HomeMy WebLinkAbout071101 PC MinutesMINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY '1'1,200'1
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting
at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, July 11, 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 Guerriero.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio,
and Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Associate Planner Thornsley,
Project Planner McCoy,
Project Planner Rush, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 11, 2001.
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of May 2, 2001.
3 Plannincl Application No. 00-0403 (EOT) Alpine Gardens East \Rick Rush, Project
Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No, 00-0403 (Extension of
Time) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which a
Negative Declaration was previously adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations.
3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-019
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0403 (ONE YEAR EXTENSION
OF TIME), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SENIOR
APARTMENT BUILDING, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE
BUILDINGS TOTALING 27,700 SQUARE FEET, 69
INDEPENDENT CARE HOUSING UNITS WITH A
DETACHED CLUBHOUSE AND POOL (380,859 TOTAL
SQUARE FEET) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND
LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.62
ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
LOMA LINDA AND PALA ROADS, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 96t-0'10-0'14 AND 961-
010-015. (PA97-0420)
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff 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 OIhasso who abstained, from Item No. 2.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4
Planninq Application No. PA01-0106 (EOT) Coleman Building \Rick Rush, Proiect
Planner -ITEM CONTINUED FROM JUNE 27, 200t DUE TO THE LACK OF A
QUORUM
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
R:PlanCom m/minutes/071101 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CiTY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0106 AN EXTENSION OF TIME
TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 14,532 SQUARE
FOOT OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING t.22 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF MC CABE COURT WEST OF MADISON
AVENUE KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-
202-007
Via overhead site maps, Project Planner Rush presented the staff report (of record),
highlighting the location of the site, the General Plan designation (i.e., Service
Commercial), the Zoning (i.e., Service Commercial), and the revision in occupancy,
which was now designated for multi-tenant office use.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Rush specified the additional
review conducted by staff at the time of the request for an extension of time, noting that
staff investigates environmental issues, and ensures that the proposal is consistent with
the surrounding areas and development.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing, and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
5
Planninq Application No. PA00-0094 (Revised Development Plan)\Michael McCov,
Proiect Planner -ITEM CONTINUED FROM JUNE 27, 200t DUE TO THE LACK
OF A QUORUM
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA00-0094 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines and;
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 200t-02t
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0094 (REVISED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE AN 8,972 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.
Project Planner McCoy provided an overview of the revised development plan (per
agenda material), noting the location of the site, the Zoning for this site and the
surrounding properties (i.e., Light Industrial), the General Plan designation for this site
and the surrounding properties (i.e., Business Park), the proposed revisions inclusive of
the construction of a smaller scale project, and minor design variations; relayed that
since the original approval was attained at the Planning Commission level, the applicant
was directed to seek Planning Commission approval for the modified plan; highlighted
the architectural design, noting the standard tilt-up concrete with two-tone shading, the
relief and pop-out features which would aid in breaking up the massing, and the
landscape plan which exceeded the original design; and for Commissioner Mathewson,
presented the material board.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing, and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Plannincl Application No. PA00-0502 (Development Plan) Promenade Car Wash
\Thomas Thornslev, Associate Planner-ITEM CONTINUED FROM JUNE 27, 200'1
DUE TO THE LACK OF A QUORUM
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0602, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
6,222 SQUARE FOOT, FULL SERVICE, CAR WASH
(PROMENADE CAR WASH), ON A .85 ACRE LOT
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD
BETWEEN THE TWO ENTRANCES TO THE
PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 9`10-320-040,
AND LOT Q OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495
AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007.
Associate Planner Thornsley noted that the applicant was delayed in arriving to the
hearing, requesting that this item be heard after Agenda Item No. 7.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to consider Agenda Item No. 6 after
consideration of Agenda Item No. 7. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
OIhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. (See page 9 for Agenda Item
No. 6.)
R:PlanComm/minutes~71101 4
7 Planninq Application No. 01-0121 (EOT Appeal) \ Rick Rush, Proiect Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 200'1-023
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0121 (TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP EXTENSION OF TIME), AND UPHOLDING
THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL FOR THE FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23209,
FOR 220 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A PARK SITE
LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LA
SERENA WAY AND WALCOTT WAY ALONG
BUTTERFIELD STAGE KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCELS NOS. 957-250-009, 957-009-0t0, 957-250-
011, AND 957-250-013 THROUGH 957-250-027;
or, ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL
OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-012'1
(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP EXTENSION OF TIME), AND
AMENDING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE FIFTH AND
FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 23209 FOR 220 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A
PARK SITE LOCATED EAST OF THE INTERSECTION
OF LA SERENA WAY AND WALCOTT WAY ALONG
BUTTERFIELD STAGE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCELS NOS. 957-250-009, 957-009-010, 957-250-
011, AND 957-250-013 THROUGH 957-250-027.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that he would be abstaining from this issue.
Senior Planner Hazen provided an overview of the issues related to the appeal (of
record), noting that the applicant was in disagreement with Condition No. 33, requiring
the developer to participate and pay for its fair share of an Assessment District or other
public financing mechanism for the extension of Butterfield Stage Road to the south and
north of the project, which would ultimately connect to Nicolas Road and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road, and the requirement to dedicate a half of the width of the right-of-way
along the frontage of the property; advised that the Assessment District was necessary
to share the costs of the right-of-way acquisition, as well as the construction costs of the
R:PlanComr~*minutes/071101 5
extensions, with other developers (i.e., Roripaugh Ranch); and noted that the applicant
would desire to defer this requirement until prior to occupancy, whereas staff was
recommending that the condition be imposed, as stated, which was priorto recordation
of the map.
Further addressing this issue, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed the current
efforts of staff with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan to form an Assessment District for
the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, and an extension of Murrieta Hot Springs
Road between Rancho California Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road; clarified that this
condition was placed on this map by the City Council in 1992 to ensure that there would
be an eastern corridor prior to residential densities occurring along this stretch; advised
that it was staffs opinion that it was imperative that this condition remain on this map, as
stated, due to providing the City the authority to ensure that this applicant participated in
that Assessment District; and recommended that since this condition was placed on the
proposal by the City Council, that if the Planning Commission determined to modify the
condition, that the recommendation be forwarded to the City Council for review.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the options
before the Planning Commission were to either support the applicant's request and to
alter the condition, or to leave the condition, as stated, and to then forward the Planning
Commission's recommendation to the City Council for its review.
Acknowledging that the Planning Commission could have final jurisdiction regarding this
appeal, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the
typical procedure of an issue going back to the City Council for final action when the
original conditions were imposed by the City Council; and advised that the Planning
Commission could exercise final jurisdiction if that was the Planning Commission's
desire.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant has paid toward
the formation of the Assessment District; relayed the applicant's concern that this project
will be dependent on the Roripaugh Ranch Project; clarified that the applicant is ready to
move forward, and is not requesting that the condition be deleted, but only that the
condition not be required until prior to the issuance of a building permit in lieu of prior to
recordation of the final map, advising that the cash deposit towards the Assessment
District has exhibited good faith, noting that the applicant fully acknowledges the
obligation; relayed that there are multiple access points to the site through existing read
systems at this time, in addition to the future Butterfield Stage Road improvements; and
in response to Commissioner Telesio, noted the potential to request building permits in
approximately a year.
Mr. Won Yoo, the applicant, via overhead maps, displayed the area of discussion,
specifying the location of Roripaugh Ranch, Butterfield Stage Road, Rancho California
Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road; noted that Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot
Springs Road have been built almost to the Roripaugh Ranch site, additionally
specifying the improvements constructed to the south; relayed his desire to begin
grading proximately which could last a duration of four months, while noting that the
Roripaugh Ranch Project was aiming for obtaining annexation in November, if the
project stays on schedule; clarified the timing gap between the two projects, specifically
if the Roripaugh Ranch Project's progress is delayed; noted that he was agreeable to all
the requirements of Condition No. 33, as referenced earlier, but was only requesting that
the condition not be imposed prior to recordation of the final map due to holding up this
project's progress, advising that the recording of the map would not create any traffic;
and opined that this request was equitable.
For informational purposes, Mr. Markham specified the substantial amount of proximate
road improvements constructed since the condition was imposed in 1992, reiterating that
there would be no negative traffic impacts with this project if the requirement was
deferred to prior to the issuance of building permits.
Commenting further, Mr. Yoo further clarified the existing access roads proximate to the
project site.
Commissioner Chiniaeff queried whether the applicant would be willing to build
Butterfield Stage Road the length of the project site without tying into Rancho California
Road. In response, Mr. Yoo relayed that he would not be agreeable to this suggestion,
noting the discussions between other developments (i.e., this project, the Lennar
Project, and the Roripaugh Project), clarifying that he was agreeable for the obligation
related to this project's fair share.
Providing additional information, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed past
discussions with Mr. Yoo regarding a Development Agreement which would have
ensured that the link was completed, and requiring the deposit of a sum of money into
an escrow account which was not financially feasible for him; clarified staff's rationale for
ensuring that this roadwork will be completed with the Roripaugh Ranch Project;
provided additional information regarding the assurance of a continuous link on the east
side if the Roripaugh Ranch Project does not go forward; and advised that if the
condition was not imposed prior to recordation of the final map it would be difficult to
enforce the condition.
In response to Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Mr. Markham relayed that the City
had the option of not issuing building permits if the CFD was not formed at that point.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Yoo confirmed that he was requesting that the CFD be
required to be in place pdor to the issuance of the first building permit. Mr. Markham
noted the desire of the applicant to record the map, grade the subdivision, and to build
the in-tract streets, sewer, and water facilities.
Mr. Blake Wettlaufer, 40939 Alton Court, noted his concern with the proposed tract map
for the following reasons: recommended maintaining large lots bordering the adjacent
property, in order to provide a smoother transition to the lots located in the wine country
area; opined that 6500 square foot lots were too small; relayed a desire for greenbelts
and trail elements be included in the plan; and recommended the development of a
project of similar quality as the surrounding development.
The Commission relayed closin(~ comments, as follows:
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the importance of ensuring that the Assessment District is
formed, advising that altering the condition may make the process more difficult; relayed
his reluctance to modify the condition; for Commissioner Telesio, noted the lack of
leverage the City would have if the condition's timing was modified, additionally relayed
R:PlanCornnVminut es~71101 7
the construction traffic which this project would generate prior to the issuance of building
permits.
In response to Commission queries, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional
information regarding the three entities involved in this geographic area which would be
part of the CFD, providing an overview of the discussions over the past six months,
clarifying the importance of the joint timing of these efforts; clarified that the applicant
has been cooperative in these discussions; noted staff's perspective that the pressure
should be kept on moving this integrated project forward, advising that this condition was
a safety net to help ensure the formation of the CFD.
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that with recordation of the map, lots, phases, or the
whole project could be sold, relaying the potential for difficulties in dealing with an
alternate entity.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the applicant has been in escrow
with a few merchant builders and fallen out of escrow due to this condition, clarifying
staff's efforts to come to an equitable solution, reiterating that the previous Development
Agreement was not feasible for the applicant; clarified staffs concern with respect to the
potential of dealing with another entity if this map is recorded prior to the formation of the
CFD which would further complicate the issue.
Assistant City Attorney Curley noted that there has been no compelling rationale
provided for altering the condition, but in fact the language of the condition would be
effective in encouraging the moving forward of the ongoing negotiations.
Since the Roripaugh Specific Plan was scheduled to come before the Planning
Commission in August, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning
Commission could continue this matter off-calendar, revisiting the issue if it appeared
that Roripaugh would not meet its time schedule,
In response to Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks specified
the deal points (i.e., the Butte~eld Stage Road extension from the project to Rancho
California Road) that had been included in the proposed Development Agreement, which
had not been agreeable to the applicant.
Noting the negative traffic issues in this area, Commissioner OIhasso relayed the need
for these particular road improvements.
Mr. Markham noted the potential for the Roripaugh Project's process to be timely, even if
approval was attained at an early point (i.e., due to the potential for environmental
issues, referendums, etc.); and reiterated the concerns of the applicant with respect to
this project being held up.
For Mr. Yoo, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the condition stated that
the applicant could form the CFD itself, if that was preferred.
In response to Mr. Yoo reiterating his desire for the condition to be deferred until prior to
the issuance of a building permit, and his opinion that the timing requirement was unfair
and unreasonable, Chairman Guerriero relayed assurance that the Planning
Commission understood the applicant's position with respect to this matter.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing, and to
recommend to the City Council that the Planning Director's decision be upheld regarding
this matter. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion
passed; see below.)
Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could support the Planning Commission
recommending that the City Council consider designating a specific time period for the
imposition of the condition.
In response, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that setting a date would be
possible, but would have to be investigated thoroughly, noting that to choose a date at
this time would be arbitrary; and advised that the staff report to the City Council could
include the Planning Commission's recommendation for either the formation of a
financing mechanism and/or the establishment of a time certain in order to allow the
applicant to move forward with the subdivision.
Commissioner Chiniaeff clarified that Commissioner Telesio's recommendation was not
part of the motion.
At this time voice vote was taken regarding the motion, reflecting approval with the
exception of Commissioner Telesio who voted n__~o and Commissioner Mathewson who
abstained.
It was noted that the meeting recessed at 7:00 P.M., reconvening at 7:06 P.M.
At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 6.
6
Plannincl Application No. PA00-0502 (Development Plan) Promenade Car Wash
Thomas Thornslev, Associate
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0502, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
6,222 SQUARE FOOT, FULL SERVICE, CAR WASH
(PROMENADE CAR WASH), ON AN .86 ACRE LOT
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD
BETWEEN THE TWO ENTRANCES TO THE
PROMENADE MALL SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 910-320-040,
AND LOT Q OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-0495
AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007.
Via overheads, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the project plan (of record),
highlighting the location, the size of the site (i.e., .85 acres), the entry drives located off
R:PlanComm/minutes/0? 1101 9
of the ring road, the proposal to construct a car wash use inclusive of a car wash tunnel,
a small retail/service area, a detail shop area, and an outdoor patio; after reviewing this
site, noted staffs concerns, as follows: the visibility of the cleaning and prep area, and
the open bay, and the conflicts with the vehicles on this site with the northern parcel's
traffic; relayed that to accommodate the activity of this use without interfering with the
accessed neighboring property there would be a small separating curb installed in order
to prevent the vehicles from impeding the ingress and egress of the neighboring site;
presented the applicant's revised proposal to add additional screening in an attempt to
address staffs concerns; clarified that staff's greatest concern regarding this project was
the operation of the site, and the ability to process enough vehicles through the site and
off the property without backups on the ring road; specified that the prep area has room
for nine vehicles, noting the potential for vehicles which are not dried and finished with
the car wash process soon enough to create a clogged area, relaying the negative
impacts related to vehicles exiting the site, and vehicles backing up on the ring road to
enter the car wash; presented the architectural design which was a unique style, noting
the proposed aquamarine-colored metal seamed roof, and the off-white stucco finished
walls, advised that it was staffs opinion that the architecture was not consistent with the
Design Guidelines; relayed the landscape plan, noting staffs recommendation for
additional landscaping around the patio area; concluded that it was staffs
recommendation that the Planning Commission deny this planning application due to the
project not being consistent with the necessary findings for the project, specifically due
to the unavoidable conflicts due to the size of the site and the intensive nature of the
use, and the inadequate screening (reiterating that the applicant has provided a revised
screening option which was provided after the agenda packets had been distributed.)
Addressing the Commission's questions, for Chairman Guerriero, Associate Planner
Thornsley further specified the applicant's plan for additional screening; for
Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the capacity of the car
wash; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that it was typical for these type of facilities
to have 4-6 prep areas prior to the vehicles entering the tunnel and for there to be
provision of additional space for the stacking of vehicles; noted that the southerly wall
was proposed to be six feet in height, relaying that staff recommended that there be
additional landscaped berming along the wall; confirmed that adjacent to the neighboring
project site there would be no screening; specified the inconsistencies of the project with
respect to the Development Code standards, and the Design Guidelines; for
Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed that since the proposed wall was located behind the
setback area, that a six foot height would be acceptable; provided additional information
regarding the restrictions with respect to blocking the view corridor, noting that this
requirement was to prevent blocking the view of the anchor uses; and with respect to
employee parking, noted that the proposal had provision of eight parking spaces.
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted his concern regarding the size of this site being too small
for this particular use.
Mr. Lance Brown, architect for the project, noted his frustration regarding the project's
process; opined that the Planning Department's recommendations were not consistent
with the guidelines for mall projects; relayed that the guidelines for development within
the City were antiquated and uninspiring from an architectural point of view; relayed
hopes that since this was the year 2001 that the Planning Commission could support
innovative architectural styles; advised that it was his desire to present the project to the
Planning Commission for its input; opined that architecturally speaking, this proposal had
R:PlanComm/rninutesJ071101 10
more aspiration than any development existing in the City of Temecula, and ergo should
be welcomed; noted that the issues related to staff's recommendation, which were
relayed to the applicant in May, have been addressed; advised that there would most
likely not be a backup with patrons entering the site, noting that if there was, patrons
would be discouraged from utilizing the car wash at this location; with respect to
screening, relayed the applicant's willingness to construct and eight foot wall, advising
that the screening issue was not monumental; and noted that the car wash circulation
would work fairly well, and that this project would be an asset to the community.
Providing clarification, Commissioner Telesio advised that the architectural diversity
existing at the mall site has been supported by the Planning Department and the
Planning Commission, noting that it was not the desire of the City to approve solely
square box projects; and advised that his concern regarding the project was related to
the traffic circulation.
Mr. Brett Thornton, property owner of the site, clarified that there was a reciprocal
easement agreement throughout the mall for parking with respect to ingress and egress;
noted that parking on the interior side of the ring road was not currently utilized, even
during the busy holiday season, advising that, if necessary, this area would provide for
overflow parking, concurring with Commissioner Chiniaefrs comments that there needed
to be provision for the vehicles of individuals who left their car to be washed while
shopping; questioned why the circulation issues were not addressed with the applicant
prior to June; noted that this project site, as proposed, will accommodate 31-34 vehicles
at any one time; provided additional information regarding the capacity analysis provided
to the Planning Commission (via supplemental agenda material) which was based on a
projection of 350 cars per day which was an average of 38 cars per hour, noting that
based on a 20-minute turnaround service there would be a maximum number of 13 cars
on the site at a time, relaying that if there were up to 85 cars an hour utilizing the facility
which would be 765 cars a day there would still only be a maximum number of 28 cars
on site at one time, reiterating that the site could handle 31 cars; with respect to
employee parking, advised that there would be a need for approximately four to five
parking spaces, noting that the outlining parking area could be utilized if there was an
overflow; with respect to architecture, noted the desire to create a distinct identity,
relaying hopes that the Planning Commission could approve the project with minor
changes; with respect to staff's recommendation for denial, advised that the two primary
issues to be addressed were the congestion, and the screening of the tunnel; provided
additional information regarding the applicant's revised proposals presented to staff to
address the screening issue, noting his confusion with staff's continued recommendation
for denial, relaying that it was his understanding that staff would recommend a
continuance in order to further review the screening proposals, and to make suggestions
to address these issues; and concluded that the proposal provides for adequate
screening, and that there would be no negative impacts with the circulation, noting
hopes of being able to move forward with approval of the project.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Thornton specified the proposed changes to provide
adequate screening of the six-foot wall, noting the plan to add trees, a berm, and Iow
groundcover; with respect to circulation issues, advised that the information provided
clarifies that there would be no negative impacts, reiterating that, if necessary, there
could be parking in the area on the interior side of the loop road.
R: PlanComnl/minut es/O71101 11
in response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Thornton noted that in the overflow parking
area, it would most likely be set up similar to a valet-type service.
Prior to further discussion consideration of continuing this matter, Commissioners
Olhasso and Mathewson recommended that there be Commission discussion.
The Plannina Commission relayed the followinq closinq comments:
Applauding the Planning Commission for it previous efforts on the out-parcels at the
mall, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that the Planning Commission has maintained a
very high quality, improving the image of the City of Temecula; clarified that she
absolutely could not support this use being constructed on this site due to the
inadequate size of the site and the negative circulation impacts potentially generated on
the ring road with the proposal; noted that the applicant did not take into consideration
the Macys's Project, or the Robinson's May Expansion Project which would push parking
out to the ring road during the peak holiday season; and advised that insulting the staff
of the City of Temecula was not an effective avenue for positively influencing the
Planning Commission, noting her respect for the work of Planning staff, recommending
that in the future it would simply be stated by the applicant that there was a difference of
opinion.
Commissioner Telesio noted his concern with the circulation issues, querying staff
whether it would be of benefit to continue the matter in order to further investigate
avenues for addressing traffic.
Concurring with Commissioner Olhasso, Commissioner Mathewson advised that with
respect to architectural design, that staff, this Planning Commission, and past
Commissions have done an excellent job in addressing architectural uniqueness
throughout this community; with respect to this particular project, noted that his concerns
were regarding the internal and external circulation, and the lack of adequate parking on
site; opined that this use was inappropriately sited on this parcel; and with respect to the
applicant's comments regarding the project's process, advised that the timing of this
project's process was adequate.
With respect to architecture, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he was not opposed to
the proposed design; advised that this use was not appropriate on this site due to the
inadequate size of the lot, suggesting that alternate mall sites may be more appropriate;
and relayed that this project would generate negative circulation impacts.
Commenting on the high quality work of staff, and the Planning Commission, Chairman
Guerriero advised that in his opinion the proposed architecture was not new, but similar
to a 50's Jetson-look design, noting that it was too aggressive for the City of Temecula,
relaying that this project would not be consistent with the mall's existing architecture
styles; and concurred with the previous comments, noting that this project was too big
for this site.
After hearing the Planning Commission remarks regarding the project, Mr. Thornton
advised that there was no desire to continue this matter.
In light of the Commission comments, Assistant City Attorney Curley referenced the
resolution presented to the Planning Commission regarding this matter, specifically
R: PlanComnttminut e&~71101 12
Section 2, B., which identified staff's conflicts with the project, relaying that the Planning
Commission may want to consider augmenting this portion to request that language be
included specifying the Commission's additional noted findings for denying the project;
recapitulating the previously made Planning Commission remarks, reiterated the
following: 1) that the proposed use was too large for the site, 2) that the proposed project
would cause traffic circulation conflicts, as well as 3) negative on- and off-site parking
impacts; and advised the Planning Commission to clearly identify the rationale for its
action.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing, and to support
staff's recommendation to deny Planning Application No. PA00-0502, modifying the
language in the resolution, in paragraph 2. B., to include language stating that the
proposed use was too large for the site, and that there was inadequate on-site parking
for this particular use. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion. (Ultimately this
motion passed; see below,)
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Commissioner Mathewson noted that he concurred with
the language in the resolution stating that the project fails to adequately screen the
visibility of the service area.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval of the motion denying
approval of the project.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she looked forward to serving on the
Planning Commission, noting her appreciation for her recent appointment.
Chairman Guerriero, echoed by Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, and
Telesio, welcomed Commissioner Olhasso aboard.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed
that staff would investigate the plethora of banners and signs on site at three
apartment complexes located on Rancho California Road.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed her pleasure that Commissioner Telesio
was back after his absence, additionally noting that Commissioner OIhasso
would be a groat addition to the Planning Commission.
Director of Planning Ubnoske introduced staff's newest Associate Planner, Mr.
Matthew Harris, and requested Mr. Harris to address the Commission.
Associate Planner Harris noted his recent relocation from the Oregon coast; and
advised that the City was in an important phase of its evolution, welcoming the
challenge in working with staff and the Planning Commission to create a well-
planned community.
R:PianComm/minutes/071101 13
Updating the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that
there would most likely be a decision from the judge regarding the Wolf Creek
issue on July 12, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:12 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next adiourned
regular meetincl to be held on Thursday, July 12, 200t at 6:00 P.M., in the City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Ron Guem~e~o,~
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:PlanComm/minutes/O71101 14