Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042199 PC Agenda~c~M~eM~h~eAmedumM~hD~a~Ne~Act~y~u~eed~p~da~a~an~t~pa~Jpatein~smeet~ng~M~h oboftheC4mnimityDevdopemiltDepmlJmetat{gOOJe94-6400. Notllc~onihourspdortolmeeiMgwJlenabbffieCRyl~make feasonabb affglgemelti b ~ ~meibilRy to that meetlag [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA TT4Je II] TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Apr/I 2f, f999, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Reso NextIn Order#98-011 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Guerdere Fahey, Guen'iere, Naggar, Soltysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each fyou des re to speak to the Commissioners about an item no__t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state yourname and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be tied with the Planning Secretan/before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Vice Chair Election 3. Approval of Minutes from March 17, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Planning Application No. PA98-0511 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) PA97-0512 (Development Plan) Applicant: Cud Miller. Pacific Golf Properties 4220 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: A 12.3 acre lot on the nodhwest comer of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road, (APN 911-170-078, 911-170-085, 911-170-090). =rcses~:: Tc .7.~r,.~e :~,e .3ener-~: ?;_=n L-:nd Use :es~,,;nat;cr from ~:.s~neTs Park (BP) to Professional Office (O) ano cnange the Zoning designation from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO) for a proposed development of a 244 unit senior's only apadment complex. Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Case Planner. Thomas Thomsley Recommendation: Continue Off-Calendar R:\wimbcrvg\phncomm~ag~ndu%1999X4-21-99.do~ Case No: Planning Application No. PA99-OO44 (Development Plan) Applicant: David Beckman, Chemicon Location: On the northwest comer of Single Oak Drive and Business Park Ddve. Proposal: The design, construction and operation of a operation of a twoston/, 85,056 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a parcel containing 4.92 acres. Environmental Action: A Notice of Exemption per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332. Planner:. Patty Andere, Assistant Planner Recommendation: Approval PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT Proposed Modi~ceUons to Building Throe (3) of ~e Power Center (PA97-0t t 8) COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: May 5, t999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecule, California R:\wimbe~g~plan~omm~aSendas\1999~4-21-99.do~ 2 ITEM #2 VICE CHAIR ELECTION ITEM #3 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 17, 1999 CALLTO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P,M., on Wednesday March 17, 1999, 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 Naggar. X:XX At this time, City Clerk Jones duly swore in the newly re-appointed Planning Commissioner, Unda Fahey. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fahey, Naggar, *Soltysiak, Webster, and Chairman Guer~ero. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attomey Cudey, Senior Planner Fagan, Assistant Planner Anders, Project Planner Thomsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Soltysiak arrived at 6:35 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Aflenda Commissioner Webster recommended agendizing the issue of appointing a Vice-Chairman for the Planning Commission at a future meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the excel3tion of Commissioner Fahey who abstained and Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. 2. Approval of Minutes-February 11, 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the excel~tion of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Plannin~l Application No. PA98-0517 (Development Plan) Request to design, construct and operate a 32,000 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on two parcels (0.94acreslparcel) totaling 1.88 acres, RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of overheads and color renderings, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report (of record); for Commissioner Naggar, noted that the loading zone would be screened with landscaping, specifying the dimensions of the landscape buffer, further clarified the location of the chain-linked fencing, relaying the location of the existing, adjacent chain-linked fencing; and for Commissioner Fahey, clarified the rationale for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption, relaying that the proposed project was consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Allan Young, the applicant, was available for questions. Mr. Kenneth Keane, representing the applicant, specified, for Commissioner Naggar, that the material of the canoDy would be a painted dark gray metal, coordinating with the color of the :a~a~ng, presented the proposed building's design and articulation; and clarified the location of the loading zone, specifying the location of the slope, the landscape provisions, and the adjacent undeveloped property. Mr. Lon Brusegard, representing the applicant, relayed, for Commissioner Fahey, that the company currently employees 27 people, proposes to increase employment to 30 at the time of relocation, and forecasted the employment rate to be at 35 within a year; noted the hours of oPeration from 7:00 A M to 3:30 P.M.. with the potential of an extension of operating hours after re:oc-~:icn ant f~"':"e' ~;anfied w!tn regaro tc. C3mr":su3ner Naggars comments, the specifications of the chain-linked fencing, relaying that the slatting material would be plastic; noted the location of the landscape buffer, relaying the plan to install 15-gallon pine trees to buffer the view of the loading area; and noted that the aforementioned area of discussion is located adjacent to an undeveloped parcel. Commissioner Naggar recommended that the chain-linked fence be replaced with a wrought iron fence, and that additional articulation be added on the building's frontage (i.e., sandblasting or textudng) for the provision of additional visual interest. Assistant Planner Anders reiterated the location of the existing chain-linked fencing on the adjacent property; and specified the difference between wood slats and plastic slats with regard to maintenance and visual appearance. The applicant further relayed that due to the location, the proposed fencing would not be visible from the street; and specified the buildin9 design, relayin9 the architectural accents and articulation, noting that he was not in favor of adding additional articulation to the building's frontage, specifically sandblasting. Commissioner Fahey relayed that due to staffs clarification, she was not opposed to this particular project's chain-linked fencing. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public headng; adopt Resolution No. 99- 008 approving Planning Application No. PA98-0517 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA98~0517 per the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332. PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0517 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TWO-STORY, 32,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON TWO PARCELS TOTALING 1.88 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RIO NEDO, APPROXIMATELY 1300 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TIERRA ALTA WAY AND RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 909-290-043 AND 909-2904)44. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who was absent. 4. Planning Al~l~lication No. PA98-0511 (General Plan Amendment and Zone ChanGe) Request to Change the General Plan Land Use designation from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO) and change the Zoning designation from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO) for a proposed development of a 244 unit senior's only apartment complex. RECOM MENDAT!ON It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. It was noted that Commissioner Soltysiak ardved at the meeting at 6:35 P.M. By way of overheads, Project Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (per agenda material); highlighted architecture, access, parking, and landscaping, relaying that thirty-five percent (35%) of the site would be landscaped; for the record, noted that staff had received five letters (four prior to the headng) in opposition to the project from adjacent property owners, relaying that the pdmary concern expressed was the obstruction of their view; presented a line- of-sight drawing, clarifying that due to the change in elevations at the site, the proposed preject would not impede the view of the adjacent neighbors; relayed that staff is requesting that the Conditions of Approval be modified to reflect a revision in the Development Impact Fee category from Mufti-family to Professional Office; and noted that staff recommends the addition of an additional Condition of Approval (COA), regarding the permitted use of the property (read into the record, as follows: This approval is issued and granted to uSenior Citizen Housing Development" as the same is defined in the California Civil Code. No other tesiclentia/ use, except as permitted by California Civil Code 51.2, 51.3,and 51.4 in relation to Senior Citizen Housing Development is authotfzod or permitted to occur by orthrough this approval. Any other residential use will require further review and action under the laws of the City of Temecula.) For Commissioner Naggar, Project Planner Thomsley clarified that while the permitted use of the amended zoning map would allow both types of facilities. fiat this particular project would be for the provision of a Senior Housing Facility, and not for congregate care; relayed that while there is a need in the City of Temecula for this type of use, that residents of this particular project could potentially come from outside areas; specified the potential generated trip counts, as follows: Business Park Zoning (as currently zoned) would generate 180 tdps a day, and Senior Housing would generate 129 tdps a day; and dadfled that the projecrs proposed density would not exceed the permitted high-density residential use, referencing the Development Code (under Residential Section, under permitted uses for Senior Citizen Housing, page 39) For Commissioner Naggar, Attorney Cudey relayed that there were two issues before the Commission, as follows: 1) a legislative Land Use decision to amend the Zone Designation and the General Plan. as well as, 2) the proposed Development Plan; noted that the law has made provision for Senior Citizen facilities, designed to meet the specific needs of Seniors, enabling those facilities to limit the residential occupancy to qualifying residents of a specific age (55 years or older), relaying that this particular project was designed as a Senior Citizen facility, limiting its occupancy to qualifying senior citizens (age 55 years or older); and cited Civil Cede Sections 51.2, 51.3, and 51.4, relaying the chteda for the aforementioned facility, specifying the design of the use would be for the provision of accommodating the needs of senior citizens. In response to Commissioner Fahey's querying, Deputy Director of Parks advised that the current proposed project would have a less than significant impact upon traffic due to this type of facility primarily not utilizing peak hour access; and noted that if this particular proposed Development Plan did not go forward, while the amended Zone Designation changed the zoning from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO), and at a future point in time was fully developed under permitted uses for Professional Office (PO) Zoning, the uses would have a greater traffic impact, noting that there has been no study to determine precisely what the traffic impact would be, or if the Level of Service (LOS) would be affected. For Commissioner Fahey, Project Planner Thomsley relayed the uses permitted under Business Park (BP) Zoning, and Professional Office (PO) Zoning, noting that PO Zoning permits a less intensive use; advised what while this particular project would generate less traffic, the PO Zoning, generally generates a higher trip count, specifying that BP Zoning (current zoning) would generate additional traffic at peak hours, and less activity dudng work hours, while PO Zoning would generate additional traffic dudng various hours of the day; confirmed that if the project was approved in conjunction with approval of the proposed Zone change, and if at a future point in time the developer chose not to develop this particular project, the Zone change could potentially permit a use generating a higher traffic impact; and specified the generation of trips, as follows: the current Business Park (BP) Zoning would potentially generate 180 trips, per acre, per day; Professional Office (PO) Zoning would potentially generate 240 trips, per acre, per day; Senior Housing would potentially generate 129 trips, per acre, per day; and Muftifamily would potentially generate 2f0 trips, per acre, per day; relayed that with regard to traffic, noise and pollutants, this particular project would generate a less negative impact on the adjacent neighbors than current permitted uses under the existing Zoning; with regard to the potential future school stadium project on the adjacent School District property, relayed that the School Distdct responded two days before the headng on March 15, 1999 via letter correspondence (per agenda material), stating that a lighted stadium may be built at a future point in time, advising that the owner of the property be informed of the proposed stadium project. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the potential School District's stadium project would be permitted by the State, not the City, noting that the potential project would be subject to cooperation with the State's Architect, and would go through the process of an Environmental Study. In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments with regard to the Environmental Study for the potential School Distdct's stadium project, Attorney Cudey relayed that the proposed Senior Housing Facility could conceivably hinder the project. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Project Planner Thomsley relayed that the permitted height of development permitted for uses under the existing BP Zone would be 50 feet (50'), and under the proposed PO Zoning would be 75 feet (75'), For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Thomsley clarified the Environmental Study Report (of record), regarding the acoustical survey (page 46, Section: Noise.) For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the 25-foot easement on the Site Plan was a portion of the property granted to the City of Temecula for provision of a future transportation corridor, noting it was part of the General Plan. For Commissioner Webster, regarding Condition No. 60, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks re!ayeci that the pad for this particular project had been previously graded to raise it to the existing level, specifying the grading on the adjacent School District property. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that Nicelas Road is a private road, noting that the street had been voluntarily built by the developer; relayed that the road is not maintained by the City; and advised that maintenance of the road easement, additionally, would involve the School District. Project Planner Thomsley noted that the developer had created the easement, and granted access rights to the School District. Chairman Guerriero opened the public headng; and for the record reiterated that staff and the Commission had received five letters, relaying opposition to the project from the following individuals: Mr. Jeff Sechler, Mr. Chito Topacio, Mr. Arthur C., Ms. Brenda Bickerstaff, and WIlliam and Cindy Walker. For the record, an additional letter expressing opposition to the project was submitted to the clenk from Ms. Patdcia Madano, who spoke at the headng. Mr. Curtis Miller, the applicant, relayed a brief history of the Pacific Gulf Properties Inc., relaying the rationale for the development of active Senior Housing Facilities; noted that a similar project recently completed in Rancho Santa Margadta (166 units) was 100% leased within a month of project completion; noted that the bulk of the residents occupying that facility came from the immediate area or had family located in that area; specified the intedor building design, inclusive of eight elevators, billlard rooms, activity rooms, creating an environment for provision of the needs of the residents; for Commissioner Fahey, clarified the rationale for the location of this type of use, noting the preference to locate adjacent to residential areas, creating a home-like setting for the occupants; and relayed that the landscape buffering and circumferential gating will inhibit cross traffic problems with the adjacent high school. In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Attorney Cudey advised that the Senior Project could not be conditioned to have the residents of the facility waive their dghts to oppose the potential school stadium project, relaying that the occupants could be noticed of the potential stadium project pdor to leasing, providing assurance that the residents would be cognizant of the School Disthct's plan; and for Commissioner Webster, clarified that the State Statute sets the minimum age for residents at this type of facility at 55 years. Mr. James Mickartz, architect representing the applicant, further clarified the buffer between the project and the adjacent residential property (via photographs), specifying the approximate 40 foot differential in the elevations, noting the distance of over 300 feet between this particular project and the adjacent property; advised that the project would have no negative effect with regard to noise, differentiating this particular use from the current permitted uses which could potentially have a negative effect with regard to noise; further clarified the design of the project; advised that there are no pdmary peak hours of traffic use by this type of facility, relaying that a study relayed that at maximum peak this use would generate approximately 11 trips per hour, alleviating the concam of the high school's current traffic impact dudng peak hours; and addressed the querying of the Commissioners, as follows: For Commissioner Soltysiak, specified the location of the gating on the project; clarified the portion of the property to be developed for this particular project; advised that the intent for the undeveloped portion of the property was for separate ownership at a future point in time, specifying the design for provision of access on that parcel. For Commissioner Webster, specified the stucco coloring, additionally, relaying the articulation at the base of the building and the window detail for provision of additional visual interest; noted the rationale for the lack of windows and additional articulation on Building No. 2; and relayed the dimensions of the balconies. For Commissioner Fahey, noted that the peak traffic generated from the adjacent high school. sDecifically between 7:00 A,M, and 7:3C A.M. would net De sig;,ifEc~n~iy irnc~a~e,s Dy :h~s use, inGicating tnat an alternate permitted use under the current zoning would potentially generate additional peak hour traffic; and clarified that access to the site was directed by Caltrans. · For Commissioner Naggar, relayed that the Fire and Police Departments would direct the specifications of the address identlficetion. · For Chairman Guerdero, relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to modify the secondary access point, for provision of access to the residents; and clarified the 6 architectural rationale for the carport design and 'coloring to detract attention, relaying that if it was the desire of the Commission, the applicant would be agreeable to adding additional color, or striping. Commissioner Fahey commended the architect for his excellent work with regard to the building design. Mr. Peter Stealing, the current owner of the project's property, clarified for Commissioner Webster, that both Rodpaugh and Nicolas Roads have been privately developed, relaying that there is a joint maintenance agreement with the School District to maintain the aforementioned roBds. At 8:01 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 8:13 P.M. The tollowing individuals spoke in opposition to the project as currently proposed: Patricia Madano Chito Topacio Glen Zdanowski Rick Fila Jeff Sechler 39750 Knollridge Drive 39726 Knollridge Drive 39614 Knollridge Ddve 39680 Knollridge Ddve 39714 Knollridge Ddve The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the project for the following reasons: n Location (adjacent to the high school) Concern for the safety of the seniors driving in an area heavily impacted with teenage drivers and the risk of additional accidents [] Noise Additional traffic n The potential for non-seniors residing in the facility Height of the three-story building obstructing the view Concern regarding development of alternate permitted uses if the Zoning Designation modification was adopted and this particular project was not developed ~ Concern regarding the lack of community involvement by the project's representatives, specifically with the adjacent homeowners r~ Location of the air conditioning units For Commissioner Naggar, Mr. Curtis Miller relayed the rationale for the signage, advertising for an assisted-care facility use for the undeveloped portion of the property. Mr. Curtis Miller, addressed the voiced and written concerns of the community. as follows: W~th regard to traffic and noise, relayed that an alternate permitted use under the current Business Park Zoning could create a greater negative impact for the adjacent property owTlers. W~th regard to the height of this particular project, reiterated that the line-of-sight diagram clarified that due to the change in elevations and the distance from the project to the adjacent property, that the homeowners would not have their view impeded. With regard to traffic issues, relayed the potential for additional generation of traffic trips dudng the high school's peak hours would be impacted by approximately ten to f'~een percent of the working residents, occupying the senior facility, specifically by approximately 24 people; and advised that if there was a significant impact due to the additional generation of traffic, the applicant was agreeable to placing a reciprocal easement restric'don on the adjacent site for provision of access to Winchester Road, if approved by Caltrans. Wrd~ regard to the issue of safety dudng construction, relayed that dudng construction there would be on-site fencing, on-site supedntendent supervision, and on-site safety control. With regard to property values, noted that this particular project would generate a less negative impact than alternate permitted Business Park uses. Commissioner Naggar expressed that although he concurred with the need for this type of facility in the City of Temecula, recommended that the project not be located at this particular site, relaying concern with regard to the Zoning Redesignation, as follows: a) incompatibility with the existing land use (specifically, adjacent to the existing high school), b) the potential of development at the site with uses being permitted at a height of 75 feet under the amended PO Zoning, and c) the impact of additional traffic in a currently heavily impacted area; and dadfled that if additional studies were provided (i.e., traffic studies, Environmental Impact Report) addressing the aforementioned concerns he could support the project. With regard to the General Plan Amendment, Commissioner Fahey expressed concern with the potential of uses permitted under the proposed PO Zoning; relayed the rationale for the current BP Zoning, noting that this particular area would need provision of access to Winchester Road for adequate circulation, specifying that one allowable access would be potentially permitted by Caltrans with uses zoned under the current BP Zoning, relaying that access would provide compatibility with the existing use; advised that the potential for PO permitted uses would not provide provision for the aforementioned access, rendering a condition whereby use for this particular parcel generates a negative impact with regard to circulation; with regard to this particular Development Plan, expressed concern with respect to incompatibility, specifically, regarding traffic and circulation; relayed that although this particular project was designed well, it was incompatible on this particular site, due to the following: a) negative environmental impact with regard to height, and traffic intensity, b) negative impact with regard to ingress and egress, and c) incompatibility with the adjacent uses, specifically with noise and the potential future development of the School District; and specified that she could not support the General Plan Amendment or the proposed Development Plan due the aforementioned concerns. With regard to the issue of incompatibility with the existing high school use, Commissioner Sc::ys;a- euer:e..d the Commission 85 to what ~pe c,~ use aeveiopea u.'~ae' :he cd,'-ren[ zor, lr, g would be compatible on this particular parcel; and advised that if a potential Business Park use was proposed there would be a greater negative impact with regard to peak hour traffic. Chairman Guemero concurred with the potential negative impact a permitted BP use could generate in comparison with the impact this particular project proposes. Commissioner Naggar relayed that any future development on this particular parcel would come before the Planning Commission for approval and would be approved or denied on the medt of that particular project and its particular impact. Commissioner Webster relayed that this particular project would not have a negative impact with respect to the issues of concern voiced by the adjacent property owners; regarding the Development Plan, recommended that there be minor modifications with respect to the architectural and site design; and with respect to the General Plan Amendment expressed concurrence with the aforementioned Commission comments, specifically, as follows: a) incompatibility with the existing land uses, and b) the impact the Zone Redesignation would generate under PO Zoning with respect to increase in traffic counts, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase, and building height. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to deny approval of the change in the General Plan; and deny the change in the Zoning designation for the proposed development. (This motion ultimately died due to lack of a second,) Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that due to the difficulties associated with the partjcular site and the General Plan Amendment recommended that the General Plan not be amended; recommended that the Commission reconsider the project subject to adoption of a Plan Development Oveday (PDO) Zone, which would enable the applicant to address the issues of concern (i.e., height, compatibility); relayed that the PDO Zone would provide flexibility for provision of necessary standards for this particular project (i.e., height, buffering, access); and clarified that the recommendation would be to continue the matter, allowing the applicant to withdraw the General Plan Amendment, submit a Zone Change to PDO and bdng the matter back to the Planning Commission at a future point in time. For Commissioner Webster, with regard impacts the PDO Zone Change would generate, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided clarification. Commissioners Guerdero and Soltysiak expressed concurrence with Planning Manager Ubnoske's recommendation to continue the matter. Commissioner Fahey relayed that if the PDO Zone change would provide for provision of ingress and egress of the development in alternate locations, rather than at the high school, utilizing both parcels to provide adequate access she could support the recommendation to continue the matter. Chairman Guerdero relayed his comments, as follows: with regard to land use issues, noted that this particular project would create a less negative impact than other permitted uses, with regard to property values, relayed that property values in Temecula were rising; noted that while the adjacent property owners have a desire to leave this particular parcel vacant, growth and development are inevitable; advised that additional traffic control be added between this parcel and the high school; recommended that access to the pdvate roads should be granted to the Police Department; advised that with regard to noise, this particular project would provide provision of a noise bamer; with regard to the air conditioning units, relayed that the applicant has adequately addressed the issue in the building design and the distance barrier; noted that the City of Temecula has a need for this type of facility, enriching the quality of life in Temecula, providing provision for seniors in the community, and family members of community residents; and relayed that he could support the recommendation to continue the matter for consideration of a PDO Zone change. In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Planning Manager Ubnoske dadfled that the expressed concerns of the Commission would be addressed when the matter was brought back before the Commission. 9 Commissioner Naggar relayed his support of the recommendation to continue the matter. The applicant relayed that a continuance to the Apdl 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting would be agreeable. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to dose the public headng; and continue the matter to the Apdl 21, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske introduced the new Project Planner, Mr. Steve Griffin. Chairman Guernero welcomed him aboard. Ms. Ubnoske presented the specific uses proposed on the outlots; relayed that she will continue to update the Commission regarding these uses since they will not come before the Commission. Chairman Guerriero expressed a desire to ensure that the design of the uses was consistent with the City's Standards, and not to adopt the particular uses prototyped designs if there is a negative visual effect. Attorney Cudey relayed the legal constraints with regard to corporate signage. Regarding the issue of illegal parking of vehicles in the City for the provision of selling the vehicles, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that there is an Ordinance prohibiting this display of such vehicles, noting that it is a Police Department issue; and advised the Commission to specifically relay problem areas for further addressing. Chairman Guer~ero relayed that the problem is profuse in the City of Temecula, advising that the issue be addressed on a regular basis. Senior Planner Fagan presented the corner monument design for the Power Center, at Margarita and Winchester Roads; relayed that the name for the Development has been designated The Commons at Ternecula; and noted the specification of the design, clarifying the representation of the design. It was the consensus of the Commission that the design of the monument would Drovide a negative visual effect. Mr. Fagan advised that Re would forward the Commissioners comments. COM MISSlONER REPORTS Commissioner Webster relayed that numerous Diesel trucks are being parked on Diaz Road. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the issue will be addressed. Commissioner Naggar re~?ve~ that ~,=~ w;H 5e a-~=="'~ f-,':.,'~ the ~.D,,i 7 ~.~; ~'=,'~;-? 2,.J:-%m~sston C, ue ~.0 ~amlly vacation pians, noting a geslre for provision of tne agenc3a packet for the particular meeting. W~th regard to CEQA modifications, Commissioner Naggar relayed a desire for provision of informational data regarding the changes. 10 Mr. Naggar relayed for informational purposes that the City of Temecula is currently hosting 30 Japanese foreign exchange students. Chairman Guerriem expressed concem with the apartment complex on Rancho California Road (east of Moraga Road) with regard to the pad location, with respect to the proximity of the sidewalk. 1t ADJOURNMENT At 9:23 P.M. Chairman Guerdero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, April 7, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron Guemero, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager 12 ITEM #4 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commissioners Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager April 21, 1999 Planning Application No. PA98-0511 (General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan) for the development of Senior Apartments located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Nieolas Roads. PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Thomas ThornsIcy, Project Planner Recommend that the Planning Commission continue PA98-0511 (General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA98-0512 (Development Plan) off-calendar. BACKGROUND: These projects were brought before you on March 17, 1999, and continued to the April 21, 1999 meeting. At the meeting of March 17, questions and concern arose about the potential uses of the site, the possible traffic conflicts and other issues related to the projects as represented. With the applicant's consent their items were continued to April 21, 1999, while staff and the applicant prepared additional information. After reviewing the options for revising PA98-0511, (the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment) to a Planned Development Overlay, staff determined that this would actually be a new project requiting a new environmental assessment and legal noticing. Until the PDO is brought forward, Planning Application No. PA98-0512, the Senior Apartments, will have to be kept on hold. Therefore, staff recommends that both items be continued off calendar until such time that the Zoning Amendment for the PDO is complete and ready to move forward. Once complete. staff will notice both projects for a new hearing date. Attached you will find a letter from the applicant, Curt Miller, with Pacific Gulf Properties explaining the efforts being made to bring his projects back before the Planning Commission. Attachments: 1. Letter from Curtis J. Miller dated April 8, 1999 - Blue Page 2 X\Temec_fs201\data\DEPTS\PLANNING\511-512pa99 PC memo.doe ATTACHMENT NO. 1 LETTER FROM CURTIS J. MILLER DATED APRIL 8, 1999 \XTemec_fs201\data\DEPTS\PLANNING\511-512pa99 PC memo.doe 2 PACIFIC GULF PROPERTIES IN'C, April 8, 1999 Mr. Thomas Thornsley Planning Department City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 4220VON KARHAN SECOND FLOOR NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-2001 TELEPHONE: 949,223.5000 FAX: 949,223.5032 The Fountains at. Temecula Planning Application No. PA98-0511 Dear Thomas: Pacific Gulf Properties formally requests the cancellation of the above referenced planning application requesting a zoning amendment and general plan amendment as it relates to our active senior apartment project on Nicholas Road in Temecula. Th~s letter serves as a formal request and justification for a Planned Development Overlay to be included with the Planning Application NO. PA98-0512 (Development Plan). Pursuant to your request, I have already submitted a marked up copy of the city's' use regulations an_d development standards which Pacific Gulf requests the city incorporates into the Planned Development Overlay, as required for planning application approvals. I have tried to include uses. which would have been acceptable to the city under both the current Business Park zone and the original request for Professional Office zoning. The development standards (table 17.08.040A) will need modification under the PDO. [ have included guidelines that we are requesting. In addition, I have also submitted our internal marketing study and marketing plan for this part~icular pro,.iect. This study fully supports the immediate need for active senior multifamily living. and reinforces our beliefs of its potential for success. Pacific Gulf has also hired Linscott, Law and Greenspan to prepare an additional and much more specific traffic analysis focusing on two things: the interaction between the proposed pro,fect and the High School on Nicholas Road. and the projected traffic im.~act ::_,2',,:,,! b~' our prcUect versus. alternate u3e, Ur.d~r the current business park zoning and professional office zomng. it will be clear from the study, that our intended use will have a much lower impact on traffic than virtually any other use allowed under the city's current zoning. Thomas Thomsley April 8, 1999 Page two Our original site plan is being modified by James Mickartz to incorporate a new project entry off Nicholas Road. We have moved the entry to the rear of the cul-de-sac, in an effort to minimize its impact with the High School entry (regardless of how little impact it originally was). We have also added a rear exit onto Winchester road which could also serve to aid the flow of traffic into and out of our project. Pursuant to our April 6 meeting, Pacific Gulf is intent upon meeting the May 19 Planning Commission date. Please communicate any further request with me as soon as possible in order for us to meet this deadline. Your efforts are extremely appreciated. Sincerely, PACIFIC GULF PROPERTIES INC. Curtis J. Miller Vice President Cc: James Mickartz ITEM #5 RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Date: April 21, 1999 Planning Application No.: PA99-0044 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning Application No. PA99-0044 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; 2. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0044 per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332. APPLICATIONINFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: David Beckman, Chemicon Russell Rumansoff, Architect The design, construction and operation of a two-story, 85,056 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a parcel containing 4.92 acres. On the northwest corner of Single Oak Drive and Business Park Drive. LI (Light Industrial) North: LI (Light Industrial) South: BP (Business Park) East: LI (Light Industrial) West: LI (Light Industrial) N/A BP (Business Park) Vacant \~TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~44PA99pCStaffRpt.dOC 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Existing Light Industdal Building; Northwest: Vacant Lot South: Existing Light Industrial Building East: Existing Light Industrial Building West: Existing Light Industrial Building BACKGROUND A formal application submittal was received on February 5, 1999. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on February 25, 1999, with staff providing written comments on March 1, 1999. The project was deemed complete on April 6, 1999. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The design, construction and operation of a two-story, 85,056 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a parcel containing 4.92 acres. The site is located in an industrial park area with similar light industrial, manufacturing, warehouse and office uses. ANALYSIS Site Desion and LandscaDinq The subject properby is located in the Rancho California Business Park on a triangular shaped lot that has been previously graded. The site has three points of ingress/egress, one on Business Park Drive and two on Single Oak Ddve. The project provides circulation around the nodh, east and west portion of the site, with parking located on the north, east and west sides of the building. Landscaping is being provided along the entire perimeter of the property with plantings directly adjacent to three building elevations which to help soften the elevations. Landscaping is also located throughout the parking lot in landscaped fingers that break-up the asphalt area. There are also large existing landscaped areas along Business Park Ddve and Single Oak Drive. In addition, there is accent landscaping and a series of landscape planters on the north elevation thst guic~e you to the ma~n entry. The applicant had originally proposed parking along the west slope where a large number of mature Eucalyptus trees are planted. The applicant agreed to delete 23 parking spaces in order to save the existing trees. The applicant would like a level of comfort that staff would support a Minor Exception Permit in the future if the applicant changed the mix of square footages between office, manufacturing and warehouse. A Minor Exception Permit would allow the reduction of no more than 15% of the total parking SPaces, which in this case would be twentv-seven (27) spaces. S:E. :: :es.s ;r,a: a Minor Excsp~ian F=, ,,-n~ for me reeuction aT twenDy-~nree spaces (23) in the ;u~ure, if needed, would be appropriate in order to preserve the grove of mature Eucalyptus trees. In addition, the trees will screen the proposed loading zones on the west side of the building. The total landscaped area provided on site is 21%, which complies with the 20% requirement of the Light Industrial zone. Staff feels the applicant has applied the new landscaping very appropriately on site, and has put in the effort to preserve the existing, mature vegetation on site. ~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~4pA99pCStaffRpt.dOc 2 Amhitecture The proposed building is a two-story, painted, concrete tilt-up structure. However, the southeast corner of the building has an all glass, curved element with a slightly lower roofline. This corner also has a freestanding wall in front of the glass that creates an architectural statement and provides some relief from the extensive glazing at the comer. The main entry is articulated with a projected, angular, half-wall that has openings for pedestrian access. The other elevations are articulated with the use of windows with metal sunscreens, varying paint patterns, and tile accents. The proposed colors are earth tones of light grays and a blue accent color that will be compatible with the existing structures in the area. There are also metal canopies on the west elevation which provide covering for the loading zones. Staff feels the building is a quality design and will be compatible with existing structures in the area in terms of overall design, colors, materials and bulk and mass. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0044 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332. Section 15332 applies to in-fill development projects that are less than five (5) acres that are substantially surrounded by urban uses; a project that is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning; a site that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; and a site that can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The subject site is a previously graded lot, is in an area that does not serve as a mitigation corridor or have habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEAQ exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park), the existing zoning of LI (Light Industrial) and the City-Wide Design Guidelines. The proposed use is a permitted use within Light Industrial zoning classification. As proposed, the project complies with the General Plan Land Use designation, existing zoning and the corresponding development standards. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The design, construction and operation of a two-story, 85,056 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a parcel containing 4.92 acres. As proposed, the project is consistent with the General Plan and Development Code, and is compatible with the existing development in terms of architectural design, colors and materials. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRP'R44PA99PCStaft~pt.dOc 3 The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlib or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site. Furtherrnore, grading has already occurred at the site. The project wile not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0044 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332. Section 15332 applies to in-fill development projects that are less than five (5) acres that are substantially surrounded by urban uses; a project that is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning; a site that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; and a site that can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The subject site is a previously graded lot, is in an area that does not serve as a mitigation corridor or have habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Therafore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: PC Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Exhibits - Blue Page 19 A. Vicinity Map P_,. Zoning Map C. General Plan Maps D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Floor Plans G. Landscape Plan \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~-4pA99pCStaffRpt.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- %\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFR~pA99pCStaffRpt,dOC 5 ATTACHMENT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0044 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 'ilNO..STORY, 85,056 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 4.92 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SINGLE OAK DRIVE AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-051. WHEREAS, Chemicon, filed Planning Application No. PA99-0044, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0044 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0044, on April 21, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA99-0044; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference, Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0044 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code; A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula an~ With a!l applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is cc,':.s:s:e::~ with all City Ordinances inciuding: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. C. The project is consistent with the LI - Light Industrial Zoning on the site, which permits manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and corporate office uses. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~4pA99pCStaffRpt.doc 6 D. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Furthermore, the site is a previously graded site. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0044 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332. Section 15332 applies to in-fill development projects that are less than five (5) acres that are substantially surrounded by urban uses; a project that is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning; a site that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; and a site that can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The subject site is a previously graded lot, is in an area that does not serve as a mitigation corridor or have habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. Therefore, the proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0044 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332 relative to in-fill development projects. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA99-0044 (Development Plan) for the design, construction and operation of a two-story, 85,056 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a parcel containing 4.92 acres located on the northwest corner of Single Oak Drive and Business Park Drive, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-051 subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of April, 1999. Ron Guerriero, Chairperson I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 21 st day of April, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRp'rV~pA99pCStaffRpt.dOC 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F~4pA99pCStaffRpt.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA99-0044 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a two-story, 85,056 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a parcel containing 4.92 acres located on the northwest corner of Single Oak Drive and Business Park Drive. Development Impact Fee Category: Industrial Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-051 Approval Date: Expiration Date: April 21, 1999 April 21, 2001 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnity, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection. the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements~ or proceedin_~s against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction \~TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFR~PA99PCStaffRpt.doc 9 contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. Staff shall support a Minor Exception Permit to allow the reduction of twenty-three (23) parking spaces if the mix of uses/square footages change which would require additional parking, provided the existing grove of mature Eucalyptus tree remains in place pursuant to the approved Landscape and Site Plans (Exhibit "E" and "D" respectively), The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. All existing trees shall be relocated behind the proposed sidewalk. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the structure. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "G" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Planning Manager. Mate-ial Color Concrete Walls (Primary Color) Concrete Walls (Accent Color) Concrete Walls (Accent Color) Concrete Walls (Accent Color) Tile Accent Glazing Window Frames Metal Canopies White Solitude (Frazee CW057W) Rugged Trail -(Frazee 8663W) Light Almond (Frazee 8661 W) White (Frazee 001 ) Galaxy (Dal Tile D1469) Gray & Gray Reflective Clear Anodized Aluminum Mechum Blue (AEP-Span Kynar) Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 9. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~44pA99pCStaffRpt.dOC 10 10. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G", (Site Plan. Landscape Plan, Elevations, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 11. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Matedais Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 13. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 14. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. 15. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 16. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~4pA99pCStaff~pt.doc 11 landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 17. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectodzed sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the intedor end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthodzed vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 18. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 19. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 20. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 21. An Encroachment Permit shall be oDtaineo from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 22. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 23. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~4pA99pCStaffRpt,dOC 12 erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 24. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 25. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Planning Department b. Department of Public Works 26. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 27. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 28. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 29. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 30. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards suDject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public WorKs. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. A Street light sha!l be ins.'.alled at the no,'-th west corner of Single Oak Drive and Business Park Drive along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along Single Oak Drive frontage in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400,401 and 402. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. ~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~4pA99pCStaffRpt.doc 13 g. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 31. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. 32. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, ddve approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate a. Storm drain facilities b. Sewer and domestic water systems c. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines 33. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. 34. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 35. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 36. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bylaass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 37. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancno California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 38. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. \\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F44PA99PCStaffRpt.dOC 14 39. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 40. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 41. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 42. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 43. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 44. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S-2/F-2. 45. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 48. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 47. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 48. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 49. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 50. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 51. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code. Appendix C. 52. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 53. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 54. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 55. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRP'F~4PA99PCStaffRpt.dOC 15 56. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 57. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector pdor to the start of the building construction. 58. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate approvals and permits. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 59. Final fire and lifo safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 60. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1938 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3780 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 61. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC Appendix Ill.B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage tca hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 62 As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2) ',f scns~ruction !s phased, each pnase snail prowcle appr,.~'ea access aria fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 64. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have appreved Fire Department vehicle access reads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~44PA99PCStaffi~pt.dOC 16 65. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) 66. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) 67. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 68. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) 69. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15) 70. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15) 7!. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10) 72. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be !ocated to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box st, all be superv~seC Dy ~ne alarm system. (UFC 902.4) 73. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (UFC Article 81) \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRp'R44pA99pCStaffRpt.dOC 17 OTHER AGENCIES 74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's tmnsmittal dated February 22, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districts transmittal dated February 17, 1999, a copy of which is attached. 76 The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District dated March 22, 1999, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conforrnance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name ~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~-4PA99PCStaffRpt.dOC 18 I.onday February 22~ 1~ 4:18pm -* From 'gr'q~03' -- Page 31 82/22/~q99 15:59 95589, CAC P/~GE 83/03 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE; February 7_2, 1999 TO: FROM: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT try Andera, Assistant Planner ~E HARRISON, Environmental Health Specialist PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0044 The Department of Environmental Healffi has reviewed the Plot Ran No. PA99-0044 and has no objections, Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,/including a fix'lure schedule, a finish ~ehedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan exanvaaers at (909) 694-5022. c) A cleaxanc. e letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance//617.4. Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance ~615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance//651.2). · Waste reduction management. 3, W:zte Regulation Branch (%Vaste Collection/LEA). CH:dr (909) 9554980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Deparmaent of Envixonmental Health clearance. cc: Doug Thompson · .¸% stand3b,doc .© ancho Wa r February 17, 1999 Ms. Patty Anders, Case Planner City of Temecuia Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO. 13 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19580-I APN 921-020-051 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0044 Dear Ms. Anders: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT ,, 'Steve Brannon, P.E Development Engineering Manager 99/SB:mc034\F012-T1 \FCF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor .¢ral Manager-Chief' Engineer City of Temecula Plannin De artment Post O~ce ~x 9033 Temecula. California 92589-9033 Attention: PArry Ladies and Gentlemen: 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/955-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 51180.1 Re: PAct c/_ 0 0 q The Distdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The Distdct also does not lan check city land use Cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for suchp cases. District comments/recommendations for such Cases are normally limited to items of specific enterest to the District including Distdct Master Draina e Plan facilities, other re ional flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logiCal componenPor extension of a master ~l~n s stem and Distdct Area I~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addifion, information of a general ns*~usre is provided. The Distdct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply Disthct approval or endorsement of the proposed pro ect with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: V/ This project would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional ~nterest proposed. This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The Distdct will acce t ownershi of such facilities on wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct stan~lPards, and ~istdct plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The Distdct wo~l°c'J consider accepting ownership of such tacsht~es on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to D'st 'ct standards and Dlstdct plan check and inspection will be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan c eck, inspection and administrative fees will be required. _ permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources ContYrol ~oard. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approva?should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. tf this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen~-y Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require t~e applicant to provide all studies calculations plans and other Information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR) pdor to grading recordation or other final approval of the project and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR0( pdor to occupancy. ~f s nst'Jral wstercourse or ma2oed ~oc~ clein is imDa;tecj tiv th!s D'Qiect. the City should require the aDDjicent to c;:a~r' s _-ec~lon IB01~1603 Agreemen[ from me Caiiforn~a ~epar~ment of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten correspondence from these a encies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Cert~cation may be required from the loCal California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. ~Very truly yours, __ MfiF. 2 :':.: STUART E. MCKIBBIN " Senior Civil Engineer ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~44PA99PCStaffRpt.doc 19 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. 99-0044 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 21, 1999 VICINITY MAP \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~44pA99pCStaffRpt.doC 20 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B ~ ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (Light Industrial) ~P ~ P < '.> ESP L~ LZ EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP (Business Park) CASE NO. 99-0044 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 21, 1999 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~44PA99pCStaffRpt.doc 21 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. 99-0044 EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -April 21, 1999 SITE PLAN \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING%STAFFRPT%44PA99PCStaffRpt.dOC 22 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. 99-0044 EXHIBIT- E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -April 21, 1999 ELEVATIONS \\TEMEC_FS201%DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%44PA99PCStaffRpt.dOC 23 CITY OF TEMECULA FLOOR PLAf4 CASE NO. 99-0044 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -April 21, 1999 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR FLOOR PLAN \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F%44PA99PCStaffRpt.dOC 24 CITY OF TEMECULA SECOND FLOOR PLAN CASE NO. 99-0044 EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -April 21, 1999 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR FLOOR PLAN \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT,A4PA99PCStaffRpt.dOC 24 CITY OF TEMECULA I~ PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN CASE NO. 99-0044 EXHIBIT - G PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 21, 1999 LANDSCAPE PLAN \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~4PA99PCStaffRpt.dOC 25 In compliance with the ~,.,~ericans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance b ~,articipate in this meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION April 2f, f999, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Reso Next In Order #98-011 CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: Chairperson Guerriero Fahey, Guerriero, Naggar, SoRysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakere are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretan/. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state yourname and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretap/before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS Approval of Agenda APPROVED 4-0, FAHEY ABSENT Vice Chair Election ELECTED NAGGAR, 4-0, FAHEY ABSENT Approval of Minutes from March t7, 1999 APPROVED 4-0, FAHEY ABSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Planning Application No. PA98-0511 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) PA97-0512 (Development Plan) Applicant: Cud Miller, Pacific Golf Properties 4220 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: A 12.3 acre lot on the nodhwest corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road, (APN 911-170-078, 911-170-085, 911-170-090). Proposal: To change the General Plan Land Use designation from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (O) and change the Zoning designation from Business Park (BP) to Professional Office (PO) for a proposed development of a 244 unit senior's only apartment complex. Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Case Planner: Thomas Thornsley Recommendation: Continue Off-Calendar ACTION: APPROVED 4-0, FAHEY ABSENT R :\WEVIBERVG\PLANCOMMXAGENDAS\ 1999\4-21-99. doc Case No: Planning Application No. PA99-0044 (Development Plan) Applicant: David Beckman, Chemicon Location: On the northwest corner of Single Oak Drive and Business Park Drive. Proposal: The design, construction and operation of a operation of a two-story, 85,056 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a parcel containing 4.92 acres. Environmental Action: A Notice of Exemption per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332. Planner: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Recommendation: Approval ACTION: APPROVED 4-0, FAHEY ABSENT PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT Proposed Modifications to Building Three (3) of the Power Center (PA97-0'I 18) COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: May 5, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMM\AGENDAS\I999\4 21~99.doc 2