Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout071801 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday July 18, 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 Commissioner Chiniaeff. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, OIhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Aisc Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Senior Engineer Alegria, Senior Planner Hazen, Project Planner McCoy, Associate Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENTCALENDAR A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of July 18, 2001. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of June 6, 2001. R:PlanComm/mir~ut es~71801 MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who abstained from Item No. 2. COMMISSION BUSINESS 3 Appointment of a new Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Plannin(~ Commission It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to appoint Commissioner Chiniaeff to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission, and Commissioner Telesio to serve as Vice Chairman. Commissioner Mathewson applauded Chairman Guerriero for his outstanding work while chairing the Planning Commission. 4 Planning Application No. 01-0082 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) - Mission Oaks National Bank Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-0082 based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 200'1-027 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0082 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 2,200 SQUARE FOOT BANK BUILDING WITHOUT A DRIVE-THROUGH LANE ON A 0.17-ACRE PAD SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING VAIL RANCH CENTER COMMERCIAL CENTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND REDHAWK PARKWAY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-080-004. 4.3 and Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA0'I-0082 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT), TO CONSTRUCT AN ATM DRIVE-THROUGH IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 2,200 SQ. FT. BANK ON A 0.17-ACRE PAD SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING VAIL RANCH CENTER COMMERCIAL CENTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND REDHAWK PARKVVAY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 961-080-004. Via overheads, Project Planner McCoy presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the location of the project, the Zoning and General Plan designation (i.e., Community Commercial), the design inclusive of the plaza area, the access, the parking, the proposed drive-through ATM aisle, the southwestern Mediterranean-style architecture, and the entry elements; and with respect to the application for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the drive-through facility, advised that since it was the intent to create a pedestrian plaza (i.e., identified as a Village Center Overlay General Plan designation, as well as identified as a pedestrian plaza in the Vail Ranch Center Design Guidelines at this center), it was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission deny the CUP while approving the planning application for the development plan. Addressing Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Project Planner McCoy confirmed that the Taco Bell restaurant use was located adjacent to this site, noting that it was his understanding that the original master development plan for the Vail Ranch Center identified a certain allowable number of drive-threugh facilities in the front portion of the project site along Highway 79 South. Providing additional information, Senior Planner Hazen relayed the direction staff provided to alternate drive-through applicants (i,e., the credit union) specifically that no additional drive-through uses would be permitted. Noting the discussions and negotiations regarding this site, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that in the final outcome there was a compromise (deviating from the original designation with a Village Center Overlay for the entire site), specifying that the eastern areas would be constructed as a traditional shopping center while certain portions would be for pedestrian-oriented uses only, clarifying the main impetus for the recommendation for denial on this particular drive-through element. In light of the lack of control over the types of uses placed in this center, and the credit union being approved for this site, Commissioner Telesio advised that the pedestrian element has been compromised, querying why this particular use would be prohibited from having a drive-through when these type of uses would be typically driven to, and not accessed via pedestrian traffic; recommended that there be additional review regarding centers with these types of overlays, and that if the concept was not being implemented that there be revisions in the approval process; and for clarification, sited various specific uses at this site, as follows: the credit union, the doctor's office, the Taco Bell restaurant use, the Chevron gas station, and the McDonalds restaurant use. R;PlanComm/minutes~71801 3 For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that the drive-though uses (along the highway) currently at this center were envisioned as part of the center at the time of the past negotiations, advising that the portion of the site being discussed at this time was the segment designed for retaining the Village Center Design; and concurred that the current uses were not aiding in the attainment of a Village Center element. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she would not be opposed to the drive-through element for this use in light of the current uses at this center. Noting that this project was setback a substantial distance from the road and was consistent with alternate neighboring uses, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that he would support the project, as proposed, by the applicant. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Senior Engineer Alegria advised that the standard condition included for this project regarding the requirement for a drainage study (which had been conducted when the Specific Plan was approved) could be deleted if that was the desire of the Planning Commission. Mr. Keith Johnson, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the desire for this use to have the single-lane drive-through element; and relayed the numerous revisions made to the project plan in an effort to create a use appropriate for the Village Center concept. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Johnson relayed that the drive-up area was proposed solely as a drive-up ATM machine, which would be available to customers at any time of day, noting that there would be an additional walk-up ATM area under the trellis area. Commenting on the proposal for a drive-through element, Commissioner Telesio opined that the project, as proposed, would not create a significant negative traffic impact. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Johnson relayed that with the revised plan, which would have solely one lane for the drive-up, that the area where the second lane had been proposed would be landscaped. Noting that implementation of the Village Center concept has been lost at this center, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he could support the project, as proposed; and recommended that there be concentrated efforts to maintain the Village concept south of the internal drive. Additional discussion ensued regarding the resolution, which had been drafted recommending denial of the application for the ATM drive-through, Assistant City Attorney Curley clarifying that if the Planning Commission was considering approving the CUP that there were no conditions associated with the approval of this particular application. In response to the Commission queries, Mr. Johnson advised that it would be the applicant's preference that the approval was finalized at this meeting. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that no additional conditions were necessary for the application for the CUP. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; to approve the project inclusive of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the drive-through, subject to the following revision: Modify- That Condition No. 26 (requiring that the applicant prepare a drainage study) be eliminated; and directed staff to revise the resolution associated with the CUP to reflect the Planning Commission's support of the application, and to subsequently bring the resolution back to the Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting for the Commission's review. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. The meeting recessed at 6:38 P.M., reconvening at 6:43 P.M. 5 Plannincl Application No. PA00-0397 (Development Plan) Thomas Thornslev, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0397 (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 EI R's and Negative Declarations, 5.2 And adopt a Resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minut es/0718~01 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 200t-029 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0397 - A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 48,000 SQUARE FEET; AND THREE FUTURE UNDEVELOPED AREAS CAPABLE OF ACCOMMODATING AN 8,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, UP TO A 7,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT, AND A THREE STORY 84-ROOM HOTEL OR 13,868 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, ALL ON AN l'I.86-ACRE SITE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND MARGARITA ROAD, WITHIN THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN, KNOWN AS LOTS B & C OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. PA99-0424, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. APN 921-8t0-0~12 AND 92'1-8~10-0'17. Via overheads, Associate Planner Thornsley presented the project plan for the Overland Corporate Center (per agenda material), highlighting the useable area, the three access points, the site circulation, the request for the site approval, and for the approval of the design of the four buildings in the center of the site, specifying the square footage of the proposed uses; noted the treffic assessment which was conducted, relaying that the proposed uses were within the standards with respect to the trip generation, and the traffic impacts; presented the architectural design, and the landscape plan inclusive of the channel area; noted the proposed internal courtyard area; advised that the future design of the alternate buildings on site will either come back to staff for administrative review or would be forwarded to the Planning Commission, dependent on the size of the building; and presented the grading plan, noting the restrictions related to the topogrephy. In response to Chairman Guerriero's queries, Mr. Bob Smith, traffic engineer for the applicant, previded clarification regarding the traffic exiting the site, advising that there would be no significant negative impacts with this project, concurring that it may be worthwhile to investigate the traffic on the road dividing the Cosco use from this project which accesses the signal light, while noting that at this point in time, this particular street is underutilized. In order to previde traffic relief, Chairman Guerriere recommended that there be investigation regarding the feasibility of accommodating a U-turn movement at Margarita Road/Overland Drive. Commissioner Mathewson commented on the preposed banding on both the one- and two-story buildings. In response, Associate Planner Thornsley clarified that this element would be the addition of a minor accent reveal line, providing additional information regarding the added amhitectural features. The applicant's architect provided an overview of the enhanced articulation on the project, specifying the reveal line, the sandstone elements, the landscaping, and glass treatment added to break up the mass of the building; and noted the goal to receive an approval for the site concept; and for Chairman Guerriero, and in response to Commissioner Mathewson's concerns, relayed that the applicant would be willing to increase the size of the reveal lines. Associate Planner Thornsley presented the applicant's photo simulation of the view of the project on site with the grade differentials, noting the proposed clustered landscaping, and the corner monument statement; and additionally, specified the glass articulation and the parapet treatments. Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the letter received by the Commission regarding the applicant maintaining the flood control channel, recommending that the Planning Commission consider the City maintaining this area, providing a brief history regarding this area. In response, Associate Planner Thornsley noted that it was his understanding that the wash area would need to be maintained as a percolation area, and be re- vegetated in a native vegetation, advising that he was unsure at what point the City will be involved with this installation. Mr. Mark Espenson, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the additional design elements, specifically the curved glass articulation, and the added sandstone; noted the applicant's desire to begin construction proximately, relaying a willingness to work with staff regarding any concerns of the Planning Commission; specified the buildings that this use would occupy; for Commissioner Olhasso, provided additional information regarding the phasing of the project, specifying the perimeter landscaping, and the corporate identity corner signing; and for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that he would be agreeable to the additional sandblasting treatment presented, while he preferred the original proposal. Ms. Vandana Kelkar, representing the applicant, noted the applicant's agreement with the Conditions of Approval with the exception of the following: 1) with respect to Condition No. 27 (regarding maintenance of the creek), noted the applicant's desire for this condition to be deleted, 2) with respect to Condition No. 33 (regarding the drainage study), recommended that this condition be required if recommended by the City Engineer, 3) with respect to Condition No. 40, advised that the phrase tentative parcel map should be changed to indicate finalparcel map. In response, Senior Engineer Alegria provided additional information regarding Condition No. 40. Mr. Craig Turner, representing the Promenade of Temecula HOA, noted the concern regarding traffic, specifically relaying opposition regarding the potential for access via a thoroughfare from the project complex into the Promenade Development; and commended the City staff, the Planning Commission, and the developer for the well- designed architecture for this particular project. The Planninq Commission relayed the following closinq comments: Noting Chairman Guerriero's concern regarding the traffic coming out of the street proximate to the Cosco use, Commissioner Chiniaeff opined that the site plan worked well, advising that the rationale for placing the signal on Overland Drive was to allow traffic to come out and go either direction through the intersection; with respect to the recommendation for provision for U-turn movements at Margarita Road/Overland Drive, noted that provision for this movement may not be necessary; with respect to the architecture, relayed that while it was plain, the addition of the sandstone and the increasing of the width of the reveal strip would be beneficial; with respect to the landscape plan, recommended that additional evergreen trees be installed in lieu of some of the deciduous trees; and with respect to the conditions, recommended that the Planning Commission consider the recommended revisions by the applicant. Commenting on the architecture, Commissioner Mathewson advised that with the proposed modifications, this issue would be adequately addressed, specifically recommending the sandstone squares at the base, and a greater relief on the horizontal banding at the top; with respect to the traffic, concurred that provision for U-turn movements should be investigated; and noted his support of the project. Commissioner Telesio noted that he could support either architectural proposal, either the original design or the proposal with the added sandstone; advised that with the proposed landscaping, the view of this project would not create a significant negative impact; and with respect to the photo simulation of the view of the project, concurred with Commissioner Mathewson, recommending that for future projects it would be his preference that the actual landscape plan be represented. Supporting the additional sandstone enhancement, Commissioner Olhasso advised that this element would aid in tying in with the surrounding development; noted concern regarding the future development of the hotel pad, advising that she would desire to have this project strictly conditioned to prevent deterioration, advising that the design of existing hotels in the City of Temecula was not pleasing, noting the need for higher design standards; and with respect to traffic issues, recommended that there be investigation to increase enforcement. With respect to the future design of the alternate buildings on site, Commissioner Telesio recommended that these uses be brought before the Planning Commission for review. For the record, Chairman Guerriero noted that he had contacted the applicant's representative, requesting the prevision of the elevation representation, thanking the applicant for this provision; concurred with Commissioner Telesio, that the design of alternate buildings should be brought to the Planning Commission; reiterated his concern regarding traffic, requesting that Mr. Davis investigate the provision for U-turn movements on Margarita Road. Director of Planning Ubnoske read into the record staff's recommendation regarding the addition of two conditions, as well as a revision to Condition No. 27, as follows: Add a condition stating All buildings designated as future development shall submit elevations for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Add a condition stating Any changes to the buildings designated as future development deemed to be significant by the Director of Planning will require Planning Commission approval. With respect to Condition No. 27, recommended that the condition state The developer shall improve and maintain Long Canyon Creek, if required by the Public Works Director. R:PlanComm/rninutes~71801 8 With respect to the reference significant changes, in the second added condition, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that typically an increase in size, or if there were changes on the pad by fifteen to twenty percent (15-20%), or if the use itself was significantly different, this would constitute a significant change and require Planning Commission approval. Providing clarification, Associate Planner Thornsley noted that the square footages represented on the plan were at the maximum allowance due to traffic impacts (i.e., trip counts). MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; approve the project, as proposed, subject to the following revisions: Modify- Add a condition stating All buildings designated as future development shall submit elevations for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Add a condition stating Any changes to the buildings designated as future development deemed to be significant by the Director of Planning will require Planning Commission approval. That Condition No. 27 (regarding maintenance of the creek) be deleted. That Condition No. 33 (regarding the drainage study) be revised to add if required by the City Engineer. That Condition No. 40 be modified, deleting the first sentence which states A tentative parcel map shall be fi/ed and processed with the City, and leaving the remainder of the condition's language. That the elevations be revised, inclusive of the sandstone capped at the base, and a minimum three-inch reveal relief, and That there be additional review of the traffic circulation by the applicant's traffic engineer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley and Director of Planning Ubnoske provided an update to the Planning Commission regarding the Roripaugh Project meetings, noting that Commissioner Chiniaeff and Telesio had been appointed to attend the Roripaugh Subcommittee meetings as the Planning Commission's representatives; for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that she could contact the City's financial advisor for the project in order to address her specific concerns. Commissioner Olhasso requested that copies of the tapes of the public meetings associated with the Roripaugh Project be provided to the Planning Commissioners, as well as an e-mail noting the times of the meetings. Siting the bank project presented at tonight's hearing, Chairman Guerriero recommended that in the future, information be distributed to the Planning Commission for review at an earlier point in time. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Planning Ubnoske updated the Planning Commission regarding staffing, noting that an offer has been made to an Associate Planner who is currently employed by Eastern Municipal Water District. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it was staffs recommendation that the August meetings be scheduled for the 15th and the 22nd. In response, the Planning Commission was agreeable. For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided an overview of staffs efforts with respect to the General Plan update, confirming that at a future point staff could provide a specific update to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 8:07 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next re(lular meetin.q to be held on Wednesday, August '15, 200'1 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Director of Planning R:PlanComm/miNut es/071801 10