Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031500 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH '15, 2000 The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday March 15, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Mathewson. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: Also Present: Commissioner Fahey. Planning Manager Ubnoske,' ' Director of Public Works Hughes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, City Attorney Thorson, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Thomas, Project Planner DeGange, Project Planner Thornsiey, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 2 Approval of A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 15, 2000. Minutes. RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve Minutes from January 19, 2000 R:PlanComm~linutes\031500 1 3 Director's Headn,q Update RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Receive and File MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent and Commissioner Telesio who abstained. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planning Application No. PA99-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) Mar,qadta Canyon, located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79 South/future Western Bypass- John DeGange RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S) ! FUTURE WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-047); 4.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627); 4.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0307 Tentative Parcel Map 28627. For the record, Chairman Guerdero advised that he would be abstaining from this issue, and therefore left the dais, Vice Chairman Mathewson presiding. Via overhead maps, Project Planner DeGange presented the staff report (of record), noting that this matter had been previously continued, most recently from the February 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; specified staff's issues of concern relative to traffic impacts and the spacing of the applicant's proposed access into the project; relayed the modifications that had been made to the map, noting the inclusion of Parcel No. 12, and the development phase map; noted that Phase I of the development would be inclusive of Parcel Nos. 1 and 12, and that Phase II of the development would occur after a one-year pedod and following the development of a Development Agreement which would specify the details of the development of the R:PlanComm'~linutes~031500 2 remaining ten parcels; relayed that while the applicant's proposed access would initially be permitted, the easement located 250 feet to the west of the proposed access would potentially be utilized as a future access if at a future point in time there was determination that the traffic impacts associated with this project warranted the utilization of this second access point; and provided additional information regarding the applicant's traffic consultant's data regarding the impacts from the Phase I Development. Director of Public Works Hughes provided clarification regarding staffs discussions with the applicant and the subsequent addition of Condition Nos. 27, 28, and 29, regarding requirements for Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (IODs) which were had been required for right-of-way provisions for the project's future potential access, and in anticipation that there would be successful negotiations of a Development Agreement; per additional discussions, noted that the applicant had relayed their opposition to these particular conditions due to the concern regarding the lack of a nexus between the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication and the project impacts; and provided the following additional information regarding each of these three conditions: With respect to Condition No. 27, noted that this was an IOD for an additional 12 feet along the Western Bypass (the northerly side of the project) which would be necessary to accommodate a second left-turn into the project which had been identified by the applicant's traffic study to accommodate the left-turn movements into the extension of Old Town Front Street; clarified that at this time the condition would not require the applicant to build out the additional 12 feet, but would solely be for the provision of protecting the City's ability to add that 12 feet right-of-way if at a future point in time the thresholds of left-turn movements into the project would exceed the Levels of Service (LOS) at the intersections; relayed the rationale for the necessity of both the 12-foot IODs on the west and east sides of Old Town Front Street. With respect to Condition No. 28, relayed that this was an IOD for an alternate road access at the project's westerly boundary, specifying that the rationale for the inclusion of this condition was due to the uncertainty of the future traffic impacts and the future functioning of the southbound off-ramp, allowing the opportunity to abandon the Front Street access and to provide an alternate access plan. With respect to Condition No. 29, relayed that it was staffs opinion that this condition should be deleted. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding Condition No. 28, Director of Public Works Hughes specified that staff was recommending that the language of Condition No. 28 be modified to read, as follows: The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes along the westerly property boundary for adequate right-of-way to construct an alternate project entrance street across Parcel Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 11; specified that the condition was related solely to the project's impacts; and provided additional information regarding the 24-foot interim access point. Regarding Vice Chairman Mathewson's queries with respect to Condition No. 28, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the map was being developed in two phases, noting that Phase I would be inclusive of the development of Parcel Nos. 1, and 12; clarified that if the traffic levels exceed the thresholds solely for the development of these two parcels, then the City would require the 24-foot access road on the west side; noted that the request for the road extension was due to the map being for the development of 12 lots, and the desire to ensure R:PlanComm~inutes~031500 3 that access was provided for the alternate route; and relayed that the 24-foot road driveway had been addressed in Condition No. 26c. For Vice Chairman Mathewson, with respect to queries regarding the 12-foot iOD on the southerly side of the Western Bypass (east of Old Town Front Street), Director of Public Works Hughes provided the rationale for an easement on the north side of the bypass not being feasible. Per discussions with the applicant's representatives, City Attorney Thorson relayed that with respect to Condition No. 10 (regarding the biological survey) that the condition could be amended to require that the study be conducted solely if habitat was found on the property; relayed that with respect to Condition Nos. 25, and 50, specifically regarding Caltrans clearance, that the phrase within the jurisdiction of Caltrans could be deleted; and with respect to Condition No. 88, per Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advisement, relayed that the date of the letter should be denoted as December 8, 1999 rather than October 20th. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner DeGange relayed that at this time it would not be necessary to conduct a study with respect to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, noting that Fish &Wildlife does not consider this area an area of concern for this particular species (advised that this could change at a future point in time). With respect to Condition Nos. 25, and 50 (regarding Caltrans clearance), City Attorney Thorson clarified that the language would be deleted after the phrase Resolution No. __. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the modifications relayed by City Attorney Thorson with respect to Condition Nos. 10, 25, and 50; with respect to Condition No. 88, advised that the revision of the date of the letter (previously addressed by Deputy Director of Public Works Parks) did not satisfy the applicant's desire, requesting that Condition No. 88 be stricken in its entirety; with respect to Condition Nos. 27, and 28, noted the extensive traffic analysis the applicant had completed which had revealed that with the dual left- turn lane into the site that the project would not negatively impact the ramp system; specified the offer of 12 feet in conjunction with the left-turn lane, noting that the applicant had offered to bond for the construction of the 12 feet to return the one through lane based on staff's deduction that the applicant was taking away a through lane; relayed that the applicant was opposed to the additional 12-foot Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) west of the Old Town Front Street extension; relayed that it was the applicant's opinion that there was no need to move the access point to the west; noted that after discussions with staff, the applicant had offered an additional 24 feet as an interim driveway for an alternate access point; reiterated that the applicant was not in support of Condition No. 27 (specifically, with respect to the IOD west of Front Street) or Condition No. 28; noted that it would be appropriate to delete Condition No. 29; and clarified that the rationale for the applicant's' opposition to Condition Nos. 27 and 28 was due to the fact that there had been no data or written material demonstrating a nexus for the conditions. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the applicant's opposition to Condition No. 27, Mr. Markham provided additional clarification. Commissioner Telesio queried whether the conditions requiring the previously mentioned IODs were for the provision of the potential intersection. In response, Mr. Markham relayed that due to the uncertainty factors, staff was attempting to reserve these dedications in anticipation of the approved project study report, clarifying that the applicant's opposition was that once the IODs R:PlanCommWlin utes\031500 4 were provided, the land would be under the purview of the City and lost to the developer; noted that there was an active Planning Application on Parcel No. 12 for a service station which would have to be revised to reflect the requirements of Condition No. 28. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that if the Offers of Dedication (IODs) were ultimately not needed, that the City could vacate the land and it would be reverted back to the property owner. For Commissioner Telesio, City Attorney Thorson clarified that an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication meant that once the applicant offered it to the City, the applicant could not withdraw it, confirming that if the traffic counts and the traffic thresholds did not warrant the development of an alternative access at that point, then the City could vacate the offer and return it to the property owner. Mr. Markham commented that after the service station site plan had been modified, the return of the property would not significantly benefit the property owner at that point in time. With respect to Condition No. 28, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that this Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) was outside the limits of Parcel No. 12, noting that the property was west of Parcel No. 12, specifically between that parcel and the creek, specifying that no property would be taken from Parcel No. 12; relayed that the 12-foot area along the Western Bypass could be lost and need to be condemned at a future point if the property was sold and developed without having the full study resolved, clarifying the rationale for staff requiring that particular IOD at this time. Commenting on Deputy Director of Public Works Parks' comments, Mr. Markham relayed that in his opinion it would not be feasible to establish a 88-foot dedication on the west side of Parcel No. 12, clarifying that the applicant was opposed to Condition No. 28 in its entirety; and with respect to the riparian strip located in the area of discussion, relayed that the applicant had made diligent efforts to not disturb this location in order to minimize the need for additional permitting. For Vice Chairman Mathewson with respect to his queries regarding the feasibility for the dedicated area to be moved further to the east in order to avoid the sensitive habitat area, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that it was feasible, noting that it would then affect the Development Application that was in place at this time; and advised that staff was willing to delete Condition No. 28 and the requirements to improve Old Town Front Street if it was the applicant's desire to revert back to the original conditions of December 8, 1999 which were inclusive of relocating the southerly access road a minimum of 250 feet west of the Highway 79\Oid Town Front Street intersection, noting that per discussions with the applicant, it had been relayed that this was unacceptable due to the desire to develop Parcel Nos. 1, and 12. In response to Deputy Director of Public Works Parks' comments, Mr. Markham relayed that per the provided traffic study, the Phase I Development could take access off the extension of Front Street; relayed that the applicant had agreed to delay the Phase II Development for a period of one year in order to allow the project study report to mature and be approved by Caltrans, noting the discussions regarding the development of a future Development Agreement; and reiterated that it was the applicant's opinion that the project's impact to the ramp system would be minimal. R:PlanComm~Minutes\031500 5 For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Mr. Markham specified the applicant's lane configuration diagram, noting that the City had requested that the applicant maintain the dedicated right-turn lane, relaying the applicant's subsequent offer of 12 feet on the southern side; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the potential configuration at build-out. Director of Public Works Hughes clarified that there had been no approved Interchange Plan, relaying that draft concepts had not been formally submitted to Caltrans, noting that per informal discussions with Caltrans, concerns had been expressed regarding the draft proposal; and advised that the conditions of this particular project were based on the existing conditions. In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Markham clarified the applicant's opposition to Condition No. 88 (regarding adherence to Caltrans recommendations). For Vice Chairman Mathewson, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that Caltrans had a right to comment on any Development Plan that may impact the freeway or the access to or from the freeway, noting that it was within the Commission's purview as to whether the applicant would be conditioned to adhere to the recommendations setforth by Caltrans. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Public Works Hughes reiterated that the conditions for this project were not related to the needs for the future Interchange, but solely for the mitigation of this project, and relative to existing conditions; for Vice Chairman Mathewson, provided additional information regarding staffs original proposal to relocate the access point 250 feet to the west which would provide assurance that the project's turning movements could be mitigated; and clarified the rationale for the current proposed conditions. For the record, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant had submitted approximately four traffic studies utilizing software per the City's direction; noted that the City had not provided an alternate study to the applicant; relayed that with respect to staff's comparison of this intersection (from a distance perspective) to the Winchester Road\Jefferson Avenue intersection and the intersection at Rancho California Road\Jefferson Avenue\Old Town Front Street, it was the applicant's opinion that due to the differential in traffic numbers that this comparison was inappropriate; noted that the applicant had not been provided with material validating staffs opinion; reiterated that this particular project was a phased approval, which would provide staff a year to effect a project study report; and reiterated the applicant's opposition to the previously mentioned IODs (referenced in Condition Nos. 27, and 28). The following individuals relayed their concern regarding access to the property to the south of this project: Mr. Brian Gibbs Mr. James D. Simmons Mr. Kelly Christensen Mr. RayMcLaughlin [] Mr. Donald McLaughlin [] Mr, Paul Eldridge 16955 Via Del Campo 30025 Front Street 16955 Via Del Campo s,. 30773 Del Rey Road 8984 Cannon Ridge Drive 41872 Enterprise Circle North The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments: Noted the lack of access to the southerly proximate site. R: PlanComm~vlin utes\031500 6 Recommended that this project be conditioned to provide access to the southern property. Relayed additional information regarding the negotiation process up to this point. Advised that this project, as proposed, would landlock the southern property. Acknowledged that the City was not required to condition the applicant to provided access, but that it was within the purview of the Commission to grant this access. Referencing the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, and other documents, relayed that the Planning Commission would have the jurisdiction to create a condition of access. Relayed the rationale for the Commission granting the access. Requested the Planning Commission to require access as part of the Development Agreement if not granting it during the appreval process. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Gibbs relayed that currently the southern property was being accessed via verbal authority with the applicant; and noted that the radio communications tower had been located and serving the community from this site for ten years. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Mr. Eldddge previded additional information regarding the previous litigation that occurred between the two properties. In rebuttal to the community comments, Mr. Markham noted that there were ongoing negotiations regarding the access issue, advising that it should remain in the context of the private property owners; and clarified that with respect to a potential Development Agreement, that this would be between the applicant and the City, and would not involve a third party. Mr. Bob Edmunds, attorney representing the applicant, provided a brief history of the landlocked property and the associated litigation; clarified the legal aspects of the issue; and relayed that the applicant would be opposed to a condition requiring the granting of access; recommended that the matter be addressed in the marketplace; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted that there were ongoing discussions with the various property ownere regarding access. The Commission relayed concluding remarks, as follows: In response to the applicant's concerns with respect to the Irrevocable Offere of Dedication (IODs), Commissioner Telesio queried whether there could be a shared liability between the City and the applicant, and whether there could be utilization of the preperty (IODs) by the preperty owner in the interim period since there was no certainty that the property would ever be utilized by the City, recommending that if the property was needed at a future point that the use of the area cease. In response to Commissioner Telesio's queries, City Attorney Thorson relayed that with respect to split liability issues, that the City was not requiring the applicant to make the improvements on the alternate readway; confirmed that there was a differential between the conclusions of the traffic analysis of the City's engineere and of the applicant's engineers; with respect to the development of a condition stating that the City would relinquish the property if it was not needed, noted the difficulties with defining the specific point in time the property would be R:PlanComm~vlin utes\031500 7 determined to not be required; and relayed that the IOD property issue could be resolved through the development of a Development Agreement. Commissioner Telesio reiterated his recommendation that the applicant be permitted to utilize the property until it was necessary for the City to utilize the area. City Attorney Thorson relayed the importance of specifying the requirements with respect to the dedicated offers due to the possibility that the property could be sold at a future date; and noted that with IOD there were some interim uses that the applicant would be permitted to utilize on the property. With respect to the issue of access to the southern property, Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, relayed that in his opinion this was a private property matter. Commissioner Webster relayed concurrence with the modifications to Condition Nos. 10 (regarding requirements for a biological survey), 25, and 50 (regarding written clearance from numerous agencies), as previously proposed by staff; with respect to the alternate issues of discussion, provided two options for recommendations of approving this project, as follows: Option 1) accepting the City's conditions and recommendations with the exception of Condition No. 29 (regarding an IOD along the Front Street), noting that this condition would remain rather than be deleted, and Option 2) that Condition Nos. 27 (regarding an IOD along the Western Bypass Corridor), and 29 ( regarding the IOD along Front Street) remain, as stated, and that Condition Nos. 28 (regarding an IOD along the westerly proposed boundary) and 88 ( regarding Caltrans recommendations) be deleted. In response to Vice Chairman Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that it had been staff's recommendation to delete Condition No. 29 (regarding an IOD along Front Street). Vice Chairman Mathewson expressed concern regarding the differential between the conclusions of the traffic studies provided by the applicant's engineers and the City's engineers; relayed support of the conditions, as modified by staff; acknowledged that the westerly access may not be ultimately required, noting that this was an important factor to address in light of the applicant's desire to begin development at this point in time when there had been no determination with respect to Caltrans' study regarding the offramps, clarifying the rationale for mitigating solely the project's impacts which was inclusive of the potential to modify the access point; recommended that Condition No. 88 (regarding Caltrans recommendations) and Condition No. 29 (regarding an IOD along Front Street) be deleted; and that the modifications proposed with respect to Condition Nos. 10, 25, 28, and 50 be implemented. For Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Mathewson further specified his recommendations. In response to Commissioner Webster, Director of Public Works Hughes clarified staff's rationale for recommending that Condition No. 29 be deleted. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff's recommendation with the modifications outlined by Vice Chairman Mathewson. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster. (This motion was ultimately amended.) R:PlanComm'~lin utes\031500 8 For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Public Works Hughes specified the permitted uses on the IOD property. With respect to the motion, City Attorney Thorson specified the modifications to the Conditions of Approval as discussed and moved by the action of the Commission prior to the vote, as follows: With respect to Condition No. 10, this condition would be modified to add the phrase if the habitat is a designated habitat after the phrase referencing any other endangered or threatened species inhabitant the site. + With respect to Condition No. 25, this condition would be modified to delete the phrase that are within the jurisdiction of Cattrans after the phrase Resolution No. __. With respect to Condition No. 50, this condition would be modified to reflect the same modifications as Condition No. 25. With respect to Condition No. 27, this condition would remain, as written. With respect to Condition No. 28, this condition would read, as follows: The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes along westerly proposed property boundary for adequate fight-of-way to construct an altemative access street access Lots, 8,9, and 10. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and City Attorney. With respect to Condition Nos. 29 (regarding an IOD along Front Street), and 88 (regarding Caltrans recommendations), these conditions would be deleted. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that with respect to Condition No. 28 (regarding an IOD along the westerly proposed boundary) the Commission could make this issue a subject of the Development Agreement, or a requirement at a future date when there was provision of a map, finalizing Parcel Nos. 8,9, 10, or 11. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding Condition No. 5 (regarding traffic thresholds). For Commissioner Webster, City Attorney Thorson offered additional clarification regarding Condition No. 5 (regarding traffic thresholds and the development of a Development Agreement), specifying that if there was continued disagreement regarding traffic thresholds between the applicant and staff, that the issue would be brought back to the Commission; and relayed that the Development Agreement would be presented before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Markham commented with respect to Condition No. 28 (regarding an IOD along the westerly proposed boundary), relaying the applicant's desire to address this issue in the context of a Development Agreement; and provided additional information regarding the lack of value of the land that was involved in the IOD for the property owner. Commissioner Webster relayed his desire to tie the issues related to Condition No. 28 with the Development Agreement in order for the matter to be finalized at the time of the Development Agreement, recommending that additional language be added to the condition stating the R:PlanCornmWlin utes\031500 9 following: dependent upon the results of additional studies in the subsequent Development Agreement. AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to amend the motion in order to include Commissioner Webster's recommended modifications to Condition No. 28. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion. (This motion was ultimately amended.) City Attorney Thorson clarified that the Development Agreement requires the consent of both parties (the City and the applicant), advising that if Condition No. 28 (which required dedication) would be subject of the Development Agreement, the applicant would have veto as to whether or not that dedication would be provided; and for Vice Chairman Mathewson, reiterated that if there was disagreement between the City and the applicant, the issue would be brought to the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed concern with respect to the inclusion of the requirements of Condition No. 28 in a Development Agreement due to the fact that there was no certainty that there would be a Development Agreement (referencing Condition No. 5). For Commissioner Webster, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that language could be added to Condition No. 28 stating that this condition could be deleted in the future upon an acceptable Development Agreement. Director of Public Works Hughes reiterated that there may not be a Development Agreement, relaying that the issues related to Condition No. 28 would be part of the Development Agreement discussions; and noted that the rationale for the inclusion of this condition was due to the applicant's request not to have the intersection permanently constructed 250 feet to the west; and for Commissioner Telesio, specified that the applicant could utilize the IOD property in the interim period for additional parking (not as part of the required parking) or potentially for signage. In response to Commissioner Telesio's comments, Vice Chairman Mathewson relayed that the IODs were part of the costs to the developer for developing this area at this point in time; noted his reluctance to address Condition No. 28 in a Development Agreement when there was no certainty that a Development Agreement would be executed; and relayed his desire to address any potential traffic impacts fully and adequately. City Attorney Thorson relayed that the following specific language would address the expressed concerns of the Commission: + With respect to Condition No. 28, that language be added stating that The Planning Commission retains the authority to modify this condition if conditions change. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the IOD required in Condition No. 28 was located at the front of the property, noting that it would not be likely that there would be a structure located in that particular area, relaying that the area would most likely be utilized for parking and landscaping; and advised that via the Development Agreement, there would be the opportunity to negotiate for fewer parking spaces, or less landscaping on the site, providing additional information regarding the process. R:PianCommWlin utes\031500 10 AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; to approve staff's recommendation with the modifications relayed by Vice Chairman Mathewson, clarified by City Attorney Thorson (See page 9), and with the inclusion of the additional language added to Condition No. 28, as clarified by City Attorney Thorson (See page 10). Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent, and Chairman Guerriero who abstained. It was noted that at 8:17 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:29 P.M. 5 PlanninR Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133), located on the east side of Ynez Road, 707 feet south of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road - Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0389 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29133) LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, 707 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-060-024; 5.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133); 5.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133). Project Planner Thornsley provided an overview of the project (via agenda material), noting the allowable net lot size of 20,000 square feet; highlighted access and circulation; advised that in order to address the requirements of Condition No. 24 which could entail purchasing additional property, the applicant was requesting that this agenda item be continued to the April 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; noted that there were public members present wishing to speak regarding the issue, recommending that the Commission hear the community comments. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Thornsley clarified the rationale for the letter from Caltrans being included in the agenda material for this particular project; and provided additional information regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the proposed road and the proximity to the road to the north (Calle Halcon), Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there was a 700-foot distance which would be adequate for the cul-de-sac turning motion; and relayed that proximate to this project there would most likely not be a raised landscaped median, confirming that there would be opportunities for left-turn movements. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Thornsley clarified the 20,000 square foot acceptable lot size. R: Pla nComrn',Min utes\031500 11 In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the initial study and the mitigation monitoring program, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that staff would further investigate the matter, advising that there should be consistency. Mr. Hector Correa, 43533 Ridge Park Ddve, representing the applicant, relayed concurrence with Project Planner Thornsley's comments regarding the desire to continue this matter; and provided additional information regarding Condition No. 24 (regarding acquiring off-site property interests). For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Correa clarified that the potential development of a private street at this location would be maintained by the Homeowners Association, which would provide the opportunity for this particular area to be gated. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the fifteen-percent slope at the end of the cul-de-sac, the applicant provided additional information. Commissioner Webster relayed concern with the downhill slope due to the possibility of children playing in the street area, and losing a ball that could potentially reach Ynez Road. In response, the applicant relayed that if the street was private, the area could be gated; and provided additional information regarding alternate access points that had been investigated. Mr. Chris Henson, 29920 Via Serrito, relayed her concern regarding the following: the potential heights of the houses, lighting issues, and open drainage area issues. Ms. Karen Amaya, 43781 Campo Rojo, expressed that her primary concern was regarding view obstruction, additionally relaying concern with respect to on-street parking, and lighting issues; and submitted her notes to the clerk for the record. In response to Ms. Amaya, Mr. Correa provided additional information regarding the height differential between the tract housing and her home; and with respect to street lighting, relayed the applicant's willingness to develop a private street, which would alleviate the need for lighting requirements. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to continue this agenda item to the April 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. 6 Planning Application No. PA00-0041 (An Amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance), Citywide - Dave Hoqan RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:Pla nComm~vlinutes\031500 12 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT BUSINESSES LOCATED CITYWIDE (PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-0041 )" Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (of record), noting that the proposed amendment would add language requiring the exterior of any packaging that contained specified anatomical areas or sexual activities (as defined in the supplemental agenda material) to be in an area restricted to Adults Only, relayed the City Council's desire for the Planning Commission to review this matter; and advised that staff had received one communication with regard to this issue, via e-mail on March 15; 2000 which was in opposition to the amendment, noting that copies of the correspondence had been provided to the Commission (per supplemental agenda material). For the record, Chairman Guerriero relayed the Commission's receipt of the one letter in opposition to this proposed amendment. Chairman Guerdero relayed concern with respect to the lack of specificity regarding the language of the ordinance, recommending that clear and concise language be utilized. In response, City Attorney Thorson provided additional information regarding the development of the language of the ordinance, which had been taken from alternate enforceable statutes, clarifying the rationale for the specified definitions of anatomical parts and sexual activities; and relayed that the section of the ordinance regarding adult material not being accessible to minors was dedved from the Penal Code Section which regulates adult videos. Mr. Wayne Hall, 42101 Moraga Road, representing the 1st Baptist Church, relayed whole- hearted support of the amendment to the ordinance. In response to Chairman Guerdero's quedes regarding the term models referenced in Item 5 in paragraph N of the ordinance, City Attorney Thorson noted that these regulations were related to live persons and relayed that the phrase live models could be inserted. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, City Attorney Thorson clarified that if the specified material was restricted to an all adult section (not accessible to minors), then the business would not be considered an adult business; and provided additional clarification regarding the regulations of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Webster advised that per his research via the City's website (i.e., the Municipal Code) his queries had been answered; and relayed his support of the proposal. For Commissioner Telesio, City Attorney Thorson reiterated that the adult area language had been taken from an existing statute which had been successfully implemented by the video rental industry. In response to Chairman Guerriero's quedes regarding Section 1, Paragraph 3 (regarding live entertainment), City Attorney Thorson provided additional information regarding the regulating R:PlanComm~linutes\031500 13 language which stated: on any four (4) or more separate days within any ninety (90) day pe#od; for Commissioner Telesio, clarified the intent of the above-mentioned language, confirming that there would technically be a loophole with regard to a business planning this particular activity three (3) times in a ninety (90) day period. In response, Chairman Guerriero relayed a desire to modify the regulation to reflect language stating one (1) or more separate days. For Chairman Guerdero, City Attorney Thorson relayed that staff could provide the Commission with updates regarding the language of the ordinance, and the history of litigation associated with the issues after additional investigation; and noted that staff could further investigate the ordinance in its entirety if that was the desire of the Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation with the following modification to Item 5, Paragraph N of the language of the ordinance: that the term live models be inserted for clarity. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. 7 Plannin.q Application No. PA99-0363 (Development Plan), located at 42655 Rio Nedo - Denice Thomas RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0363, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 17,654 SQUARE FOOT SPECULATIVE BUILDING ON 1.02 VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 42655 RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-046; 7.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0363 pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Via color renderings and overheads, Associate Planner Thomas presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the location, access, patio area, and parking areas; provided additional information regarding the parking ratios for this project and the surrounding similar uses; presented the revised color materials; specified the building articulation; for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that although parking requirements were developed, that at times the future tenant occupying the use ultimately would affect the parking needs, noting staff's efforts to ensure adequate parking; and for Commissioner Mathewson, confirmed that the applicant was going to replace the street trees, relaying that the City's landscape architect was recommending that the trees be replaced with trees of similar maturity. Mr. David Wakefield, the applicant, relayed concurrence to the conditions of approval; with respect to the reciprocal easement and alternate constraints of the site, noted the efforts of the applicant and staff to develop this proposed project; with respect to parking, advised that with the development of altemate similar uses in the City of Murdeta, the applicant had had R:PlanComrn~,finut es~031500 14 adequate parking; noted that if the use was occupied by more than two tenants, the applicant would be required to be subject to additional review by staff; provided additional information regarding landscaping at the rear of the building; for Commissioner Webster, further specified the color application on the building; and for Commissioner Telesio, addressed future potential tenants and the potential parking needs. Commissioner Mathewson relayed no opposition to this project, noting that Condition No. 21 adequately addressed parking issues, advising that the provisions for parking would affect the type of tenant potentially occupying the use. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public headng; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. 8 Planninq Application No. PA99-0496 (Development Plan), located at 40440 Mar.qadta Road - Denice Thomas RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0496, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 12,758 SQUARE FOOT BANK BUILDING ON 1.23 VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 40440 MARGARITA ROAD WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-330-001. Associate Planner Thomas provided an overview of the project (per agenda material) highlighting location, adjacent uses, access, parking (which exceeded the requirements) landscaping, patio area, glass use, building articulation; and relayed that the project was consistent with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the lack of a condition requiring the project to comply with the mitigating measures of the EIR, Associate Planner Thomas relayed that this was an oversight and would be added to the conditions. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the signal at the intersection at Margarita Road, noting that the Lowe's use and the Woodside Homes development were conditioned to participate in the installation of one-half of the signal, advising that potentially with the development of a Power Center I1, there would be additional participation; and for Chairman Guerriero, advised that staff would investigate the fast-tracking of the signal. Mr. Dean Davidson, representing the applicant, relayed that this site would be the headquarters building for the bank use; further specified the building articulation; for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the applicant's business; and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that a bronze-colored glass would be utilized on the building. R:PlanComm~vlinut es\031500 15 MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT No comments. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would be unable to attend the April 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting due to being out of town. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated his previous expressed recommendation (originally expressed at the February 29, 2000 City Council Workshop) for the City to develop a General Plan update, providing additional information regarding the rationale for his request. For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she would investigate as to whether staff had addressed the landscaping issue in the parking lot at the mall site. With respect to the issues related to the mitigating measures for the Mall EIR, staff relayed that the Commission would be updated at a future date. With respect to the recently installed dual left-turn lane on Margarita Road (which Chairman Guerriero had recommended at a recent Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting), Chairman Guerriero commended the Public Works staff, noting that the installation had been effective. ADJOURNMENT At 9:48 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, April 5, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. R~'n Guerrie~, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager R: PlanComm~t. lin utes\031500 16