Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout010301 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday January 3, 2001, 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 Chairman Guerdero. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Project Planner DeGange, Project Planner McCoy, Project Planner Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff had tentatively scheduled a workshop item regarding the Villages of Old Town that was not placed on the agenda; advised that since this matter was noticed there may be individuals desiring to speak on this issue; and requested that the Commission hear a brief presentation from the applicant regarding this matter, revising the Agenda. Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 3, 2001. R:PlanComrn/minutes/010301 2 Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 18, 2000 MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1- 2, revising the agenda as recommended in Director of Planning Ubnoske's comments. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who abstained with regard to Item 2.1. COMMISSION BUSINESS The Villaqes of Old Town presentation Mr. Richard Hanass, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the proposed residential project consisting of a variety of housing opportunities (i.e., apartments, townhouses, and attached single-family dwellings) which would total approximately 1,631 dwellings on 153 acres; relayed that the proposal was inclusive of three planning areas, as follows: 1) Planning Area 1 which would encompass a 3-acre Village Square Park, 2) Planning Area 2 which would encompass the Village Center with clustered residential development, and 3) Planning Area 3 which encompassed an attached single-family residential development, noting that a portion of Planning Area 2, and Planning Area 3 would offer ownership opportunities; and advised that the applicant would elaborate on the project at a future Planning Commission meeting. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, advised that the Specific Plan would be amended, confirming that an EIR would be prepared in conjunction with this amendment. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Plannin.q Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan) to desiqn and construct four (4) multi-tenant speculative buildin,qs totalin,q approximately 88,083 square feet of office, manufacturing, distributing and warehouse uses on 6.09 vacant acres, located at the southeast corner of Business Park Drive and Rancho Way, within the Rancho California Business Park - Carole Donahoe 3.1 ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan); 3.2 ADOPT the Mitigated Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. 00-0367 (Development Plan); 3.3 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minutes/010300 2 PC RESOLUTION NO 2001-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0367 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) - THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) MULTI-TENANT SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 88,083 SQUARE FEET ON 6.09 VACANT ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND RANCHO WAY, WITHIN THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PARK, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-061. Via overheads, Associate Planner Donahoe provided an overview of the project (per agenda material), highlighting the location, the surrounding propedies, the zoning (Light Industrial), and the General Plan designation (Business Park); relayed the site plan, noting the enhanced articulation with respect to the buildings that front the street and in the entry area; noted the extensive landscape plan, relaying that the applicant would be replacing the trees that necessitated removal at the entry area and in the front portion of the project; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, specified the location of the fault zone on the site plan, noting that the nearest building was over 60 feet from the fault line; and for Commissioner Mathewson, advised that staff did discuss relocating the existing drive with the applicant, noting that the applicant could further address this issue. Mr. Michael Mueller, representing the applicant, provided a history of alternate projects that this applicant has developed in the Cities of Ontario, Irvine, and Rancho Santa Margarita; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant has investigated and received all of the remediation sign-offs from the associated agencies, noting that this data was available. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that if it was a concern of the Planning Commission, a condition could be added requiring submittal of the remediation letters to staff. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Mueller advised that it was the applicant's opinion that the location of the existing drive along with this particular site plan would work with the flow of traffic, providing additional information. Commissioner Mathewson noted his concern with the view of the substantial length of roll-up doors in the drive access area. In response, Mr. Muelter noted the screening elements (i.e., the extensive landscape at this location). In response to Commissioner Webster's queries with respect to the driveway on Rancho Way, Mr. Mueller provided additional information regarding the location of this access area. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided further comments on the cost impacts associated with relocating this driveway. Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, representing himself, read into the record a letter he had written dated January 3, 2001 (which was submitted to staff), outlining his concern R: PlanC o mm/m[n utes/010300 3 regarding unmitigated traffic in the City, requesting that a condition be added requiring the applicant to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) of $1.00 per square foot which could be utilized to aid in the funding of a public bus system, and a continued education program; and advised that he was Opposed to the project plan, as proposed, due to the negative cumulative traffic impacts. In response to Mr. Pratt, Commissioner Telesio relayed that industrial growth was an avenue for providing employment, and reducing the number of citizens leaving the area for employment; provided additional information regarding the businesses currently existing in the City of Temecula addressing traffic impacts with staggered work hours; and noted his support of the project. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that this was a speculative building, and that no tenant had been identified. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Donahoe advised that the proposed floor plans specified the amount of office space, warehousing, and manufacturing, noting that parking requirements were developed from this data; advised that if there were tenant improvements, a new parking analysis would be required at which time negative impacts would be addressed; and relayed that there were no compact parking spaces at this site, noting that the parking provisions have exceeded the requirements. Commissioner Webster relayed that this project was consistent with the General Plan; commented on the circulation improvements which were currently included in the five- year CIP which adequately mitigated future development on this site; relayed that it would be his preference to relocate the driveway access, while noting that the negative impact of the existing location would solely effect the tenant of this building. Commissioner Mathewson noted that overall this was a good project; with respect to Councilman Pratt's comments, relayed that to implement a new policy with respect to DIFs which could have significant impacts City-wide on development would be within the City Council's jurisdiction; with respect to the location of the driveway, relayed that he would not oppose this plan, noting the applicant's clarification of the site plan, and the installation of 24-inch boxed Purple Leaf Plum trees. In response to Mr. Pratt's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that this was an in-fill project, noting that projects have been developed in this business park for years, advising that to oppose this particular project at this time would be inappropriate; clarified that since the City Council had not adopted a new DIF, he would not support imposing such a fee on this applicant; and relayed his support of the project. Chairman Guerriero further commented on the infrastructure improvements planned for this area. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the pubic hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation with the following added condition: Add- That the applicant be required to provide staff with the remediation clearance letters. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Planninq Application No. 00-0094 (Development Plan), to construct and operate a 12,215 square foot industrial buildinq on 0.92 acres located on the south side of Roick Drive approximately 200 feet west of Winchester Road - Michael McCoy 4.1 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0094 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A '12,6'15 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 0.92 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROICK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF WINCHESTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-051. Senior Planner Hogan introduced Project Planner McCoy who aided in the preparation of the staff report for this project. By way of overheads, Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (per agenda material), highlighting the FAR, the landscape plan, and the site plan; provided a sample material board for the Planning Commission's review; and relayed that the applicant had an identified tenant for approximately fifty percent (50%) of the building's use. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff' queries as to whether there had been consideration for shared access at the rear of the building, Senior Planner Hogan noted that due to the site being previously graded that there were restrictions associated with the site plan; noted that at the rear of the site there was a ten-foot elevation drop between this lot and the adjacent site; and advised that it was the Fire Department's opinion that the lot provided an adequate turnaround space for Fire truck access. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Western Bypass Corridor would follow the alignment of Via Industria, at the end of Roick Drive, noting that the Western Bypass Project would be reviewed in conjunction with the General Plan Circulation element, advising that the traffic counts on this portion of the bypass were Iow at this time since Diaz Road does not go through, noting the consideration to reduce it to a seventy-eight-foot (78'), or an eighty-eight-foot (88') right- of-way at this time. Mr. Dave Madden, representing the applicant, clarified that the windows would be white- framed rather than blue-framed, noting the revision to the plan, and that the window · glass would have a slight blue tint. R:PtanComm/minutes/0103CO 5 Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, representing himself, read into the record a letter he had written dated January 3, 2001 (which was submitted to staff), outlining his concern regarding unmitigated traffic in the City, requesting that a condition be added requiring the applicant to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) of $1.00 per square foot which could be utilized to aid in the funding of a public bus system, and a continued education program; commented on the Western Bypass Project, noting that there could be a Share the Ride Program implemented in this area; and advised that he was opposed to the project plan, as proposed, due to the negative cumulative traffic impacts. In response to Mr. Pratt's comments, Commissioner Webster relayed that the traffic improvement needed in this area of the City was a signal at Winchester/Diaz Roads, which the Scott's Manufacturing use was going to install; with respect to this project, noted that he could support the proposal; and reiterated to staff his recommendation that as the buildings in this area are developed further up the hill that darker paint applications be utilized in order for the projects to blend in with the existing milieu. Senior Planner Hogan queried whether the Planning Commission agreed with the architect's color revision, specifically, to modify the color of the window frame from blue to white, recommending that this revision be part of the motion: MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation with the following modification: Modify- That the window frame color be revised to indicate a white color, in lieu of the blue color, which was indicated on the plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 6:50 P.M. the Commission recessed, reconvening at 7:01 P.M. $ Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) for the desiqn and construction of a 116,375 square foot retail center, on an 18 acre site located within the Re,qional Center Specific Plan on the west side of Marqarita Road, between North General Kearny Road and Overland Drive - Saied Naaseh 5.1 ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0213 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 5.2 ADOPT a Resolution entitled: r:PlanComm/minutes/O~0300 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0213 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 116,375 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER, ON AN 18 ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN ON THE WEST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, BETWEEN NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-090-63,71,72, AND 78, AND LOTS 7, 51, 52, 53, AND 54 OF PARCEL MAP NO 28530. Project Planner Naaseh noted the minor changes to the Conditions of Approval, as follows: with respect to Condition No. 55 (regarding a drainage and erosion study), noted that staff was recommending that the phrase if required by the Director of Public Works be added; with respect to Condition Nos. 118, 119, and 120 (regarding Riverside County Flood Control District, Rancho California Water District, and Environmental Department letters), relayed that the associated letters were not included in the staff report,, relaying that this data would be added at this time; via overheads, provided an overview of the site plan, highlighting the long and narrow configuration of the site; provided additional information regarding the channel on this site which further constrained the site plan; noted that the project encompassed four clusters of buildings, as follows; 1) a strip retail center, 2) the buildings proposed in this area will be built around a 2500 square-foot pedestrian plaza, 3) the buildings proposed in this area would be constructed around a roundabout (i.e., a major entry into the site), providing additional information regarding the pedestrian-oriented elements, and 4) this phase of development was in conceptual form and would be designed as a conventional strip center; noted that the rear of the buildings would be articulated due to the visibility; with respect to the loading areas at the rear of the project, noted that there would be either a berm or a three-foot wall to screen this area with shrubs on top of that element which would total six-to-seven feet of screening; noted the applicant's efforts to create a pedestrian-oriented design (i.e., the defined walkways, the connections to the loop road sidewalk, and to Margarita Road, the walkway on the extension of North General Kearny Road, and connections to the existing walkways), relaying the site constraints, advising that staff had recommended that there be an additional building in the gap between the two buildings, noting the current proposal for three rows of parking spaces; relayed that the existing entry monumentation would be increased to a depth of 75 feet; provided an overview of the conditions placed on the project regarding landscaping, as follows: that all the trees will be 24-inch boxed trees, and that all the shrubs will be five-gallon size; and with respect to the landscaping adjacent to the buildings, noted that staff has added a condition requiring tha.t the applicant amend the landscape plan to add additional trees in this area. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the road proximate to the Cosco use was a private road, noting that if this area was a fire lane it could be painted red to prohibit on-street parking. Chairman Guerdero recommended that there be added traffic control in the access area onto the loop road; with respect to the screening of the loading docks, sited the lack of R:PlanComm/minutes/Ol0300 7 screening at the Power Center (from Margarita Road) recommending that the screening of this project's loading area be adequate. For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that this project had solely one loading dock (i.e., roll-up door), advising that the alternate areas were service stores; and noted that a condition has been added to require additional landscaping in order to screen this area adequately per the City's landscape architect's direction; clarified Condition No. 19 (regarding the berming or the wall required to screen this area); and provided additional information regarding the 75-foot monumentation area. For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the modifications to the development plan per staff's recommendation; confirmed that there was a supplemental traffic analysis provided for this project, relaying that the City's traffic engineer reviewed the repod, advising that this project would have no significant negative impacts, providing additional information. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the applicant did provide a supplemental traffic study with current traffic counts regarding the mall's traffic, advising that all of the intersections would be operating at a LOS D, or better, with this project. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the extension of the boxed culvert, noting that the Cosco use provided mitigation; and specified San Diego Water Quality Control Board's concern regarding the soft-bottomed channel, recharge of the groundwater basin in this area, and provision of habitat corridors. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Attorney Cudey relayed that the site was posted regarding this hearing, noting the requirement for the noticing to provide a general identification of the project and site. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh provided additional information regarding the additional landscape required proximate to the buildings, noting that this landscape would most likely be proximate to the curb in order to allow ~or more growth. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that if the private road (proximate to the Cosco use) were utilized for Fire access, the City would have control over the red zones. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that landscaping would be required around the Rancho California Water District's (RCWD) well, noting that installation of a wall was not discussed with the applicant. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding this project's linkage to Planning Area 1, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that there was no linkage at this location, advising that the applicant relayed that provision of this link would be an economic hardship, and that there were constraints due to the vacant pad elevation being ten feet higher; noted that there would be two linkages to Margarita Road, advising that additional links to Overland Drive and alternate areas were beyond the scope of this project; and relayed that at this time the sole type of signage proposed for this project was channel-lettered signage, noting that there were awnings proposed in the project with no plan to include signage on the awnings. R:PlanComm/minutes/010300 8 Commissioner Mathewson queried whether there was consideration to place an additional building between Buildings J and K, in order to create a truly main street frontage on both sides of the interior circulation to the loop. In response, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that the applicant was reluctant to remove parking spaces due to the anticipation to have numerous restaurant uses, advising that the applicant had additional concerns regarding obtaining financing for this type of site plan. For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner Naaseh presented the colored renderings for this project; and for Commissioner Telesio, noted the access points to the buildings, relaying that it was his understanding that there would not be much truck delivery traffic at these uses. Ms. Vandana Kelkar, representing the applicant, relayed alternate developments that the applicant has designed in the City of Temecula (i.e., Winchester Marketplace, Winchester Meadows); noted that the applicant has been working with staff on this project for approximately eight months, advising that the applicant worked with varying staff members; relayed that the applicant has worked on alternate pedestrian-oriented projects (i.e., the Irvine Spectrum, Fashion Island); noted the site constraints of this project; relayed that the landscaping far exceeded the requirements of the Specific Plan; provided additional information regarding the architectural design (i.e., Mediterranean style), noting the use of slate and stone, and the enhanced detailing which add the Italian influence to the design elements; with respect to Condition No. 20 h. (regarding the requirement for two five-foot planters to separate the walkway from the loop road), noted the applicant's desire to have the sidewalk adjacent to the curb which would be consistent with the remainder of the mall site, advising the same desire with respect to Condition No. 25 p.; relayed that with respect to the EMWD well site, that the applicant would prefer to screen this area with landscaping; with respect to queries regarding Building F, noted that to add an additional building in this area would increase the traffic counts and would additionally have a negative impact with respect to leasing. The applicant's representative provided an overview of the potential type of tenants which would occupy this project (i.e., specialty health food uses, home furnishing uses, specialty restaurant uses); and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that most of the uses would occupy a 5,000-8,000 square-foot area, specifying that Building K was approximately 20,000 square feet. Mr. Mike Levin, representing the applicant, addressed the queries regarding the grade ' adjacent to Margarita Road, noting that this site was located above the Margarita Road grade, relaying that the applicant's intent was to place the berm or the three-foot wall above the pad grade, noting that in some areas it would not be practical to create a berm due to the elevated grade level; with respect to access to the buildings along Margarita Road (i.e., Buildings F, G, H, and I), noted that these buildings would not have loading docks, relaying that the accent road did have a full turn out, advising that it was not anticipated that this area would have significant traffic flow; for Chairman Guerriero, noted that there would be a fire lane in this location, confirming that parking would be restricted; with respect to the channel on site, relayed the tremendous efforts with respect to Cosco's provisions for mitigation associated with the channel; noted that there would be a 20-foot vertical grade variance between this site and the opposite side of the channel, noting the associated constraints with achieving pedestrian access with the variance of height; relayed that the access points on the opposite side of the channel R: Pla nComm/min ut es/O 10300 9 dictated the pad elevation above, noting that there were solely two allowable access points to that parcel, advising that to make the access feasible, the elevation of those access points needed to be maintained; noted that there is a pedestrian access along the sidewalk along Margarita Road, and that there would be a sidewalk up the link road between the Cosco use and this site; with respect to the ownership of the access road between this project and Cosco, clarified that the ownership was split, and that this site owned the area to the center line; with respect to landscaping along the well site, specified the access points in this area, advising that RCWD desires to maintain those access points; relayed that the screening at this location would be similar to the screening at the Mimi's Restaurant use, noting the use of a chain-linked fence with extensive landscaping, advising that the grade was approximately 2-3 feet higher than the well site, noting the applicant's efforts to screen the Iow structures; and relayed that RCWD's future plan was to revamp the entire well site, inclusive of re-landscaping the area. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed his concern with people parking at the potential hotel- type use and desiring to access the mall without walking out to Overland Drive, noting that it would be feasible to place a ramped grade down the slope with a pedestrian crossing over the rear of the project, noting that it was the original intent to have these parcels linked. In response, Mr. Levin noted that there was an access drive that was cut up the bank to the back of the potential hotel site which brought access to the common road between the Cosco site and this site. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Levin relayed that the variance in the grade between this site and the one across the channel varied from 10-20 feet. Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the lack of access for commercial delivery. In response, Ms. Kelkar specified the access area, confirming that it did not continue; and reiterated that the architectural style would be Mediterranean with Italian elements. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Bob Davis, traffic engineer for the applicant, noted that the traffic analysis for this site was extensive regarding the manner in which this project would fit within the overall Regional Mall Center Specific Plan; relayed that the total traffic trip generation was compared on an EIR-wide basis (inclusive of all the existing and future development), noting the efforts of the applicant to ensure that the project plan would be within the allotted trip generations for this site; provided additional information regarding the potential Park and Ride facility within the Regional Mall Specific Plan, noting that the transit provider did not desire to locate on site, relaying that there was provision of bus turnouts around the perimeter; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, confirmed that the traffic analysis was inclusive of the anticipated traffic generation from the potential hotel use; for Chairman Guerriero, noted that he was unsure of the rationale for RTD not desiring to locate on this site, noting that it would be feasible to have the busses access from the external roadway into a special facility rather than actually coming on site; in response to Commissioner Webster's queries, noted that based on all the traffic analysis conducted in this area, that there would be a benefit to constructing North General Kearny Road all the way to Nicolas Road, relaying that volumes on a section of Winchester Road would decrease by 5,000-7,000 trips per day. For Commissioner Webster, Ms. Kelkar specified that the percentage of the main street concept provided on this site per the Specific Plan requirements which would equate to three-four acres; in response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding the R: PlanComm/rnin uIes/O 10300 1 0 requirement to have the blocks defined by a public grid system, specified the main street elements; relayed that the uses for Planning Area 1 would be based on economic viability; and noted that the applicant had not considered solar energy, or passive heating elements, relaying that different types of glass could be utilized. Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, representing himself, read into the record a letter he had written dated January 3, 2001 (which was submitted to staff), outlining his concern regarding unmitigated traffic in the City, requesting that a condition be added requiring the applicant to pay a Development Impact Fee (DIF) of $1.00 per square foot which could be utilized to aid in the funding of a public bus system, and a continued education program; advised that he was opposed to the project plan, as proposed, due to the negative cumulative traffic impacts; and relayed the additional traffic that would be added to the City of Temecula with the development that has been approved at this hearing previous to this Agenda Item. For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero relayed that two years ago CEQA added a subsection dealing with cumulative impacts. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Pratt relayed that there were approximately 54,000 DMV licenses in the City of Temecula at this time; and in response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments regarding the potential for residents to not utilize a mass bus transit system, recommended that solutions be sought. In response to Mr. Pratt's comments, Commissioner Webster relayed the benefit to the traffic circulation in the City if North General Kearny Road was connected, which was recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council, but continued to fall on deaf ears;.recommended that this connection be placed on the 5-year CIP; with respect to the Regional Mall Specific Plan's Mitigation Measures required to address the traffic impacts, relayed that certain requirements have been ignored; noted that one of Councilman Pratt's campaign pledges was to sue the County if the impacts on the City of Temecula were not addressed; recommended that Mr. Pratt sue the City in order to enforce these specific Mitigation Measures designed to mitigate traffic impacts, noting the violation of the law with respect to the disregard to these issues; and relayed that he was looking to the City Council for aid in ensuring that these Mitigation Measures were satisfied. In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Pratt ackr~owledged that the North General Kearny Road connection was a political issue; and relayed that he would not oppose any CIP improvements for the east site of the 1-15, noting his opposition to improvements designed to improve the industrial development on the opposite site of the freeway. Commissioner Webster clarified that traffic issues have been addressed by the Planning Commission, noting the need for the City Council to actively pursue these recommendations, relaying that the Planning CommisSion's authority was limited. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, the applicant's representative provided additional information regarding signage, noting that blade signage concepts could be added; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that this site was under the maximum use allowable for signage; and noted that the colors would be limited to five or six options per the Specific Plan guidelines. R:PlanComm/minutes/010300 11 The Commission relayed closing comments, as follows: Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that the architectural style was pleasing; noted his concern regarding the visual aesthetics of the signage on the rear of the buildings; with respect to the RCWD well site, concurred with the applicant that since this area was to be revamped at a future point, it was not necessary to place a wall in this area; with respect to the future buildings at the corner of North General Kearny Road/Overland Drive, recommended that the review be processed at the Planning Commission level; recommended that there be additional landscaping (i.e., trees) along the interior road of the stores; recommended that the Fire zone curbs be painted red; with respect to the crossing to the parcel at Overland Drivel Margarita Road, recommended that installation of a pedestrian link be further considered at this time; with respect to the original intent of the Specific Plan, noted the plan to include residential dwellings in Planning Area 1, acknowledging the traffic impacts at this time which would restrict this element; and with respect to Condition Nos. 20h., and 25p. (regarding the requirement for two five-foot p~anters to separate the walkway from the loop road), relayed that he was not opposed to the applicant's desire to place the sidewalk adjacent to the curb if staff was not opposed to this revision. Commissioner Mathewson concurred that in terms of architectural treatment, the design of the project was commendable; noted that his concerns were based on how this project relates to the Specific Plan, and the inadequate linkages to the surrounding parcels, querying whether this project met the intent of the main street concept, as described in the Specific P~an; noted that it would be his recommendation to p~ace retail on both sides of the internal circulation; relayed the lack of adequate pedestrian access to Margarita Road; noted that the building mass, as well as, the proposed signage along Margarita Road would not be visually pleasing, acknowledging that one of the four signs design options would be more aesthetically appealing; and advised that he wou~d be reluctant to move forward with this project, noting the desire for the previously mentioned recommendations to be further investigated. Commissioner Webster concurred with continuing this project in order for the applicant to investigate revisions, and to obtain additional information regarding the plans; relayed that his concerns were regarding the following elements: the building layout, the parking lot layout, the landscaping plan, and architecture; recommended that there be additional efforts to incorporate the main street concept into this plan; noted his opposition to the parking plan in Planning Area 3; relayed that this site was over-parked and that it would be his recommendation that the applicant add a greater intensity of development on this site in order to enhance the main street concept, as well as, linking this project with the mal~ and the residential area across Margarita Road; with respect to the landscape plan, recommended additional landscaping along the project border, noting that the landscape plan was vague; with respect to the main street element, relayed that the parking in front of the buildings was not consistent with this element, advising that there be either angled parking on both sides or no parking at all; recommended that there be solely one driveway access point from the mall link road, in lieu of three; with respect to architecture, recommended that there be full architectural articulation, specifically at the rear of the buildings on Margarita Road; and with respect to the Mitigation Measures from the EIR, recommended that these issues be addressed, as well as, objectives which were defined within the Specific Plan. R:PlanComm/rninutes/010300 12 Commissioner Telesio relayed that the architecture would provide an appearance of sound quality; acknowledged the constraints regarding this particular parcel; concurred with the applicant being requested to further investigate avenues to implement the main street concept, reiterating the restrictions of the parcel; recommended that the applicant consider implementing a back road to in order to provide for delivery functions; noted concern with respect to the view of the proiect from Margarita Road, concurring with the need for additional architectural treatment in this area; and concurred that this item should be continued in order for the applicant to further investigate the recommendations. Recapitulating the comments of the Commission, Chairman Guerriero noted the following concerns; the signage, the architectural elevations along the rear of the buildings, the general layout, circulation, red curb paining, connection links between the parcels, and the recommendation for the future parcel's approval process to be conducted via the Planning Commission; and concurred with continuing this matter. With respect to Condition No. 20a. and 25p. (regarding the requirement for two five-foot planters to separate the walkway from the loop road), Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, noted his opposition to these conditions being revised. Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that it would not be equitable to impose on the last parcel to be developed, a more stringent, detailed review; noted the lack of linkages provided by the alternate mall development; concurred that this project plan should be improved, while acknowledging that this project could not mitigate for all the alternate development's failings; with respect to Commissioner Webster's recommendation to link this project to the residential area, acknowledged that this element was discussed early in the mall development, relaying that to require this last development to provide this link might be onerous; and noted that pedestrians were accessing the mall at this time. In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments regarding pedestrians access the mall, Commissioner Webster noted the dangers associated with walking through the mall's interior loop road; clarified that he was not recommending an additional walkway to link the project to the residential area, but solely provision of access at the existing traffic lights; commented on the constraints of this parcel; relayed the issues that have previously been mentioned but have not been addressed at the mall site with alternate development plans (i.e., the fifty percent shade tree requirement in the parking lot behind the Edwards Cinema use); and clarified that it was his desire to have the areas of concern addressed prior to approval due to the lack of adherence to the requirements with alternate projects in the mall area. Commissioner Chiniaeff concurred that the applicant should address the pedestrian issues recommended by Commissioner Mathewson by further clustering the buildings, noting that this site plan could be reconfigured without adding additional traffic generation, advising that this element would need to be balanced with the marketing issues associated with the project, noting that the Planning Commission would not desire to have negative leasing impacts imposed on the site; and concurred with the recommendation for a continuance. Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that in all the Village Centers in the City of Temecula, not one truly met the exact intent of the General Plan, relaying the constraints at various project sites; concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff that it would not be R:PlanComm/minutes/010300 1 ~ equitable to burden the last parcel with the full intent of the Specific Plan; acknowledged that this was a difficult site to develop, advising that to expect a grid pattern development on this parcel would be unrealistic; regarding the unmet Mitigation Measures at the mall site, specified that with respect to the Park and Ride facility, that the Specific Plan EIR did not specify the timing, or the size of the facility, clarifying that staff was working with Forest City regarding this matter;, and requested the Planning Commission to review this project with the balance .of the economic and physical constraints that the applicant needed to address with this site. Commissioner Mathewson acknowledged that the elements of the Specific Plan would not be met one hundred percent (i.e., a grid pattern), acknowledging the site constraints; and recommended that the applicant improve the clustering aspects of the configuration of the buildings. Mr. Schultz, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's diligent efforts to work with staff, and specifically, Deputy City Manager Thornhill in order to attempt to implement the Village concept as much as was feasible at this site; provided information regarding the financial restrictions with respect to implementing an office element above the retail, and implementation of residential dwellings; noted the applicant's quality project at the Winchester Marketplace which was still owned by the applicant; provided additional information regarding alternate projects that the applicant has developed; advised that this particular project was designed as a high quality development; and noted concern with the feasibility of further retrofitting this site plan. For Chairman Guerriero, Ms. Kelkar noted the articulation at the rear of the buildings, relaying that this project would be consistent with alternate mall projects. Mr. Schultz relayed that the two-story look element was designed to create a Village Center ambience, as well as, the walkways, and alternate hardscape elements (i.e., fountains). Commissioner Mathewson queried the financing restrictions associated with implementing the Village Center concept, relaying that there were numerous examples of this element in current planning magazines. In response, Mr. Schultz relayed that at this site the concept was not feasible, noting that if the two buildings faced each other the access to the front of the alternate building would be blocked which would lower the rent capacity at this location, subsequently affecting the financing. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding a U-shaped configuration, Mr. Schultz relayed that the large pavilion area was a focal point in attempting to implement the Village Concept. Ms. Kelkar clarified that if the parcel was deeper, it would have been feasible to place the parking at the rear of the site. Mr. Schultz noted that to make major revisions, the ambience of the center would be lost, clarifying that if the lot had additional depth the U-shaped configuration would have been feasible. Ms. Kelkar relayed that the larger uses would desire to have parking in front of these buildings. In response, Commissioner Mathewson recommended having smaller uses R:PlanComm/minutes/010300 14 with parking in the rear. In response, Mr. Schultz relayed that reducing the size of the larger uses would restrict the type of specialty uses that coutd potentially occupy this center. Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, noted that this was a good project, which would be greatly improved with the mentioned revisions. Director of Planning Ubnoske recommended that the Commission appoint a Planning Commissioner to work with staff regarding this project. Commissioner Chiniaeff offered to serve in this manner. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this matter to the January 31, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER REPORTS. A. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was still addressing issues at the mall, noting that she would obtain additional information regarding the lack of trees behind the Edwards Cinema use and provide an update at a future point in time. B. Chairman Guerriero noted that the concrete bolsters at the Cosco use have been sitting on the loading dock at this use, and still have not been installed. C. For informational purposes, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided an overview of the difficulty staff has in enforcing adherence to the conditions on a project after the opening of the use; and relayed certain scenarios regarding the pressure to have these uses open on their scheduled date. Commissioner Mathewson suggested that a Planning Commissioner visit these uses (i.e., the Cosco site) to address the unmet requirements. Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding effective avenues to address these unmet conditions, recommending that the applicant be required to complete a task by a date certain; and clarified that unless these issues are related to safety, the courts would not be inclined to shut down a business to have conditions met. D. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske specified the sites still to be developed at the mall. Commissioner Chiniaeff commented on Forest City addressing the previously mentioned Mitigation Measures. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed the discussions staff has had with the applicant regarding the Park and Ride facility. E. For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Roripaugh Project would be presented at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop on January 16, 2001. Commissioner Webster reminded staff that he would be absent on that date, advising that he would be abstaining with respect to the Roripaugh matter. R:PlanComm/minutes/010300 1 5 For Commissioner Webster, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that when additional information was obtained regarding the Planner's Institute Conference, the Commission would be notified; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that she wou~d address the APA Conference with Deputy City Manager Thornhil~ and report back. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Director of Planning Ubnoske introduced Mr. Don Hazen, the Planning Department's newly hired Senior Planner. Senior Planner Hazen provided an overview of his planning background, work history, and diversified experience. _ADJOURNMENT At 9:34 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the JOint City Council/Plann n.q Commission Workshop which would be held on. Tuesd~ 16~ 200t at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers; the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 17, 200'1 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Director of Planning R:PlanComrrdminutes/010300 16