Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout072199 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M., on Wednesday July 21, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fahey *, Mathewson, Naggar, Webster, and Chairman Guerdero. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Fagan, Associate Planner Donahoe, Assistant Planner Anders, Project Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. *(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:08 P.M.) PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of A,qenda It was the consensus of the Commission to hear Agenda Item No. 8 pdor to headng Agenda Item No. 7. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent. planC omm/minut es/072199 2. Approval of Minutes-June 16, 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes, as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent and Commissioner Mathewson who abstained. 3. Director's Hearin;i Update Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she was available for questions regarding the Director's Hearing report. For Commissioner Naggar, Assistant Planner Anders relayed that the number of units proposed in the Woodside Homes of California development would be approximately 184. 4. Flow Charts for Grading Permit, Building Permit and Final Inspection Process Querying the Commission for input, Senior Planner Fagan presented the staff report, highlighting the process for projects after Commission approval with respect to the grading and building permits, and the final inspection process. Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Naggar commended staff for their fine work with respect to the informational data provided. 5. Dekkon PA98-0353-Proposed Development Plan Changes It was noted that at 6:08 P.M. Commissioner Fahey arrived at the meeting. Due to the proposed significant changes to the previously approved project, by way of color renderings, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report; noted the design change form an L-shaped building to a rectangular-shaped building; relayed that at a future point in time this particular project would be presented to the Commission due to the lack of a finding of substantial conformance. For informational purposes, Commissioner Webster expressed his preference for the original color scheme of the building due to its location. Mr. David Whiffield, representing the applicant, provided clarification regarding the inclusion of the corporate office for Huntco Development in the project, as well; and provided additional information regarding the proposed modifications. 6. On The Border PA99-0079-Proposed Mural Reviewing the City's regulatory guidelines which would relate to the proposed project, Project Planner Thornsley presented the staff report; and specified the following: 1) that the General Plan is silent with respect to murals, 2) that the City's Sign Ordinance is planComm/minut es/072199 broad and contains no specific language addressing this particular project, and 3) that the Sign Ordinance addresses works of art and the associated approval by staff. Commissioner Naggar relayed that while he was not opposed to this particular mural, that his previously expressed concerns had not been addressed, specifically indicated, as follows: 1) whether or not the project constitutes signage or art, 2) the development for a criteria of approval to ensure consistency, and 3) the precedence that approval of this particular project would set for future similar proposals. After staff's review, providing clarification that the Commission would not be limited by the Sign Ordinance, Commissioner Fahey advised that since the project would be approved based on the particular design of this proposed project, and whether it would be appropriate for this location in the mall, she could support the project. Relaying his opinion that this particular project falls into the category of art due to the lack of a restaurant or business denotation, Commissioner Webster relayed his concurrence with staff's recommendation, advising that this particular project would enhance the mall site. While concurring that this particular mural does constitute art, Commission Mathewson expressed concern regarding setting a precedence with the approval of this project due to the lack of defined Guidelines in the General Plan, Sign Ordinance, and Design Guidelines; and relayed concern with respect to the impact of approving future projects. Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero expressed concern due to the lack of a developed criteda for making a determination of categorizing art or murals; and recommended that a regulatory governing policy be set prior to the approval of this particular project. Commissioner Webster provided the following recommendation for provision of a guideline criteria for similar projects, as follows: 1) a mural with provision of historical content relating to the valley, or 2) a mural with provision of representation of current valley activities (i.e., wine, balloons), relaying that this particular project is representative of historical valley events. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion. (This motion was ultimately amended.) Commissioner Naggar recommended that staff develop standards with respect to murals that would serve to regulate size, location, and restrictions regarding the total number of permitted uses, prior to approval of this project; and relayed what without such guidelines, he could not support the project. In concurrence, Chairman Guerriero recommended having staff develop a criterion for approval and then at that point in time bringing this particular project back before the Commission. In response to Planning Manager Ubnoske's querying the Commission for clarification as to whether the request encompassed amending the Specific Plan, the Design PlanComm~minutes~O?2199 Guidelines, or the Sign Ordinance, Chairman Guerriero relayed that if the Sign Ordihance was modified to include language addressing murals or works of art that this would most likely serve as an appropriate guideline. Due to the time constraints associated with amending the aforementioned regulatory documents, Commissioner Fahey recommended approving this particular project and then, subsequently, begin the process to amend the City's documents for the purpose of approving future projects. In response to Commission comments, Attorney Curley advised that with respect to setting a precedence of approval for future projects, that if this project would be approved with no regulatory basis it would be difficult to distinguish future similar projects; clarified that if in the interim period between approving this particular proposal and a subsequent similar project being brought before the Commission that a regulatory base for approval could be developed, and therefore mitigate the concern regarding setting a precedence, noting that this project would then have no affect on future projects; and queried the Commission as to what specific impact was desired to be addressed (i.e., proliferation, size, uniform design.) While acknowledging the benefit of expediting the matter, Commissioner Mathewson relayed a reluctance to approve this project due to the precedence being set; recommended that murals be regulated City-wide; and queried staff which act would be more expeditious, amending the Specific Plan, or amending the other aforementioned documents. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to amend his original motion to maintain accepting staff's recommendation to approve this project while requesting that staff develop the appropriate document to address murals at a later date. (This motion ultimately died for lack of a second.) In response to the Commission, Attorney Curiey advised that the amendment of any of the various regulatory legislative documents would take a minimum of approximately 90 days; suggested that the Commission approve and adopt a regulating policy during the interim period between approval of this project and the subsequent weeks, pending the ultimate legislative response, thereby addressing provision of guidelines for future murals. Providing clarification, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she would not recommend amending the Specific Plan; suggested that this project move forward on the building portion of the project while staff investigates amending the Design Guidelines or the Sign Ordinance; and that staff bring back the amendment to the Planning Commission for approval; and advised that the Commission would then have provision of parameters addressing their concerns; and relayed that the applicant could at that time present the mural to staff or the Commission for approval within the scope of the newly developed parameters. PlanComm/minutes~072199 MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the project, as is; and request staff to add additional language to address future murals in order to address the Commissioners' concern with respect to setting a precedence. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey and Webster, in lieu of solely Commissioner Fahey, Commissioners Mathewson and Naggar who voted no. (The previous discussed Agenda Item No. 6 was reopened and voice vote was taken again. See page 6.) 7. Home Depot Workshop This Agenda Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 8. (See page 7.) PUBLIC HEARING 8. Plannin.q Application No. PA99-0236 (Site Plan Revision) and PA99-0012 (Conditional Use Permit). Request to change the site plan configuration of the shopping center to include the abandon well site and enlarge tow lots for future development. The application is a proposal to build and operate 5,310 square foot tier sales and installation, automotive service and repair facility. RECOMMENDATION It ia recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. By way of overheads, Project Planner Thomsley presented a detailed overview of the staff report (of record); highlighted site design, noting that a landscape berm would be installed for provision of screening the service bays; presented the line-of-sight diagram for provision of the view from Winchester Road (denoted on Exhibit G per agenda material); noted that the 37% landscape plan far exceeds the 20% requirement; confirmed that this site is zoned Community Commercial (CC); and for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified the rationale for bdnging this matter before the Commission, specifying the proposed uses on this particular site. For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that staff typically does not take into account the number of existing similar uses in the area. The applicant's representative relayed that he was available for Commission questions and comments. Chairman Guerriero closed the public headng at this time. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit, Commissioner Webster cited Finding No. 2 (denoted on page 5 of the staff report) regarding compatibility; and relayed that it was his PlanComm/minutes/072199 opinion that this particular use would not be compatible at this site in this Community Commercial zoning area; and expressed his preference for maintaining this type of use in Service Commercial areas, or with a conditional approval within Highway Tourist Commercial areas, or within the Light Industrial areas. Concurring with Commissioner Webster's comments, Commissioner Fahey relayed that it was her opinion that due to the need to screen the service bay areas of this particular project on this predominant comer intersection that this contributed to a determination that this project would be an inappropriate use for this particular site. For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Fagan reiterated staff's finding of consistency, referencing the agenda material. Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Guerriere relayed concurrence with the previous Commission comments. MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to deny the proposed project; and for the record clarified that the denial is based upon the incompatibility of the described use on the site and with the adjacent uses, and that the project does not comply with the goals of the General Plan, specifically, the community design element; and that the denial is not based upon the number of other similar uses in that area. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. {Denied: 510) At 6:57 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 7:06 P.M. Regarding Agenda Item No. 6, Chairman Guerdero relayed that due to the additional discussion surrounding the motion, he misunderstood the final amended motion presented for Agenda Item No. 6. MOTION: Chairman Guerdero moved to reopen Agenda Item No. 6. Commissioner Naggar seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who voted n_.~o. At this time the meeting continued back to Agenda Item No. 6. 6. On The Border PA99-0079-Proposed Mural Attorney Curiey provided additional information regarding reopening this matter and the privilege granted to correct the affirmative vote; provided clarification regarding the final motion made by Commissioner Webster; and voice vote was taken again, as follows: MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staff's recommendation to approve the project, as is; and request staff to add additional language to address future murals in order to address the Commissioners' concern with respect to setting a precedence. Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected denial due to Commissioners Guerriere's, Mathewson's, and Naggar's votes of n._~o. (Denied: 3/2) PlanComm/minutes/072199 MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to direct staff to further investigate the aforementioned matter in order to formulate a policy and an Ordinance that would provide regulations regarding murals. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster and Fahey who voted n._~o. At this time the meeting continued to Agenda Item No. 7. 7. Home Depot Workshop For the record, the Commissioners relayed that they had had previous correspondence with the applicant's representatives to discuss associated issues regarding the Home Depot project. Providing a brief overview, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (via agenda material); specified the four ultimate requests for approval, as follows: 1) a Parcel Map, 2) a Development Plan for the 23-acre parcel, 3) the Specific Plan Amendment, and 4) the Development Agreement; relayed the areas of concern that staff would desire the Planning Commission to provide further input, as follows: 1) the Village Center Concept with respect to this proposed project, 2) the design elements proposed, 3) the elevations, in terms of scale and mass, 4) the specific location of the uses, and 5) the outdoor display area encompassing 2500 square feet. Mr. Allan Davis, representing the applicant, introduced the consultant team; presented the current design for the retail Village Plan; relayed the applicant's intent to meet the goal of incorporation of the Village Center Concept; specified the location of the specified Centers; provided additional information regarding the Home Center, the Sports Center, the Plaza, inclusive of the food uses for the enhancement of the corridors, and the alternate casual eating areas; and reiterated in further detail the associated approval processes for this particular project. Mr. Kareem Ali, representing the applicant, presented the elevations and site plan for this particular project; specified the enhanced building articulation; and provided specification as to the landscape plan, and the location of the Home Depot use. Mr. Allan Davis further clarified the approval process, and the desire to receive input from the Planning Commission; and specified the street configuration proposals, inclusive of the cul-de-sac, and the through-street options. Mr. Brett Kratzer, representing the applicant, further specified the site plan, noting the plan to unify the entire property; highlighted the location of the plazas, parking area, and the village design aspects of the site; relayed the goal to avoid maintaining long facades of blank wails, and the plan to incorporate pedestrian pockets, varying roof sizes, varying storefronts, and varying utilization of building materials; noted the additional amenities the project encompassed; and provided additional information regarding future signage and lighting. 7 PlanComm/minutes/072199 Mr. Allan Davis presented an overview of the proposed operational plan, inclusive of the associated multi-functional space within the parking lot; highlighted the site plan, inclusive of the sub-areas within the retail Village portion of the project, and the conditional use permit; and in conclusion invited the Commission to provide input and direction. Commissioner Naggar relayed his comments and concerns, as follows: Oueded the location of the Daycare Center with respect to the close proximity to the Home Depot use, and the impacts associated with the two points of access Recommended prevision of information regarding the traffic impacts associated with the creation of the cul-de-sacs and the proposed access points Requested clarification with respect to the pedestrian links > W~th regard to safety, requested data regarding the access points to the Center Relayed a desire for additional information regarding the parking plan, and the potential impact to the residential areas > Requested prevision of a comparative summary of the difference between this particular Home Depot use and the Home Depot use located in the City of Murrieta Suggested incorporating specialty fountains into the Children's Center (i.e., simulated wave fountain, pop-up fountain) > Recommended further articulation on the Home Depot building design > Relayed his preliminary preference to not cul-de-sac the area In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Mr. Allan Davis provided clarification regarding the pedestrian links; relayed the current Development Agreement with respect to the Master Plan, and the proposed Development Agreement; concurred with Commissioner Naggar's recommendation to incorporate interactive water uses in the Center for the enjoyment of the children. Commissioner Fahey relayed her comments and concerns, as follows: Noted that she strongly supported the cul-de-sac concept Relayed that she was pleased with the modified layout at the Village Center > Recommended further enhancement of the building architecture at the Home Depot site PlanC omnVminut es/072199 > Commended the applicant on their diligent preliminary efforts to implement the Village Center concept at this difficult site Commissioner Webster expressed his comments and concerns, as follows: > Queried the various alternate street configurations > Relayed that in light of the site constraints, the applicant has done well to incorporate the Village Center theme Advised that the street configuration with the through street would be more conducive to a Village Center theme verses the cul-de-sac option Recommended that Campanula Way be maintained as a through street Relayed that a center median would provide various benefits, including improved circulation Advised that he would not support the cul-de-sac option with respect to street configuration options (relayed his strong opinion regarding this issue) With respect to the outdoor seasonal area, recommended locating that portion of the project on the side of the building between the Lucky's and Home Depot uses > Regarding the Village Buildings, recommended there be frontage provided along Campanula Way, as well as, along the parking area Recommended reconfiguring the building location at the east end of the project along Meadows Parkway to reflect two buildings at the east end with a Plaza area in the center (Relayed his strong opinion regarding this issue) In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Allan Davis presented the preliminary street configuration options, and the associated access points. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Bob Davis, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the original intent of the Specific Plan and the current generation of Iow volumes of traffic in the area; provided additional information regarding the street configuration options, and the associated impacts; relayed that if the cul-de- sac option would be adopted there would be existing provision to adequately accommodate the additional traffic; for Commissioner Naggar, further clarified the impacts with respect to the cul-de-sac option and the associated parking; and recommended that the project incorporate angled street parking verses parallel parking. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Public Works Department would most likely not support on-street angled parking; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified the additional potential for liability issues associated with angled parking; noted that staff had requested that the applicant provide provision of traffic studies with regard to the impact associated to the street configurations, specifically with respect to the cul-de-sac PlanComm/minutesJ072199 or thoroughfare options in order for staff to evaluate the impact with respect to the general circulation; cladfied that the Public Works Department has not made a determination of support or lack of support for the cul-de-sac concept; and noted the advisement relayed to the applicant regarding consideration of rotating or reversing the building configuration, Mr. Barry Bumell, representing the applicant on the adjacent property, provided additional information regarding the adjacent property's potential proposed plan and the associated pedestrian access; and relayed that he was of the opinion that this particular proposed project blends the uses in a cohesive manner. Commissioner Mathewson relayed his comments and concerns, as follows: Queried the impact of the location of the Home Depot use with respect to the pedestrian link Relayed that he was in favor of the development of the Village Center Concept Requested that staff further review the cul-de-sac street configuration option and the associated angled parking issue Queried the compatibility of the Daycare Center use located adjacent to the Home Depot loading area, specifically regarding the air quality impact generated from the trucks > Recommended provision of a line-of-sight diagram for the view from the residential areas to the site, specifically with respect to the loading dock area > Regarding the permitted uses, recommended that the proposed uses are reviewed by staff to ensure consistency to the Village Center Concept VVith respect to the multi-functional area in the parking lot, recommended that additional treatments be added to facilitate a cohesive pedestrian area For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Allan Davis provided additional information regarding the rationale for the location of the Daycare Center. Chairman Guerdero's comments and concerns were relayed, as follows: Relayed that he was in favor of the cul-de-sac design, with the provision of the appropriate controls > Noted that he was opposed to angled street parking Recommended that the Home Depot building be further enhanced, specifically addressing the rear of the building 10 PlanComm~minutesJ072199 > Relayed that he was in favor of the Village Concept and was pleased with the represented color renderings Recommended that the Fire Department evaluate prevision of adequate emergency access with respect to the cul-de-sac street configuration option For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Allan Davis provided additional information regarding the proposal to reverse the Home Depot building site; and relayed the applicant's desire to further work with the Public Works Department to develop an appropriate site plan. Mr. Frank Coda, representing the applicant, relayed that the Temecula Home Depot site would have additional parking and additional square footage in comparison to the Murdeta Home Depot; relayed the basis for the impact associated with the access points at the Murrieta site; noted that the proposed design would basically be the final design presented, relaying the warehouse concept that would be incorporated into the design; provided additional information regarding modifying the rear of the building, and the potential to add additional articulation to that elevation; noted that a 12-foot wall would most likely screen the loading area; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified the use of the seasonal outdoor area; for Commissioner Naggar, relayed the limitations regarding adding additional articulation on the building; and for informational purposes relayed the applicant's intent to further work with staff regarding the building design. In response to Mr. Coda's comments, for the record Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that there is no current agreement with the City of Temecula to approve or accept the current Home Depot Design, as proposed. Mr. Allan Davis clarified the proposed Home Depot design, noting the plan to further enhance the adjacent uses within the Center; relayed the process of working with the City of Temecula; and thanked the Commission for their consideration and input regarding the Home Depot Project. 8. Planning Application No. PA99-0236 (Site Plan Revision) and PA99-0012 (Conditional Use Permit), This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 5. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that if it was the desire of the Commissioners to take a tour of the mall site that they correspond with Val in the Planning Department. B. Regarding the upcoming Design Workshop, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed the potential of the Workshop being cancelled due to the lack of available speakers. 11 PlanComm/minutes/072199 COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. Commissioner Naggar noted that with respect to the letter received from the Temecula Valley Citizens for Responsible Growth, regarding the Roripaugh Ranch Project, that after numerous attempts he was unable to contact any person from the organization. B. For the record, Commissioner Naggar relayed that he had met in person with representatives from the Roripaugh Ranch project. C. With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding vehicles being parked at Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road, Chairman Guerriero relayed the appropriate phone correspondence in order to contact the governing agency. D. In response to Commissioner Webster's querying regarding the grading project along Ynez Road, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional clarification, specifying the associated soil conditions. E. For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided additional information regarding the Meadowview Golf Course submittals to the City, noting the recent receipt of the formal application. F. Regarding the Portofino Project on Rancho California Road, Chairman Guerdero recommended that the level of the screening on the tennis court be raised for the purpose of ensuring safety. ADJOURNMENT At 9:06 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjoumed this meeting to Wednesday, August 4, 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. R0n Guerh'~o, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ~2 Note: Resolution Nos. PC99-021, and PC99-022 (resolutions of denial) were assigned to Agenda Item No.8. Coversheet for PCO72199minutes