Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout060502 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, June 5, 2002, 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 Chiniaeff. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Cudey, Senior Engineer Alegria, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Senior Planner Hazen, Senior Planner Hogan, Project Planner McCoy, Project Planner Rush, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Agenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of June 5, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:PlanComm/minutesl060502 COMMISSION BUSINESS la Crowne Hill Elementary School Site Review Noting that State Law requires that School Districts have school sites reviewed by the Planning Commission in that jurisdiction in order to encourage community planning, Senior Planner Hogan provided a brief overview of the proposed Crowne Hill Elementary School site, specifying the location, the access, the proximate park site, and the surrounding residential area. Mr. Dave Gallaher, representing the School District, provided additional information regarding the proposed school site, noting the site constraints, relaying that as the site currently exists it would not be possible to have two-road access, or sewer facilities; relayed the plan to bring in dirt to raise the site to allow for two-road access and so that the site can be sewered; noted the benefits of the location in particular since ultimately there will be 700 students that would not have to cross Butterfield Stage Road to access school, the majority of students being within walking distance to the school; for Commissioner Guerriero, relayed that Old Kent Road would remain a cul-de-sac; for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that the park referenced which was proximate to this school site was not Butterfield Stage Park; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that this site was at the eastern portion of Crewne Hill Development; noted that he was not aware of a road being proposed through the estate lots to tie into the road coming out of County Road Estates; advised that the vast majority of students attending this school would be coming from the Crowne Hill development which is why the site was referenced as a centrally located; and reiterated that the site could be sewered after approximately 200,000 yards of dirt was brought in. In response to Mr. Gallaher, Chairman Chiniaeff confirmed that it would be his recommendation that the access road to the school be connected to the road coming out of Country Estates, if feasible. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Gallaher advised that the majority of the new school sties have a separate bus drop-off zone, as does this one; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the School District had the funds to purchase this particular site at this time, and that the school construction costs would be dependent upon the November School Bond; and for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the proximate park site was approximately two to three acres, and would be a level site. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to make a determination that this site was appropriate for the development of an elementary school. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2 Planninq Application No. 01-0307 (Development Plan) - Matthew Harris, Associate Planner Development plan to construct, establish and operate a 24,170 square foot industrial warehouse building on 1.50 vacant acres. Generally located on the south side of Zevo Drive, west of Diaz Road known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-360-034. R:PlanComm/minutes/060502 2 RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Applicant requests more time for revisions - continue to June 26, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the June 26th meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3 Planninq Application No. 00-0507 (Development Plan) - Michael McCoy Development Plan to design and construct a 42,000 square foot, 4-story, 70-unit hotel (Hampton Inn Suites). Generally located on the northeast corner of Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road at the 1-15 off-ramp to the adjacent south of the Comfort Inn hotel at 27330 Jefferson Avenue known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-282-007. RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the project for design revisions. Staff provided a proiect presentation Project Planner McCoy provided a detailed overview of the project plan (of record), as follows: Highlighted the location, the three access points, the two loading spaces located at the northeast corner of the property, the Zoning (Hotel Tourist Commercial), and the General Plan Designation (Hotel Tourist Commercial); · Specified the concerns of staff regarding this padicular project, as follows: o The request for an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), The landscape design and coverage, o The architectural design, o The ADA access from the public right-of-way, and The pedestrian circulation to the building entrance; · Referencing the Development Code, noted the criteria warranting a FAR increase, as follows: o Exceptional financial or social benefits provided to the City, Exceptional architectural and landscaping amenities, and Enhanced public facilities; R:PlanComm/minutesl060502 3 o Advised that staff could not make the findings to approve any of the criteria for supporting a FAR increase; With respect to the landscape plan, relayed the gaps within the tree line landscaping at the northeastern portion of the property which does not provide an adequate buffer to the parcel from the freeway offramp, noting additional gaps at the southeastern portion of the project, advising that staff was of the opinion that the project should have an adequate landscape buffering plan on its own merit and not depend on the existing Caltrans eucalyptus trees; relayed that the landscape plan encompassed a net total landscape coverage of twenty percent (20%); noted that the 24-inch and 36- inch boxed trees proposed on the north and east perimeter of the project are not staggered or plentiful enough to provide an adequate buffer, nor are the five-gallon shrubs proposed along the planter, advising that staff was recommending that the planters be enlarged, the trees staggered, and that there be additional larger evergreen trees, as well as larger shrub plantings; with respect to qualifying for exceptional landscaping in relation to the FAR increase, noted that staff has suggested adding raised decorative planters, and water fountain features with a paved seating area with landscaping, advising that the building footprint would have to be reduced, as well as 400 square feet of the floor area in order to provide for greater landscape coverage; and relayed the higher percentage of landscaping on alternate hotel projects; With respect to the building architecture, noted that per the Commercial Performance Standards, larger commercial buildings were required to be setback further, relaying that the tower features on the west and east elevations emphasize the buildings verticality, and the horizontal stucco-scored base does not significantly reduce that mass, advising that staff was recommending that these two elevations be articulated to create visual interest, that the stucco wall base have a slate/tile, stone veneer, or flagstone material, as well as on a portion of the most forward vertical columns for greater accent; relayed that it was staff's opinion that the air conditioner vent covers would be visually obtrusive, noting that it was staff's recommendation that the air conditioning system be internalized, relaying alternate options that staff has explored; and clarified that it was staff's opinion that this proposed plan did not provide exceptional architectural design, and ergo did not meet the criteria for the FAR increase; With respect to ADA access issue, noted that the Deputy Building Official had relayed to the applicant the need for provision of a dedicated separate pathway for ADA access, advising that since the applicant did not meet that request during the review process the Building Department cannot recommend approval of this particular design or offer Conditions of Approval; and advised that the Deputy Building Official has recommended alternative design measures to address potential access/easement issues which the applicant has not opted to implement; With respect to the pedestrian access provisions to the building from the western parking area, relayed that the Commercial Performance Standards circulation policies recommend that separate access for pedestrians (to the buildings) be provided for safety purposes; R:Pla n Comm/mJ n ut e~060502 4 Referencing a comparative table (on page 4 of the staff report), compared the FAR for a~ternate similar hotel projects in the area, to the proposed FAR for this project which revealed that this project was significantly the highest; Concluding his presentation, noted that based on the specified concerns regarding this project, and the proposal not qualifying for a FAR increase, staff could not make the findings for approval. Addressing the queries of the Commission, for Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hazen confirmed that it was staff's opinion that unless the building footprint was reduced, the additional planter along the freeway could not be implemented, advising that staff has been relaying recommendations to the applicant since the pre-application phase of the project in 2000; and for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that the rationale for staffs recommended 10-20 feet of additional buffer was due to the concern with respect to relying on the existing eucalyptus trees, additionally relaying staffs desire to implement a plan which would provide a more natural appearance of trees. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner McCoy noted that the proposed tree planting plan was not measured with the consideration of the gaps in the existing tree line, Senior Planner Hazen relaying staff's concern regarding the expected height of the trees at full growth only reaching the second story of the building with an underlying concern regarding the health of the existing eucalyptus trees; and confirmed that it was staffs desire to screen the view of the hotel site project from the freeway off=ramp, reiterating that this project was proposing the minimal landscape plan while requesting a FAR increase. Chairman Chiniaeff commented on alternate approved hotel projects, noting that this particular parcel was a difficult site. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner McCoy relayed that the mullions would be a bronze metal material while the air conditioning vent covers would be metal louvers painted to match the wall color, and on the first floor to match the stucco base; and confirmed that it was staffs recommendation that there be a sidewalk along the back of the western parking stalls to tie into the main entrance to the building, Senior Planner Hazen noting that this recommendation was for safety purposes. The applicant provided additional information reqardinq the proiect Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, provided the following information: With respect to the ADA issues, noted that this map was created in 1984-1985, specifying the parcel lines, the reciprocal easements, the connection driveways, advising that if the proposed plan was not acceptable, the applicant would be required to get the proximate property owners' permission to demolish their existing sidewalks in order to install ramps, flatter sidewalks and handrails to Jefferson Avenue, the parcel would become an ADA landlocked parcel, or a waiver for these particular ADA requirements would have to be requested, advising that the applicant had not been made aware of these requirements by the Building Department; and noted that the applicant would meet with the Building staff to further address this matter. R:PlanComoVminute~060502 5 With respect to staff's recommendation for a pedestrian sidewalk, relayed that the implementation would necessitate a reduction in landscaping, advising that the applicant had no knowledge of this concept until tonight's hearing. With respect to the landscape issue, noted that there was no remaining turf on this parcel, but only trees and shrubs with 891 shrub plantings being proposed, 50 trees, the majority being either 24-inch box and 36-inch box sizes, clarifying that it was not the applicant's intent to rely on the existing eucalyptus trees, advising that Landscape Architect Elliott had signed off on the landscape plan pursuant to the Development Code; With respect to staff's overall recommended revisions, specified the changes the applicant has implemented over the project's process in response to those recommendations; For informational purposes, noted that as a member of the Property Owner's Association the applicant was required to meet certain requirements; With respect to the air conditioning units, relayed that the installations were typical with respect to alternate similar uses; Noted the constraints of this particular site; provided comparative information regarding the Temecula Valley Inn's and the Extended StayAmerica's sites, advising that this particular proposal was landscaped similarly to these similar uses; and relayed that it was a desirable feature from the applicant's perspective if the use could be seen from the freeway, and the offramp; With respect to the setback issue, noted the difficulties associated with staff's recommendation to set back the upper floors; With respect to staff's recommendations regarding landscaping, relayed the applicant's willingness to add a landscape/water fountain feature at the main entrance while not desiring to add a seating element; For informational purposes, noted that if it was the Planning Commission's desire the hotel's meeting room could be made available to the public, that the room count has been reduced twice since pre-application submittal, and that the compact parking spaces have been removed; and · Provided additional information regarding the history of the Embassy Suites project site. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding the constraints associated with staff's recommendation for revising the ADA access. For Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that the Extended StayAmerica Hotel use was conditioned to submit an acoustical report with construction plans which would demonstrate that the interior noise level meets the level requirements. Mr. Markham noting that the applicant would be agreeable to be conditioned as such. R:PlanComrNminutesJ060502 6 Commissioner Guerriero commented on the existing negative traffic impacts regarding this area. Mr. Vince Didonato, landscape engineer representing the applicant, specified the landscape plan, as follows: · For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted the location of the proposed crepe myrtle trees; · Retayed that this was an interior parcel with existing landscaping on the perimeter of the building; Noted opposition to staff's recommendation to place additional plantings proximate to the freeway, in particular since the building had enhanced architectural features on this elevation; · Advised that the tree plantings were staggered, and that a wide variety of trees have been proposed (i.e., deciduous, evergreen, tall and small trees); With respect to staffs recommendation to increase the size of the trees, clarified that the difference in height between a 36-inch box tree (which could be planted by hand or with a tractor) and a 48-inch box tree (which required a crane to install) was approximately a foot, advising that a 24-inch box tree was a good starting size for trees, noting that 15-gallon trees were better suited in some situations; and advised that a good landscape plan did take into consideration the existing planting around the site; and Regarding the size of the proposed plantings, noted that 14% of the trees would be 36-inch box, 56% would be 24-inch box, clarifying that long-term, a 15-gallon tree will outgrow a 24-inch box or a 48-inch box tree. Mr. Lee Gage, architect representing the applicant, presented additional information regarding the project, as follows: With respect to the referenced ADA requirements, specified that typically what was required was access from the building to a public right-of-way which would be Jefferson Avenue in this particular case, noting that the applicant was being permitted to provide a four-foot wide continuous walkway with truncated domes (which would address the needs of the blind), noting that if the slopes are less than fifteen percent (15%) handrails were not required; Regarding the window treatment, advised that the Hampton Inn franchise prefers an integrated bronze-finished window with a bronze window frame with an architectural grill to cover the air conditioning unit, noting that to add depth on other projects a foam band has been added to the windows, advising that this option was available; Providing information regarding the architectural features, noted that the columns were approximately two feet deep and two feet wide; relayed that while at various alternate Hampton Inn uses there were raised/pitched roofs which was a Hampton Inn prototype design element, the applicant has opted to keep the costs lower for this particular project and proposed a horizontal type of design; R:PlanComrNminute~060502 7 Noted that the building has been adiculated with offsets, advising that the entry treatment projects approximately ten feet, as well as a porter-cochere treatment being proposed; with respect to the recommendation to add additional material for articulation, suggested that the application be a faux rock/stone treatment. For informational purposes, noted that in alternate municipalities hardscape treatments were calculated as part of the landscape plan; per the property owner's edict, relayed the goal for the color application of this project to be consistent with the surrounding uses located within the center; relayed that canvas awnings were proposed on both sides of the buildings which was an additional feature not added on most of the Hampton Inn uses; and for Commissioner Mathewson, specified that the awnings would be a tan color projecting approximately three feet. For Commissioner Olhasso. Mr. Gage noted that there were alternate architectural treatments uses utilized at other sites to screen the air conditioning units (i.e., wrought iron), opining that with this particular design plan the simple grill would be the most appropriate; and provided additional information regarding the process of creating the rock fa~;ade treatment. The public is invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project: Mr. Jim Lin o Mr. Ed Pike o Ms. Ofelia Esqueda o Ms. Sean Goad o Mr. Aaron Henry Mr. Ken Westmyer 27338 Jefferson Avenue 612 Corte Elegante 27338 Jefferson Avenue 41624 Margarita Road #236 45888 Jeronimo Street 27338 Jefferson Avenue The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project for the following reasons: The height of the building, Opposed to the FAR bonus, Opined that this particular hotel should be relocated and not coexist in the same subdivision as an hotel, The additional traffic this project would generate, The noise impacts, in padicular construction traffic which would disturb the adjacent hotel's sleeping guests, Parking impacts, This project would obstruct the view of the Comfort Inn from the freeway which would negatively impact business, and The dust and debris impacts generated during construction of the project. The applicant relayed concludinq comments Mr. Larry Markham noted that it was the applicant's desire to obtain input from the Planning Commission regarding the FAR increase, the architectural design, and the landscaping issues; referencing page 6 of the staff report, noted that the project was found to be consistent with the Zoning, and the General Plan designations as well as R:PlanComm/minutes/060502 8 consistent with the existing development in the area; and with respect to concerns raised during the public comment period, noted the following: · Advised that within this Property Owner's Association there were no restrictions regarding two hotels being located on this subdivision; · Regarding construction impacts (i.e., noise, and dirt), advised that these issues were governed by existing ordinances; · With respect to the visibility concerns, relayed that there were no view shed guarantees for commercial, industrial, or residential uses; · With respect to parking, clarified the parking spaces which were part of this parcel; With respect to traffic, concurred that congestion in this area should be addressed, advising that the applicant would be contributing substantially to Development Impact Fees, part of which would be utilized for medians on arterial streets; · With respect to the ADA issue, reiterated that the applicant would meet with the Building and Safety staff to address this issue. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Markham noted that he would forward the recommendation for the addition of stone veneer on the first floor of the hotel to the applicant; for Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that he would provide at a future point statistics regarding the projected occupancy rates and Average Daily Rates (ADRs); and in response to Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that funding the cost of a signal would be explored. Commissioner Olhasso queried whether this project's portion of the DIF could be applied towards medians in front of the project on Jefferson Avenue. At 7:50 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:55 P.M. The Planninq Commission relays concludinq comments Commissioner Guerriero relayed that in light of the traffic issues, and for application towards meeting the criteria for the FAR bonus, the applicant would need to consider some type of signal mitigation; with respect to the fa(;ade treatment referenced by Mr. Gage (the applicant's architect), noted his preference for real materials (i.e., stone, brick) in lieu of a faux stone treatment; and recommended that there be additional enhancements beyond the first floor; and opined that the landscape plan was adequate. Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Guerriero that the traffic impacts needed to be considered; with respect to the FAR increase and the associated warranting criteria, concurred with the applicant's representative that achieving an exceptional landscape plan does not necessarily encompass a greater quantity, recommending that to meet the exceptional standard that staff and the applicant consider off-site improvements; noted that he was not pleased with the Iouvered air conditioner vents, recommending that the applicant pursue alternatives; recommended that there be an additional veneer treatment on the base of the building as well as the columns; with respect to the ADA access issue, opined that a sidewalk was needed on R:PlanComrWminutesl060502 9 site in front of the parking spaces (noting that the landscaping which would need to be removed could be installed off-site), recommending that there be decorative enhancements to the sidewalk, as referenced by the applicant's representative. Commissioner Telesio relayed the expectation for exceptional product in the City of Temecula; noted his hopes that as this project goes back to staff for additional work, that the discussions are productive, noting his support of staff's recommendations, advising that in most cases the Planning Commission will accept these recommendations and require more; noted that he was not opposed to the landscape plan; and with respect to the architectural treatment, recommended that there be improvements implemented. Commissioner OIhasso relayed that she viewed this project as an improvement to the site; with respect to the traffic issue, recommended that staff and the applicant come back with creative solutions; advised that if the applicant brought back a conservative estimate of the anticipated Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) contribution, staff and the Council could make the argument that the project would generate enough funds to address the traffic impacts at this corner; with respect to the lack of parking, recommended that the project manager investigate the vacant parking lot adjacent to the car wash; with respect to the architectural design, noted her displeasure with the air conditioner vent covers, additionally recommending that real stone be utilized for the added articulation; with respect to the FAR, noted that if the TOT could address the circulation issues that may justify the FAR, clarifying that she had not come to a final determination regarding this issue; and with respect to the public comments, generated primarily from the employees and owner of the adjacent hotel, recommended that there be rehabilitation to the Comfort Inn. Chairman Chiniaeff noted his concurrence with respect to the recommendation to add adiculation enhancements at the base as well as on the two tower elements; recommended that the applicant explore alternate designs used for other Hampton Inn uses; with respect to the landscape plan, suggested the addition of a couple trees along the freeway; and with respect to the FAR, relayed that he could support the proposed FAR as long as there were benefits to the area as a result of the project, advising that the installation of a signal would most likely be the most significant improvement which could be implemented in combination with medians. In response to the Planning Commission comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that it would be problematic to condition this property owner to implement off-site improvements; concurred that the installation of a signal would be a significant community benefit; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the rationale for staff's recommendation for a water fountain treatment was the desire to implement a unique distinctive statement at the entrance; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that staff would require the applicant to implement a unique landscaping treatment at the entry. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Markham relayed that the applicant would explore the additional of window boxes, additionally advising that the applicant would come back with architectural alternatives. In response to Mr. Markham's queries, Commissioner Guerriero noted that he would provide specific information to him regarding a Hampton Inn with pleasing architecture features, which he had visited in the southern part of New Jersey. R:PlanComm/minu les/060502 10 MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to continue this item to the August 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. For Mr. Didonato, Chairman Chiniaeff concurred that exceptional concrete treatments would aid in contributing to an overall exceptional landscape plan. 4 Planninq Application No. 02-0240 (Substantial Conformance) - Rick Rush RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this project. 4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0240, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0335, WHICH INCLUDES SUBSTITUTING THE APPROVED DOME SHAPE AWNING ALONG THE FRONT ELEVATION WITH PERMANENT AWNINGS AND A LARGER AWNING OVER THE FRONT ENTRY, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET SOUTH OF THE SANTIAGO ROAD/FRONT STREET INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-120- 010 Via overheads, Project Planner Rush presented the staff report (per agenda material), clarifying that the applicant was requesting to eliminate the only element of the approved project that provided any relief to the box-like design of the building, advising that since a retractable awning was not a permanent feature, it would only provide a break in the elevation when deployed; and relayed that staff was not opposed to substituting the permanent dome-shaped awning for an alternative design, but not a retractable awning. Mr. Richard C. Quaid, the applicant, noted that the retractable awnings were installed at the Loma Linda store location, advising that in response to staff's recommendations the applicant raised the awning by approximately two feet at the entry; clarified that the applicant was opposed to the dome shape of the awning; noted that the front, back, and sides of the building were articulated with real brick and stucco, and that the awnings serve to further break up the massing on the front and back of the buildings; via photographs, noted that this particular proposal was consistent with previously approved designs and had additional enhanced articulation in comparison to numerous projects; and advised that while the intent was to have the awnings open the majority of the time, they would be retractable for use when there were windy conditions. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Quaid confirmed that the awnings would be electrically operated. Mr..left Coffman, architect representing the applicant, noted that when the project was presented and approved approximately two years ago, the dome-shaped awning had been added at the last hour, and it was his opinion that with the deconstructing design appearance of the building, the curved awnings would be inappropriate, and the modified proposed awnings with the sharper lines, which were discontinuous would be more pleasing. Mr. Bob Quaid, the applicant, provided additional information regarding the particular type of awning being proposed which was constructed of a special material, advising that it was the applicant's opinion that the curved awning would detract from the overall building design; relayed that additional features were added to this use to be consistent with the Old Town Western motif; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that the awning was added by the artist of the rendering and not by the architect. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the modified proposed awnings appeared similar to an RV awning, recommending that if the applicant was opposed to the curved shape of the awning, that the architect modify the shape of permanent awnings, which could be installed in a discontinuous pattern. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Code did not require the building to have awnings but additional articulation to break up the box-like shape, which could be addressed with other materials. Commissioner Telesio relayed that he was not opposed to changing the design of the awnings, or removing the awnings. Commissioner Olhasso relayed that she was pleased that the applicant determined to develop this project in the City of Temecula, noting that she would not be opposed to black square awnings with the breaks. Concurring with staff that the awnings aided in breaking up the box-like appearance of the building, Commissioner Guerriero advised that the shape of the awnings was not significant as long as permanent awnings were installed. In response, the applicant noted the desire to install the awnings but to revise the design to reflect a square shape in lieu of the dome-shaped awning. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that there be a greater massing of the awning structure with end treatments, in response, the applicant noted that permanent awnings were less costly. Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff would need a copy of the revised design plan of the awnings. R:Pla n Comm/minut es,/060502 1 2 For the applicant, Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that the awnings could be a straight design rather than the dome shape, that they would be permanent, and broken up with each set windows, and that the revised design plan would be submitted to staff for review. For clarification and in response to the applicant's queries regarding the Planning Commission's direction, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the resolution in the staff report would be revised to reflect approval of the plan subject to an added condition regarding the awnings (as indicated below in the motion); and advised that if the awning plan was consistent with the direction provided from the Planning Commission, the Planning Director subsequently would approve the plan administratively. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; and to approve this particular proposal with a finding of substantial conformance, subject to the following revision: Add- That a condition be added indicating that rectangular-shaped black canvas awnings would be installed modified to be permanent elements (permanent entailing an awning with end treatments, and a greater massing of the structure), with a larger rectangular awning over the entry in lieu of a dome- shaped awning, and that the canopies be broken up with each set of windows along the front of the building, and that this revised plan be subject to the review of the Planning Director. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 5 Planning Application No. 01-0403 (Development Plan) - Thomas Thornsley RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project. 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 01-0403 (Development Plan) based on the Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:PlanComnz/minu res/060502 1 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0403 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,970 SQUARE FOOT FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (MACARONI GRILL), ON A 1.49-ACRE LOT, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD, ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE MALL'S ENTRY AT NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD, WITHIN THE BEL VlLLAGIO CENTER, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-830-001. By way of overheads, Project Planner Rush provided a brief overview of the project plan (per agenda material), highlighting the site plan, and the parking provisions; relayed that the three concerns of staff regarding this project have been reviewed with the applicant whereupon the applicant opted to implement the changes and have been reflected as Condition Nos. 6a, 6b, and 6c (regarding revisions in the parking lot plan); noted that the design of the building was reflective of an Italian countryside, advising that the building was finished with river rock stone, and stucco, and that heavy wood beams were proposed for the front of the restaurant, as well as wrapping around both corners. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner Rush further specified the revisions to the parking lot, which would allow for additional parking space and would aid in screening the vehicles in this area. Ms. Vandana Kelkar, architect representing the applicant, relayed that Phase I of the project was constructed, noting that the Macaroni Grill use was part of the footprint when the project was originally approved, advising that although the Cede requires one parking space per 300-350 square feet, the applicant has proposed 10 parking spaces per 1000 square feet in this particular area since it was known that there would be a restaurant use at this location, noting that overall in the shopping center there would be 5.7 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. Noting his disappointment, Commissioner Guerriero relayed that at the time this project was originally presented it had been conveyed that this would be a center with high-end uses, advising that Temecula does not need another strip mall. For Commissioner Olhasso, Ms. Kelkar clarified that although marketing had aimed at attaining high-end tenants, some tenants were reluctant to locate in this particular area at this time. For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that the approved project was subject to conformance with the findings associated with the approval (i.e., conformance with the General Plan, and to the applicable ordinances), clarifying that if a subjective expectation had not been met and if there was not an identifiable performance level imposed it would be problematic to enforce that expectation. In response, Commissioner Telesio recommended that there be identified performance levels imposed on future projects. R:PlanComrn/minutes/060502 14 Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that it appeared that the project was providing the architecture that was expected, but may not provide the expected tenant mix, advising that the Planning Commission has never required specified tenants. Commissioner Telesio commented that if the architect implemented a high quality of architecture, but the tenant mix was not high end, the lessor would be the one who would bear the impacts. In response to the Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that it would just be a matter of time before the tenant mix the Planning Commission referenced would be in the City of Temecula; for Commissioner Olhasso, confirmed that at a future point, the Planning Commission could have an economic workshop which addressed the demographics; and noted that this particular center would be visually pleasing due to the enhanced landscaping and architectural treatments. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation with the inclusion of the added conditions, as referenced in the staff report as Condition Nos. 6a, 6b, and 6c (regarding parking lot modifications). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who voted n._~o. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Code Enforcement has consistently been addressing the blight at the furniture use on Winchester Road, noting that staff would provide additional follow-up on this matter. Regarding ex parte communications, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission, staff could relay to applicants that the Commission does not desire to meet with applicants outside of the hearing, Assistant City Attorney Curley advising that a resolution could be adopted discouraging ex parte communications if it was the Planning Commission's desire. For Commissioner Telesio, Facility Maintenance Coordinator Kanigowski relayed that he had a cordless microphone, which could be utilized by applicants during presentations. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that tenants have developed criteria, which must be met prior to opting to locate in a certain area. Commissioner Olhasso noted a desire to have additional marketing information provided at the previously mentioned workshop, in particular the 5-, 10-, and 30- mile rings from the mall, and the criteria for the "lifestyle" type tenants. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that potential tenants in a project might be attracted to a certain placement, or size of building, which could be an avenue for attracting the desired high-end tenants. R:Pla n Com rNrnin u t es/060502 1 5 Commissioner Olhasso suggested that a commercial/retail expert provide an opinion regarding the tenant matter to the Planning Commission. Additional discussion ensued regarding the expectation level of tenants at the Bel Villagio Center. Commissioner Guerriero noted the need for median installation near the Post Office on Rancho California, Commissioner Olhasso noting the need for medians proximate to the high school on Margarita Road. Chairman Chiniaeff requested that a meeting schedule be e-mailed to him. Commissioner Telesio and Commissioner Olhasso noting that they only had knowledge of a scheduled meeting when they received the agenda which stated the date of the next meeting. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske ensured that efforts would be made to provide a meeting schedule, which would include the dates for joint meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and Committee meetings, additionally noting that the Planning Guide, which provided information regarding upcoming issues, was in the process of being reinstated. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No additional comments. ADJOURNMENT At 9:38 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meetin,q to be held on Wednesday~ June 267 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning R:Pla n Comm/rnin ut es/060502 1 6