PlanComrn/rn~nutes/022002 13 City. In response, Senior Planner Hogan advised that there was imposition of a Development Impact Fee component for park and recreational amenities, as well as the project being subjected to the Quimby Act requirements. For clarification, Commissioner Mathewson noted that his recommendation was for a fee over and above the typical requirements in order to address the GMP amenities issue. With respect to monument signage, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that corporate Iogos be avoided (which has resulted in a mish-mash of signage at alternate sites, with no consistency with respect to design); recommended that the design of the monument signage be exemplary. In response, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant could bring the sign program before the Planning Commission, when developed, while noting that wood signage (which was recommended by Commissioner Mathewson) degrades rapidly. Commissioner Mathewson advised that he would provide staff with photographs of pleasing signage in order for the applicant to pursue similar design concepts. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that the Planning Commission might desire to take action on the General Plan Amendment recommendation separately, relaying the vote ratio necessary for approval of this particular component. The Planning Commission opted to take action separately on the various components of this proposed project, approving the associated documents, including Resolution No. PC 2002-003 (as amended), as follows: MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve inclusion of the gas station use in the project subject to the following revisions: Add- That the design plan be brought back to the Planning Commission for review; That the hours of operation would be limited; That alcohol sales be prohibited, That the signage plan be brought back to the Planning Commission for review; and That the reference in the associated approving documents be revised to delete denial of the gas station use (as had been recommended by staff). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 15.) Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he still had concerns regarding the lighting impacts, and the potential for signage to be placed on the canopy of the gas station use. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that during the design review the Planning Commission could deny approval of the plan if it was not satisfactory. R:PIa nCommJminut es~022002 14 At this time voice vote was taken, reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who voted n_go. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the General Plan Amendment (PA00-0138). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved approve the Zoning Map Amendment (PA00-0139); and to adopt the PDO document subject to the previously noted recommendations and removal of any references to plastic channel lettering on signage, ergo restricting this particular use on signage. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. For Director of Planning Ubnoske, Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that it was not the Planning Commission's desire to have the applicant bring back the redesign of the architectural plan for the apartments prior to City Council approval, advising that it would be the Planning Commission's recommendation that the project be approved in conceptual form by the City Council, and be subject to Planning Commission approval of the design plan prior to construction. For Commissioner Olhasso. Commissioner Guerdero relayed that it was his desire that the signal be eliminated and that either left-turn movements in and out be restricted, or that an alternative be discussed with the Kading Project representatives, relaying that both projects could be accessed onto Moraga Road; and advised that in his opinion a community amenity would be attained if the signal was eliminated and the Kading's project's access was shared. Director of Public Works Hughes advised that if the Planning Commission was considering approval of the project without the signal, that staff had not analyzed the impacts associated with this recommendation (i.e., the U-turn motions created), relaying that from a stacking impact standpoint, there would need to be off-site improvements to mitigate the added U-turn movements; advised that while staff would support the elimination of any signals, if feasible, that this project had not been analyzed without the installation; noted alternatives that while could be considered, would cause impacts that would need to be mitigated; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the signal may, or may not, be warranted at the first of occupancy; for Commissioner Guerriero, provided additional information regarding the need to analyze the project if the signal was not included; and with regard to the existing signals on Rancho California Road, confirmed that the phasing was not synchronized due to the varying capacities on this particular street, advising that at as future point, the signals would be synchronized. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve the construction of the Multi-family Residential units and Retail/Office buildings (PA00-0140) subject to the following revisions: Add- That the conditions added regarding the gas station use (as noted in the first motion) be imposed. R:PlanCom m/mia u les/022002 15 That the architectural design of the apartments be brought back to the Planning Commission for review with a style consistent with the Commercial area. That the building (i.e., Building No. 3), which was proximate to the Starlight Ridge Development, and the building proximate to Lot Nos. 36 and 37 (which needs to be decreased in height on the back side) be re-designed to reduce the negative view shed impacts. That the inclusion of a tot lot be investigated by staff, and included in the project plan, if determined appropriate by staff. Recommendation that the City Council consider imposing a separate amenity fee to satisfy the GMP requirements for amenities (Assistant City Attorney Cudey relaying that staff would investigate the feasibility of this recommendation) since the Planning Commission cannot determine the City Council's definition of a qualifying community amenity. That the project be subject to participate in the Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. That the trees on the eastern portion of the project be increased in size. That there be a walkway installed for pedestrian access on the easterly portion of the project. (Mr. Markham noting that a driveway could be added on the eastern portion in order for pedestrians to avoid the existing necessity to cross, and could instead be directed to the sidewalk.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero and Mathewson who voted n_9o. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Tentative Parcel Map (PA00- 0152). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing; and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commending the applicant, City staff, and the Planning Commission, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that the medical facility development at North General Kearny/Margarita Roads was looking great. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's queries regarding the private street between the Cosco use and the new development on the east, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that staff could request the Fire Department to investigate the feasibility of restricting parking in this area. R:Pla n Comm/rr~ n ut e~/022002 16 With respect to the intersection at the Pep Boys use, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed, for Commissioner Guerriero, that staff would investigate as to the feasibility of the installation of stop signs to address the cross traffic in this area, and would subsequently make recommendations to the property owner. With respect to the lack of synchronization of the traffic signals on Rancho California Road, Commissioner Olhasso recommended that the Public/Traffic Safety Commission agendize this issue in order to consider expediting this synchronization. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional input. ADJOURNMENT At 9:27 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop to be held on Monday~ March 4, 2002 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, the next regular meetinR to be held on Wednesday, March 6, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ~hiniaeff, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:Pla n Comm/minut es/022002 17