Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042005 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 20, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, April 20, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Mathewson thanked Eve Craig for the prelude music. ALLEGIANCE Chairman Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: Commissioner Olhasso. PUBLIC COMMENTS None at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 20, 2005. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of March 30, 2005. 3 Director's Hearina Case Uodate RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for March, 2005. R:\MinutesPC\042005 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from March 2, 2005 4 Plannina Application No. PA04-0393. a Development Plan. submitted bv Currv Brandaw Architects. to construct. establish. and operate a three-storv senior conareaate care facilitv consistina of 115 units on 2.1 acres and an exception to the development standards to reduce the onsite parkina reauirements bv 13 spaces. located on the southeast corner of Villaae Road and Township Road within the Harveston Specific Plan Associate Planner Harris presented a staff report (as written). In response to the Planning Commission's queries, Mr. Harris relayed the following: . That if the three retail components listed in staff's report (Beauty Shop, Barber Shop, and Home Health Care) were not to work out, other retail-type uses could be utilized in the spaces . That the proposed redesigned project and the apartment building would be comparable in height. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their hard work and thorough staff report. Mr. Alhadeff noted that the proposed project would be a permitted use and that the concerns of massing and elevation, architecture, and the retail component have all been addressed by the applicant. Mr. Garth Brandau, representing the applicant, noted the following: . That at the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant has eliminated the fourth floor resulting in a substantial reduction in the overall height . That the applicant has incorporated retail uses into the facility; noted that the intent of the applicant would be to incorporate a Barber Shop, Beauty Shop, and Home Health Care Center, but that if this were not possible, the applicant would have the ability to acquire other tenants into the facility . That in regard to the concern of architecture, the applicant created a more traditional looking style that would emulate nearby buildings within the Village area . That in addressing the massing issue, the roof lines have been further broken up and lowered along both the Landings and Township Road elevations; and that the widths of the columns have been reduced and four separate color schemes are proposed for the elevations to further segment and break up the building mass. R:\MinutesPC\042005 2 Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the large hip roof and the view the residents on the corner of Township Road and Harveston Drive would have. Understanding Commissioner Chiniaeff's concern, Mr. Brandaw noted that it would be possible to break up the hip roof. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Alhadeff relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to a condition requiring the breaking up the hip on the roof of the proposed project. Ms. Mary Rauschenburg, representing Lennar Communities, spoke in favor of the proposed project; advised that in regard to the lease of the four live/work units of the apartment building, the owner has received interest from four specific uses; and noted that although the Welcome Home Center will be utilized by Lennar Communities for another 18 months, it would be the intent of Lennar that after that period of time, the facility would be used for retail uses. For Ms. Rauschenburg, Chairman Mathewson noted that he would like to see the live/work units come to fruition. The following individuals spoke against the proposed facility for the following reasons: . Mr. Anthony Reiter Mr. Spencer Simm . Mr. Jeffrey Duhaney Ms. Shelley Moon . Mr. Roger Logan Mr. Mike Bender . Mr. Larry Bales Ms. Stormer Simm . Mr. Kenneth Ray . Mr. Kristopher Williams . That the Isabel Barnet Elementary School will be completely overshadowed by the proposed three-story senior apartment facility . That three-story buildings or higher are not compatible in the Harveston Community, they belong along commercial corridors with similar size buildings . . That the value of the homes in Harveston Community will depreciate if the proposed project were allowed . . That the amount of emergency services that will be created due to the proposed project will be a nuisance to the residents of Harveston . That the applicant has only made minor changes to the proposed project . That Lennar never advised that a four-story senior congregate care facility would be built in the Harveston Community . That the proposed retirement residence will not be favored by the residents . That the residents of Harveston are desirous of what was originally promised by Lennar - retail and small town Americana Main Street, U.S.A. . That the proposed project is obtrusive, too tall, unsightly, and unwelcome. R:\MinutesPC\042005 3 Clarifying for Mr. Bender, Commissioner Telesio noted that he had previously mentioned that if the initially proposed project were not redesigned in a fashion that would be acceptable to the Planning Commission, the applicant may not be the right applicant. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing the applicant, noted the following: . That the use is a permitted use under the Harveston Specific Plan . That the proposed project will meet the Development standards in terms of lot coverage and setbacks; . That retail will be provided as spelled out in the Specific Plan . That the applicant has made the requested changes as requested by the Planning Commission . That the applicant would be willing to accept a condition that would impose breaking up the long ridge roofline as requested by the Planning Commission. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Guerriero thanked the applicant for their efforts in making the requested changes and noted the following: . That the proposed facility was part of the intent of the Harveston Specific Plan . That there is a need within the Temecula area to house seniors . That the applicant has addressed the issues that were a concern . That the proposed project is a congregate care facility, not an assisted living facility; and that, therefore, emergency response times would not be the same . That staff will ensure that Lennar Homes will provide was originally proposed . That the Planning Commission would request to change the rooflines. Commissioner Chiniaeff offered the following comments: . That the current four Planning Commissioners were a part of the development of the Harveston Specific Plan and that at that time, it was the vision of Harveston to include residents of all ages including seniors . That the applicant has made great strides from the time that this project was originally submitted. In closing, Mr. Chiniaeff stated that he would be of the opinion that the applicant has met the intent of the Specific Plan. R:\MinutesPC\042005 4 Clarifying for the Planning Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that age, medical conditions, race, color ,or creed are not factors on which housing choices could be based. For the Planning Commission, staff and the public, Commissioner Telesio noted that he has been a part of two ad-hoc committees and has also worked with the applicant and is of the opinion that there have been significant changes from the original plan. In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the retail spaces would not be useable for any residential spaces and that the Specific Plan imposes a number of different retail uses on the project. Thanking the speakers for their comments and the applicant for all their revisions, Chairman Mathewson relayed the following: . That the building has been reduced in height . That onsite parking will be provided . That retail uses have been incorporated into the facility . That as long as the retail uses are consistent with the permitted uses, the applicant should be the one determining what the uses would be. Mr. Mathewson commented on the applicant's efforts to address the massing and scale of the proposed project and that based on what is being proposed to the Commission and subject to additional modification to the rooflines, he would be in favor of supporting the project. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the proposed project subject to the addition of a condition, imposing that additional roofline variations shall be incorporated into the building design to reduce the mass and overall height of the ridgelines and that modifications' shall be subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning; that 1,650 square feet of retail space within the facility shall be used exclusively for retail commercial purposes in perpetuity; that the specific type uses shall be consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan; and that the applicant and the Fire Department shall jointly develop a lights and sirens protocol for emergency response vehicle and that the protocol shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief and the Director of Plal"ning. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. At this time, Planning Commission took a five-minute break. R:\Minute.PCI04200S 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-022 PC RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA04-0393, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A THREE-STORY, 115-UNIT SENIOR CARE CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY WITH THREE RETAIL SPACES ON 2.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VILLAGE ROAD AND TOWNSHIP ROAD WITHIN THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ALSO KNOWN AS APN 916-170-027 Continued from April 6, 2005 5 Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0462. PA04-0463. PA04-0571. a General Plan Amendment. Zone Chanae. Conditional Use Permit. Develooment Plan and Tentative Parcel Mao submitted bv Universal Health Svstems. Inc. to construct a 320-bed hosoital facility and helioad. two medical office buildinas totalina aooroximatelv 140.000 sauare feet. a 10.000 sauare foot cancer center. and an 8.000 sauare foot fitness rehabilitation center all totalina aooroximatelv 566.160 sauare feet on 35.31 acres. located on the north side of Hiahwav 79 South and south of DePortola Road. aooroximatelv 700 feet west of Maraarita Road Senior Planner Papp presented a brief staff report (of written record), noting that based on the issues that were discussed and presented to staff via letters from Best, Best, and Krieger, Fish and Wildlife Service, and area residents, it was staff's opinion that a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed project to address issues stated in staff's report. For the Planning Commission, staff, and the public, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that although he was not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 2005, regarding the proposed project, he has listened to the Planning Commission tape and has reviewed all documents that have been presented and understands the concerns that have been raised. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that tonight's Planning Commission meeting will de dealing with noise, aesthetics, traffic, and hydrology. Chairman Mathewson also relayed that once the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is released, there will be another opportunity for the public to comment on the scope of the NOP and that once the focused EIR draft is released, there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on that as well. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query, Senior Planner Papp relayed that it would be his opinion that the proposed hospital will not have any need for underground tanks but will have above-ground oxygen tanks; that there may be underground storm drains; and that there will be one large back up generator that will be located near the oxygen tanks (east elevation of hospital). R:\MinutesPC\042005 6 For Senior Planner Papp, Chairman Mathewson relayed his desire for the scope of the document to not address the source of the leaking tank in great detail. Clarifying for the Commission, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that CEQA would address the impact of a project on the environment, not the environment on the project. At this time, the public hearing was opened. The following individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: . Mr. Kenneth Ray . Mr. Brad Stormon Mr. Don Stowe Mr. Raymond Bennett . That the narrow residential roads of Santiago Ranchos cannot handle the delivery trucks, trash trucks, ambulances, and patients with appointments . That the Planning Commission consider the request of not approving any plan that would contain any regular open ingress/egress for the hospital site on DePortola Road and any building over three stories . That the traffic impact report on Pio Pico Road must be prepared and should be addressed with the EIR . That a sound wall be installed to protect the residents of Pio Pico Road . That impact to equestrian uses in the area be addressed . That the Planning Commission ensure that the emergency room will not be upgraded to a trauma center at any time. . That the dead-end (southern) portion of Pio Pico Road has not been adequately addressed; that it is the desire of the surrounding residents that the dead-end portion of Pio Pico Road (southern end) be abandoned or sold to the adjacent neighbor. Chairman MatheWson noted that the project description does not include a trauma center. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that an Environmental document assesses a project and that although the concern of the dead-end (southern end) portion of Pio Pico Road would be valid, at this time, circulation is not being planned, advising that this concern would be handled in a different forum than in the EI R. Clarifying for the public and Planning Commission, Commissioner Telesio noted that all of Pio Pico Road south of DePortola Road will be addressed in the traffic/circulation portion of the project. At this time, the public hearing was closed. R:\MlnutesPC\042005 7 For the Planning Commission, Chairman Mathewson queried if staff's report was adequate or if there were any other issues that the Commission would want addressed. For Chairman Mathewson, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that it would be his opinion that staff's report is adequate but requested that staff include the storm drain issue that would run through the proposed property and the impacts if a trauma center were incorporated into the proposed project. Chairman Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments and is of the opinion that staff's report is adequate and does reflect the concerns previously mentioned. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that the Commission does not need to vote on this item; that staff will move forward with the Commission's comments and that there will be many opportunities for the public to comment. It was the consensus of the four Planning Commissioner's to receive and file this report. ~ New Items 6 Plannina Aoolication No. PA04-0561 a Develooment Plan. submitted bv STDR Architects. to construct and ooerate a 7.380 sauare foot restaurant. located on 0.42 acres. aenerallv located aooroximatelv 800 feet west of Maraarita Road. at the northeast intersection of the Temecula Mall Looo Road and the Mall Access Road that is an extension of Verdes Lane Associate Planner Fisk presented a staff report (of record) and recommended revisions of the following Conditions of Approval: That the language: As mav be due and oavable bv the Develooment Aareement, be added to the end o'~ each of the following Conditions . No. 45 DIF . No. 46 TUMPF . No. 50 TUMPF . No. 90 Public Art Ordinance That the cover sheet of Draft Conditions of Approval be revised to as such: MSHCP: Per Development Agreement TUMF: Per Development Agreement R:\MinutesPC\042005 8 COMMISSION DISCUSSION In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that the architectural consultant has not reviewed the proposed project and that if it were the desire of the Planning Commission, the proposed project could be forwarded to the architectural consultant for review. Responding to Commissioner Guerriero's concern, Associate Planner Fisk noted that the tower elements would be closed windows. . Commissioner Guerriero also noted his concern with the parking and queried if there would be additional access to the restaurant's parking lot from the street or will patrons be forced to travel to the access road and utilize the primary entry. For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Fisk relayed that through a shared agreement for the entire Power Center II, available for EI Torito as well as the other uses within the Power Center II, there will be adequate parking for the entire center and that when the Power Center II was initially approved, it allowed for a larger restaurant than was is currently being proposed. Commissioner Guerriero stated that it would be his opinion that none of the restaurants in the Promenade Mall and Power Center II have adequate parking and relayed a safety issue with the pedestrian traffic crossing the loop road. Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed concern with the side of the building where the service doors are located, advising that there is an open space with no landscaping and queried if there would be landscaping incorporated. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's query, Associate Planner Fisk noted that there is an easement in that particular area on the side of the building and was not sure if it will be landscaped. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing Real Mex Restaurants and EI Torito, offered a 3-dimenstional PowerPoint presentation, noting the following: . That the proposed project will reflect Temecula's old style and new style . That the proposed project will be vibrant and exciting . That the Plaza area will be fun, exciting, and inviting . That the proposed project will offer many angles . That the applicant is in agreement with the Conditions of Approval as presented by staff . That thE! Planning Commission consider the deletion or fulfillment of Condition of Approval Nos. 17 and 18 . That the landscaping will be landscaped up the applicant's lease line. R:IMinutasPCI042005 9 Mr. Mark Turpin, representing Real Mex Restaurants, offered the following comments: . That the entire premise of the design of the proposed project is based upon the company's commitment to authentic Mexican food; that the intent with the design would be to create an image of a traditional Mexico or California surrounded by bold colorful shapes that would be found in new construction within Mexico . That the proposed architecture will combine elements of traditional and contemporary Mexican architectural style. Mr. Mike Chico, architect for the proposed project, noted that the applicant would only be obligated to landscape to the easement line and that the proposed landscaping was designed as a desert landscaping theme to tie along into the new architecture of the building. In response to Commissioners' query, Mr. Chico noted that although staff would have preferred that the building design be either traditional or contemporary, it was the opinion of the applicant that combining traditional and contemporary elements surrounded by bold colorful shapes would be new and exciting. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Fagan relayed that he is unaware of whose responsibility it would be to landscape the easement but would discuss his concern with the property owner. , At this time, the public hearing was closed. COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the following: . That it would be his desire that the back side of the proposed building be landscaped before moving forward with the project . That the east elevation (yellow wall) be dropped down to show some life and color to the elevation which would allow a view into the patio area versus a long flat wall; and expressed his support of the use of bricks and trellis Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the bold colors and the overall contemporary architecture and would prefer it be the traditional style. Commissioner Guerriero expressed his enthusiasm with the EI Torito coming to the City of Temecula and noted his appreciation for the 3-dimensitional PowerPoint Presentation. Commissioner Guerriero concurred with staff's change of the yellow wall (east elevation) but did express his desire for the original architecture. Nothing his appreciation for the 3-dimentional, Chairman Mathewson relayed that it would be his opinion that the proposed project will be under parked and that the architectural consultant should have reviewed the proposed project for direction. Commissioner Guerriero, echoed by Chairman Mathewson, expressed concern with pedestrian traffic crossing the mall loop road as well as the lack of parking spaces. R:\MinutesPC\042005 10 Commissioner Chiniaeff directed staff to have the landscape architect review the concern of landscaping on the easement. Understanding the concerns of the Planning Commissioners, Mr. Fagan noted that the applicant would be agreeable to a condition that would require the applicant to work with the property owner to address the landscaping easement issue. For the Planning Commission, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that if it were the desire of the Planning Commission, he will forward the proposed project to the architectural consultant along with the concerns of the Planning Commission. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Fisk requested from the applicant that the design be either the traditional or contemporary but that the applicant expressed desire to combine elements of traditional and contemporary Mexican architectural styles. In response to Mr. Fisk's statement, Commissioner Telesio expressed his support of either one style or the other, not a combination of both. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue the item to the May 18, 2005 Planning Commission meeting; requested that the landscaping at the property line be addressed; that parking be addressed; and that the design of the proposed project be forwarded to the architectural review. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. 7 Plannina Application No. PA05-0047. a Development Code Amendment. amendina the Municipal Code to allow automobile and truck dealerships to conduct weekend promotional activities with an appropriate permit. increase the number of allowable minor temporary use permits from two to four per vear. and make a modification to the allowable size for freestandina tenant identification sians Associate Planner West presented a staff report (of record). In response to the Commissioner Guerriero's query, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the lumes of the proposed signs would be consistent with what is currently being used. Clarifying for the Commission, Principal Planner Hogan noted that the signs would be internally illuminated and that they would not be a spot light illumination. For the Planning Commissioners, Associate Planner West relayed that if the applicant were to exceed the number and size of the canopies and banners, that would be one way to determine the program's effectiveness. Given the small scale of the program, Principal Planner Hogan was of the opinion that the event would hardly be noticed. Planning Director Ubnoske stated that the item will be forwarded to the City Council. In response to Chairman Mathewson's query, Mr. West noted that the size of the banner would be consistent with the current sign ordinance (32 square feet) and that the maximum height of the banner would be 3 feet with a maximum height off the ground of 6 feet. R:\MinutesPC\042005 11 . Chairman Mathewson expressed concern with such activities becoming an every-weekend event. Addressing Chairman Mathewson's concern, Mr. West stated that the Sunset Provision will provide an opportunity to evaluate the Ordinance; that the intent would be that each dealership would need to apply for a Master Temporary Use Permit and indicate on its site where each canopy, banner, etc... would be located so that it could be enforced by Code Enforcement to ensure that they are in compliance. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. ,Isaac Lizarraga, representing Temecula Valley Auto Association, spoke in favor of the Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to allow automobile and truck dealerships to conduct weekend promotional activities. For the Commission, Mr. West noted that the proposal would be for new car dealerships only. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff will work with the language to include two events at the Mall and two events in area B. Commissioner Guerriero noted that the dealerships in Temecula have been very supportive for special events in town and would be supportive of the proposal, noting that after 18 months, he would be willing to expand the time. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation and to allow for two banners. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.04 AND 17.28 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MINOR WEEKEND PROMOTIONAL EVENTS AND TO CHANGE THE MINOR TEMPORARY USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE AUTO MALL AREA, AND TO ALLOW LARGER FREESTANDING TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND TRUCK DEALERSHIPS. (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0047)" COMMISSIONER'S REPORT Commissioner Telesio requested that Code Enforcement explore the furniture store and noted that there are quite a few banners on the two twin buildings that indicate "coming soon". R:IMinutesPCI042005 12 .' . In response to Commissioner Telesio's concerns, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that she will have Code Enforcement explore his concerns. Commissioner Telesio also expressed concern with the home on the hill behind Old Town, advising that they have a large for sale banner and could perhaps be in violation as well. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT None at this time. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 P.M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetlna to be held on Wednesdav. Mav 4. 2005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. }J!-f!d Chairman ~[//l~'~~ Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\042005 13