Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121599 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 15, 1999 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:03 P.M., on Wednesday December 15, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecu[a City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Fahey. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Fahey, Mathewson, Webster, and Chairman Guerriero. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Diaz, Senior Planner Fagan, Project Planner Griffin, Project Planner Thornsley, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Fahey and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Director's Hearing Update Planning Manager Ubnoske was available for questions and comments from the Commission. 3. Criteria for Determining Public Convenience or Necessity Finding for Alcohol Servinq Uses Via an overhead map, Senior Planner Fagan provided an overview of the staff report (of record), relaying that the map denoted the existing facilities within the City of Temecula PlanComm/minutes/121599 which sold alcohol; specified the areas where the uses were concentrated (referencing the bulleted items on page 2 of the staff report); noted the provision of the criteria data, justifying the Findings of Public Convenience of Necessity (PCN) in the agenda material; and queried the Commission for input. Commissioner Webster recommended that the Census Tract boundaries be placed on the map. in response to Commissioner Fahey's queries regarding a dear definition of the term Convenience, Attorney Diaz relayed the general scope of the term in relation to the Finding, confirming that the issue was based on a subjective determination, clarifying the rationale for the applicant's request for a PCN Finding being brought to the Commission for a determination on a case-by-case basis; for informational purposes, sited an example, as follows: if there was a request for an off-site alcohol license for a Greek delicatessen which would have provision of the sale of special Greek items, and unusual Greek liquors, that even though there might be a concentration of existing licensed alcohol establishments in the particular area, due to the specialty of the Greek items, and if there was a large Greek community within the City, the Finding of Convenience could apply since the availability of the special items offered might not be accessible within a hundred miles; and further clarified that the term Convenience usually referred to accessibility, and that the issue of convenience was related to the sale of alcohol and not related to the convenience of the use itself (i.e., the convenience of a gas station in a certain area). For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Diaz provided additional information regarding the policies determined by the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Department viewed the criteria of PCN Finding in relation to the public, and not in relation to the convenience or necessity of the associated business. Commissioner Mathewson requested staff to compile past decisions of the Planning Commission, with respect to approvals and denials of PCN Findings, and to additionally, include data as to whether those decisions had been overturned. In response, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that staff could provide the requested information to the Commission. In response to Chairman Guerriero's comments, Attorney Diaz relayed that although the Findings would be determined on a case-by-case basis, that the burden of meeting the criteria for the Findings could be placed on the applicant; and provided additional information with respect to the development of a more specific, standardized criteria; relayed that ABC's denial to grant requests for alcohol licenses was based on objective criteria (i.e., the over-concentration of existing uses), and the local governing body's charge was to approve or deny the PCN Findings based on subjective criteria, and was to be determined on a case-by-case basis. With respect to the criteria for the PCN Findings, Commissioner Webster queried whether the criteria could be differentiated between PCN Findings for off-site licenses verses on-site licenses, noting that he would more readily approve an on-site sales license. Commissioner Fahey commented on the restrictions of businesses being established in the City of Temecula with respect to the denial of a PCN Finding; and queried whether the business itself should be examined, specifically, as to whether it was standard for that particular use to sell alcohol. While concurring with Commissioner Fahey's comments regarding the desire to accommodate businesses in order not to exclude a use if the alcohol license was an integral part of the business, Commissioner Mathewson noted that, however, it would not benefit the public to have a proliferation of mini-marls or convenience stores that sold alcohol; recommended that there be a differential in the approving criteria for gas station, tavern, and night club uses verses restaurant, and grocery store uses; and commended staff for the provision of the map, clarifying the areas of concentration. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comments with respect to applying different criteria standards to variant uses, Attorney Diaz provided additional information regarding the legal restrictions associated with the matter; recommended not revising the criteria based on policy decisions, specifically, with respect to amending the criteria for the Findings between a liquor store use verses a grocery store use, reiterating the recommendation that the uses be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; relayed that the Constitution placed restrictions on Local Government from regulating the consumption or sales of alcohol, except for the certain instances denoted in the State Statute; provided additional information regarding the City regulating the number of permitted uses within District divisions due to the State Legislature's authority; and advised that she would further investigate the issue in order to provide the Commission with updated rulings on these matters. Commissioner Fahey relayed her concerns with respect to the issue, as follows: the desire to restrict the incidents of drunk driving, and to prevent teen accessibility to alcohol; and noted the varied subjective thinking each Commissioner brought to the issue. Chairman Guerriero relayed the dangers associated with a proliferation of alcoholic establishments (i.e., the Los Angeles area); noted that if ABC granted the local governing body the authority for the PCN determinations, that the Planning Commission should ensure that there would not be an over-concentration of these uses within the City of Temecula. For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that if it was the Commission's desire, staff would relay to the City Council that the Commission continues to struggle with the alcohol establishment issue and would request direction from the City Council; and noted that the matter could be agendized for a City Council meeting. Due to the existing concentration of such uses in the City of Temecula, Commissioner Fahey relayed that if the business entity itself was not a consideration, she could not make a Finding of Convenience or Necessity for any additional alcohol establishments, reiterating the request for input from the City Council; and noted for community information purPoses, that the request for alcohol sales permits was market-driven, relaying that if the citizens of Temecula were opposed to additional alcohol establishments it should be noted that the supply (or request for additional licensed uses) was dependent upon the demand for such uses. PlanConlm/minutes/121599 Commissioner Mathewson relayed that it was his opinion that the Planning Commission's determination with respect to the PCN Findings should be distinct, and that the Planning Commission not base its decision on City Council direction. While concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that it might be helpful to obtain the City Council's direction regarding this issue in order for an applicant to have a clear idea of the City's direction on this matter prior to applying for the request, or appealing a denied request. Chairman Guerriero was opposed to soliciting the City Council's direction, acknowledging that the Council could provide guidelines if it desired; and requested that the public provide their input regarding this issue (i.e., via phone calls, or letters). For Commissioner Mathewson, Attorney Diaz clarified the legal issues associated with this matter. Since this Agenda Item was solely an informational matter, the Planning Commission took no formal action. For the record, Chairman Guerriero noted the Commission's receipt of a letter (dated December 13, 1999) from Ms. Pamela L. Miod, expressing her opposition to the Wolf Creek Project, requesting the Planning Commission to oppose this particular development. It was noted that the attachments to the letter were inclusive of over 50 signatures of residents, who were also in opposition to the project. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Planninq Application No. PA99-0378 (Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit)) Request to design, construct and operate a 12,825 square foot Saturn automobile dealership with associated automobile display and storage areas on 2.61 acres planned and zoned for Service Commercial (SC) use. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Project Planner Griffin provided a detailed overview of the project (per agenda material); relayed the corrections to the Conditions of Approval with respect to Condition No. 7 (regarding materials and colors), and Condition No. 10 (regarding a landscape island), as indicated on the supplemental agenda material; specified the site location, landscape plan, surrounding uses, location of the display areas, and the glass enclosed canopy area; provided additional information regarding the architectural design, relaying that staff recommended that the raised half-round red accent bands proposed on the front of the building at the canopies, and service entrance areas, be replaced with a red accent stripe. PlanComm/minutes/121599 For Commissioner Webster, with respect to the reference in the staff report to a condition recommending the applicant replace the red accent band with a red stripe, Project Planner Griffin indicated that the condition had been inadvertently omitted. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries regarding Attachment No. 3 (per agenda material), Project Planner Griffin relayed that the traffic analysis report pertained to three dealerships, and not solely to this project. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that numerous recommended mitigating measures denoted in the above-mentioned traffic analysis had been included in the proposed raised Median Project on Ynez Road and Solana Way. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Griffin provided additional information with respect to the light standards; clarified the elevation variation between this site and the residential use (apartment complex) to the east of the project, noting the location of the carpods, and the 7-10 foot drop in the elevation of the dealership site; relayed that the proposed plan was not inclusive of security fencing around the dealership, noting that there would be gates at the vehicular entry points; and provided additional information regarding the required landscape standards. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there was a six-foot block wall on top of the slope, adjacent to the residential use. For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that there was a designated portion of the Development Code applicable to automobile dealers landscape standards. Senior Planner Fagan provided additional information regarding the landscape requirements, clarifying that the twenty percent (20%) standard did not apply to automobile dealership uses. Commissioner Mathewson relayed that in his opinion the language of the Development Code did not clarify that the twenty percent (20%) landscape standard was not required. Mr. Darrold Davis, representing the applicant, specified that the lighting standards were consistent with the Palomar Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, and the City standards, noting the utilization of Iow pressure sodium security lighting due to the restrictions associated with the observatory; and for Chairman Guerriero, relayed that there was no chained- linked fencing proposed on this site. In light of the right-in/right-out only driveway, Commissioner Webster recommended relocating the monument sign from the south side of the driveway to the north side of the driveway in order to prevent negative visibility impacts for vehicles exiting the driveway. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Davis provided additional information regarding the visibility of the service bays, noting the placement of planters which would partially block the view of that area; and relayed the restrictions associated with the applicant's desire to relocate the driveway further south due to the Fire Department's requirement for provision of an adequate turning radius for fire truck access. Project Planner Griffin noted the distance of the service area from the entry area. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the applicant work with staff to make efforts to place a lower, fuller tree in the middle landscape planter area in order to aid in PlanComm/minutes1121599 the screening of the service bays, acknowledging that there may be restrictions regarding the type of trees appropriate for an auto dealership. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Ynez Road and Solana Way Median Projects would be constructed in conjunction with the Paradise Chevrolet Dealership construction project. Mr. Davis specified that the construction of that project would begin in January. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided clarification of Condition No. 42 (regarding the median project) for Mr. Davis. With respect to Commissioner Webster's querying with respect to staff's recommendation to replace the half-round red band with a red accent stripe, Mr. Davis relayed the applicant's desire to achieve an application similar to the steel canopies that were omitted from the design plans, which was a standard image design element for Saturn Dealership uses; specified that the half-round accent bands would extend out eight inches at the maximum distance; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the material utilized for this particular application was efts (a high quality stucco-type material); and noted that the applicant would work with staff regarding this issue. The Commission relayed their concludinq remarks, as follows: Commissioner Fahey relayed that she had no preference with respect to the red accent articulation elements on the building (between the proposed design and staff's recommendation to replace the efts treatment with a red stripe). Commissioner Mathewson noted his support of the proposed project; requested that staff investigate the inconsistencies between the landscaping denoted on the landscape plan on the legend, and the landscape map, ensuring that adequate landscaping was installed; and reiterated his request that the applicant work diligently with staff to attempt to further screen the line-of-sight of the service bay area with landscaping. Commissioner Webster specified that the Development Code requires the installation of a minimum of 15-gallon size trees, noting that the proposed landscape plan denoted 5-gallon size trees; and concurred with Commissioner Fahey's comments, regarding the architectural enhancements. Chairman Guerriero welcomed Saturn to the City of Temecula. MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, with the attached Conditions. 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0378 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A '12,825 SQUARE FOOT SATURN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON 2.61 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, APPROXIMATELY '1,200 FEET SOUTH OF SOLANA WAY, AND ALSO IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP 28809. Add- , That the applicant work with staff regarding the architectural enhancements, specifically with respect to the red half-round efis treatments. · That the applicant work with staff to make efforts to screen the service bay area with a modified landscape plan. · That Commissioner Webster's recommendation regarding the relocation of the monument sign be considered. (See page 5 of the minutes.) · That the trees installed be a minimum of 15-gallon size (per Development Code standards), rather than the 5-gallon size denoted on the landscape proposed plan. · That the corrections with respect to Condition No. 7 (regarding materials and colors), and Condition No. 10 (regarding a landscape island) be implemented, as specified in the supplemental agenda material. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. It was noted that at 7:22 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:35 P.M. 5. Planning Ai)l~lication No. PA99-0345 (Development Plan) Request to construct a 137-room, 59,950 square foot, 3-story Holiday Inn Express Hotel on 3.37 acres planned and zoned for Highway/Tourist (HT) commercial use. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Via overheads, Project Planner Griffin apprised the Commission of the project plan (of record), as follows: PlanCom~minutes112159§ Relayed the location of the site, the access points, the site design, the proposed landscape plan, the entry design, and specified the architectural articulation. Presented the material board. Specified the architectural screening of the air conditioning units. Noted the criteria the project had met with respect to qualifying for the request for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) increase, as follows: 1) the employment, fiscal, and economic benefits of the project, 2) the enhanced architectural and landscape design, and 3) the availability of meeting rooms for non-profit service or charitable organizations at little or no cost. ~ In response to Chairman Guerriero's concerns, provided clarification with respect to the letter from the Department of Transportation (per agenda material). For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero requested staff to provide the documents associated with the previously approved Rosa's Caf6 use, referenced in the staff report. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the issues referenced in the letter from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (via agenda material) would be addressed prior to the Issuance of any Grading Permits on the site, specifying that the project had been conditioned with respect to this matter. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the area drainage fee applicable for properties that drain into Murrieta Creek, noting that this site falls within that requirement; and advised that there was no proposed Assessment District that the project would be required to participate in, noting that the sole Assessment District that staff had addressed was participation in the Western Bypass Corridor, if, and when an Assessment District was formed for that project. In response to Commissioner Webster's queries with respect to the north access road improvements, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed the restrictions related to conditioning the adjacent development to widen the adjacent portion of the driveway since there was no pending development; relayed the restrictions regarding conditioning this project to widen that portion of the driveway; and noted that since this project had an easement to utilize the driveway, the project could be conditioned to modify the signal in order to allow improved turning motions out of the driveway. Project Planner Griffin relayed that the Rosa's Caf6 use would complete the improvements on the northerly drive up to this project's easement. For Commissioner Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified Condition No. 46 (regarding an additional right-of-way on Jefferson Avenue), noting that the applicant had agreed to complete this project. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Project Planner Griffin provided additional information regarding the traffic analysis (of record), advising that although the Level of Service (LOS) was at Level F during peak periods, that this particular project PlanCommlminutes1121599 would not impact the LOS. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that the peak traffic volumes generated from this project would vary from the peak hours at the heavily impacted intersections reported in the traffic analysis. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Griffin relayed that although there was no proposed plan the applicant would be permitted to install freeway signage; and with respect to the roof, specified the location of the tile application, and the metal-ribbed material on the canopy treatment. For Chairman Guerriero, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that there would be adequate provision for stacking on Front Street; and noted that the future proposed Creek Crossing would be located further north of this area. Mr. Larry Levoff, developer representing the applicant, introduced the members of the development team, noting their availability to answer questions of the Commission; and provided a brief overview of the project, as follows: Noted that the additional amenities the project proposed contributed to the FAR increase. Advised that the flood plain issues would be addressed prior to the onset of construction. · Relayed that the signage plan would be developed at a future date under a separate permit. · With respect to the raised median project on Jefferson Avenue, referencing Condition No. 46, requested that the phrase in the second bullet that reads the Developer can receive Development Impact Fee credits be replaced with the Developer will receive Development Impact Fee credits. Advised that the project would be developed in two phases, requesting that the Planning Commission allow administrative approval regarding the phasing of the construction; noted that the first phase would be inclusive of 101 units, and the second phase would be the completion of the project, inclusive of 36 units, which was scheduled to be constructed in two years; provided additional information regarding the phasing; and specified that the rationale for phasing the project was due to financial issues. Project Planner Griffin clarified that he had initially relayed to the applicant that if it was their desire to construct the project in two phases that there should be provision of two plans in order for the Planning Commission to review the project as it would be initially constructed. Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the project proposed was for the entire 137 units, noting the presented site pan; relayed concern with moving forward with phasing without the provision of a site plan reflecting the phasing, in order to evaluate how the phasing would affect the landscaping, and the symmetry of the entire site; relayed that if it was the Commission's desire, the project could be approved, as proposed (the 137 units); and noted that there was a process denoted in the Development Code referenced as a Minor Development Plan, which allows minor alterations, advising that this could be handled on a staff level, if that was the Commission's direction. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Levoff addressed the matter of the condensation from the air conditioning units potentially staining the stucco of the building; with respect to future signage, specifically, whether the applicant would be agreeable to installing a sign on the east elevation rather than a freestanding sign along the freeway corridor, advised that there was no sign plan at this point in time, noting that the matter had not been investigated, and that he could not address the issue at this time. For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Levoff specified that the width of the driveway on the south side of the project would be 25 feet; provided additional information regarding the landscaping on the southern boundary; with respect to the color of the retainer wall (located adjacent to the freeway right-of-way), advised that the applicant would work with Caltrans regarding that issue; and provided additional information regarding the landscaping in that area. Mr. Dan Hansin, architect representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding the design element of the project, for Commissioner Webster; addressed how this particular design addressed the Design Guideline requirements with respect to the building design being comprised of three portions (i.e., a base, a middle, and a top); specified the enhanced architectural detailing; with respect to Commissioner Webster comments, regarding adding stone or brick veneer for accenting, relayed that the applicant attempted to achieve an accenting affect with paint color variation; and provided additional information regarding the ease of modifying paint application at a future date, verses attempting to change a stone or brick application. For informational purposes, Project Planner Griffin relayed that due to the lack of specificity regarding the depth of the recessing on the window treatments, staff would not be opposed to the Commission conditioning the project with respect to a certain specified depth (i.e., six inches) in order to ensure provision of a vertical element on that elevation. In response to Project Planner Griffin's comments, Mr. Levoff relayed the long-term maintenance issues associated with increasing the width of the window treatment recessing, noting that the applicant would ensure a positive visual appearance; and noted that the applicant would prefer not to condition the project with respect to a specified depth, allowing the architect to make this determination. Chairman Guerriero relayed the importance of the visual appearance of this building due to the proximity to the freeway, and the prominent location within the City. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Mr. Hansin provided additional information regarding the design elements. The Commissioner relayed their conclusionary comments, as follows: Commissioner Webster relayed that he concurred with staff's recommendation to condition the project with respect to the landscaping modifications (page 4 of the staff report, last paragraph), recommending the following revisions: 1) with respect to the 10 PlanComrrJm[nutes/121599 eastern boundary (at the location of the ten-foot landscaping strip, adjacent to the freeway right-of-way), recommended denser tree planting in that area, as well as, 2) adding a larger evergreen species in the landscaping plan to correspond to the scale of the buildings; with respect to the traffic access along the northern reciprocal access easement, recommended conditioning the project requiring completion of the improvement project Prior to Occupancy; with respect to the phasing issues, recommended that the applicant re-submit a proposed project plan presenting the phasing elements; recommended that there be additional architectural enhancements on all of the elevations (i.e., window treatments, veneer materials), and that the architectural plan be revised to reflect the detailed enhancements; and recommended continuing this Agenda Item. Concurring with Commissioner Webster's comments, Commissioner Fahey recommended that the applicant provide a phasing plan, add additional detailed building articulation, and that the landscape plan be modified per Commissioner Webster's comments; relayed concern with the application of the metal roofing material proposed at the entry rather that tile, recommending that the applicant provide a sample of the material or a photograph reflecting the metal material application; relayed that she approved of the overall project, and that if the applicant addressed the previously- mentioned issues, she would support the project; and concurred that the matter should be continued, in order for the applicant to address the issues. Commissioner Mathewson relayed concurrence with the previous Commission comments; recommended that a condition be added with respect to the request for a FAR increase, stating that the applicant would provide a meeting room space for non- profit or community groups at no cost or at a significantly discounted rate, requesting staff to develop the specifics of that condition; noted the inconsistency of the landscape plan between the legend, and what was actually reflected on the map, requesting staff to work with the applicant to correct the matter; with respect to the signage, relayed his opposition to freestanding signs along the freeway corridor, acknowledging that the Development Code makes provision for freestanding signage; recommended that the applicant investigate placing the sign on the east elevation rather than along the freeway corridor, and recommended that the sign issue be a condition of the project. In response to Commissioner Fahey's queries as to whether the above-referenced sign placement could qualify towards the applicant's request for an increase in FAR, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she would investigate the matter; provided additional information regarding the freestanding sign issue, advising that the Sign Ordinance permits this type of signage; and relayed that the applicant would have to be agreeable to not placing a sign along the freeway corridor. Chairman Guerriero recommended that staff investigate the rewording the language of Condition No. 46, in order to accommodate the applicant's request for revision (See page 9 of the minutes, under Mr. Levoff's comments, 4th bullet). MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to dose the public hearing; to continue Agenda Item No. 5 to the January 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (This motion ultimately passed. See page ~2.) 11 PlanCommiminutes/121599 In response to Planning Manager Ubnoske's queries, the applicant relayed his preference to bring the matter back to the Commission as soon as possible. Chairman Guerriero reiterated the issues that would need to be addressed by the applicant, as follows: ,/ The variant roofing materials (i.e., metal, tile). .,' The addition of additional architectural elements on the elevations. The landscaping issues. The signage issue. ,/ The provision of phasing plans. The applicant relayed that if the Commission would be agreeable to the applicant providing pencil sketch drawings in lieu of color renderings, that the applicant would be prepared for presentation; and requested that the matter be continued to the January 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. Concurring with Chairman Guerriero's comments, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that if all the documentation was not provided, that the matter would be continued again to the January 19, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval. 6. Planning Application No. PA99-0308 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)) Request to operate an Indoor Skateboard Park with optional use as a Paintball Arena occupying 14,666 square feet of a 26,161 square foot industrial building. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Relaying that this project had been presented at the October 21, 1999 Director's hearing, Project Planner Thornsley noted that there had been expressed opposition to the project (via fax and public comments) by two proximate property owners, Mr. Michael Wilkinson, and Mr. Howard Reimer; advised that after consideration of the comments and concerns raised by the two parties, the project had been approved; relayed that subsequent to the Director's Hearing approval, Mr. Wilkinson, and Mr. Reimer had filed formal appeals; specified the primary issues of concern (documented in the staff report), as follows: 1) the impact of attracting children to an industrial area in light of the proximate storage of hazardous materials, 2) the impact of the additional generation of traffic, 3) the hazards associated with children in the area due to truck traffic, and 4) the lack of adequate parking; addressed the expressed concerns (as outlined in the agenda material); read into the record a letter dated December 9, 1999, form Mr. Wilkinson, rescinding his appeal (per supplemental agenda material); and for Commissioner Webster, provided additional information regarding the applicant's security plan, which had been reviewed and approved by the Temecula Police Department. 12 Mr. Chuck R. Lacy, representing the applicant, specified the monetary investment with respect to this project; noted the installation of surveillance cameras; reiterated that the secudty plan associated with this project had been reviewed by the Temecula Police Department; reviewed the rules and regulation procedures developed by the applicant; $,;~ inclusive of an patron identification program; for Commissioner Fahey, relayed that the average age of the patrons would be 15 years old; provided additional information regarding the secudty cameras, and the process of enforcing the rules and regulations of the skateboard park; acknowledged that although there were no sidewalks in this area, patrons could potentially access the site via walking; for Commissioner Mathewson, with respect to the paintball facility use, relayed that there had been consideration to restrict the paintball gun use by solely allowing rental paintball gun use; provided additional information regarding alternate paintball facilities; relayed that the applicant would be agreeable to being held responsible for paintball cleanup on the adjacent property; for Chairman Guerdero, confirmed that the patrons would be restricted from leaving the premises with a loaded paintball gun; in response to Chairman Guerdero's quedes, relayed that the applicant was in the process of developing a procedure of protecting the exit signs from paintball paint, per the Fire Department's direction. The Commission relayed their concludin.q remarks, as follows: Commissioner Fahey relayed her opposition to these types of facilities being located within industrial areas. Commissioner Mathewson noted that he would support the project, with the added conditions, restricting paintball gun use to rentals only, and that the applicant would be responsible for paintball paint cleanup within 300 feet of the site. Chairman Guerriero requested the applicant develop a procedure, ensuring that the patrons did not leave the site with paintballs. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public headng; to deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Director's decision to approve the project, with the attached conditions: PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0308 (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0308, (MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) A REQUEST TO OPERATE AN INDOOR SKATEBOARD PARK WITH PAINTBALL ARENA WITHIN A 14,666 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF A BUILDING WITHIN AN EXISTING BUSINESS PARK, LOCATED AT 42188 RIO NEDO, UNIT A, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-254-006. 13 PlanComrn/rninutesl121599 Add- A Condition stating that the applicant would restrict paintball gun use to rental-use only, A Condition stating that the applicant would be responsibie for cleanup of any vandalism-related paintball activities within 300 feet of the site. A Condition stating that patrons would be restricted from leaving the premises with paintballs. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who voted n_9o. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that there would be a Planning Commission Forum held on February 26, 2000. B. Planning Manager Ubnoske expressed her wishes for a Happy Holiday Season for all. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff worked with applicants to expedite the process of presenting a project to the Planning Commission if there was urgency with respect to the timing of the project. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that prior to a project being presented to the Commission, staff works diligently with the applicant on the proposed plan. B. In response to Commissioner Webster's comments, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted the general concerns related to staff's initial review of the Draft Impact Report for the Morgan Hills Specific Plan. Noting that he had read the 600-page document, Commissioner Webster relayed that in his opinion the project did not conform to the Southwest Specific Plan. Planning Manager Ubnoske advised, for Commissioner Webster, that she would provide copies of staff's response to the document to the Commission. C. For informational purposes, Chairman Guerriero noted that he had attended the EPA Legislature Update meeting, relaying that the City would benefit from the issues that had been updated. D. Chairman Guerriero recommended that the Fire and Police Departments be required to report noted malfunctioning signals. 14 PlanComm/rninutes/121599 E. Commissioner Fahey commended the development of the Lowe's Building. F. For Chairman Guerriero, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that staff was in the process of addressing the screening issues at the Power Center. ADJOURNMENT At 9:15 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, January 5, 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Ron/Guer~'ier~,YChairman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager 15 Note: Resolution No. PC99-051 was not assigned. Coversheet for PC121599minutes