HomeMy WebLinkAbout112002 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 20, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday, November 20, 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 Commissioner Guerriero.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Guerriero, *Mathewson, Telesio, and
Chairman Chiniaeff.
*(It is noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived at
6:08 P.M.)
Absent:
Commissioner Olhasso.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Development Services Administrator McCarthy,
Principal Planner Hazen,
Principal Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Harris,
Associate Planner Papp,
Assistant Planner Preisendanz,
Project Planner McCoy, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 20, 2002.
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 1
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioners Mathewson and OIhasso who were absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Planninq Application No. PA02-0260 A proposal to chan.qe the General Plan and
Zoninq desiqnations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a
2.75-acre parcel located on southwest corner of De Portola and Marqarita Roads,
Emery Papp, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA02-0260;
2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-053
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260 TO CHANGE
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING
DESIGNATIONS FROM VERY LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75
ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
WEST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA AND MARGARITA
ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR
PARCEL NO. 959-050-007.
It is noted that Commissioner Mathewson arrived to the meeting at 6:08 P.M.
Via overheads, Associate Planner Papp provided an overview of the staff report (of
record), noting that this item was continued from the August 21, 2002 Planning
Commission meeting due to the desire of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association
(HOA) for a continuance of 90 days due to challenging the traffic analysis for this project;
provided additional information regarding the traffic analysis and in particular the road
conditions, trip counts, the road classifications, and the anticipated future traffic on De
Podola Road; and relayed that staff has determined that an independent traffic study
was not required.
The applicant provided an overview of the application
Reverend Mike McNeff, representing Valley Christian Fellowship, the applicant, noted
concurrence with the staff report; relayed that the HOA was willing to support the
proposal, subject to specific added conditions, advising that these conditions could be a
part of a development plan when submitted; noted that via the CC&Rs the HOA retains
control over the redevelopment of this parcel; opined that the proposed rezoning
(Professional Office) was a more logical zone for this area; and for Commissioner
Telesio, relayed that the letter dated June 21st from the HOA denoted their conditions
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 2
associated with a previous potential buyer for this property, advising that the buyer
ultimately dropped out due to the conditions being too restrictive.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that a zoning change
was a legislative act, advising that it was not recommended that conditions be added to
a legislative action.
The public was invited to comment
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed revised general land use
designation at this particular site:
Mr. Jeremy Wickman
· Mr. Kevin Johnson
24673 Leafwood Drive
30707 Centaur Court
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the proposal, relaying the following
comments:
The proposed zoning was consistent with the manner in which the area was being
developed at this time; and
Noted the church's desire to gain a permanent location after utilizing the school's
facilities for the past three to four years, advising that the monies from the sale of this
property would be attributed toward a permanent church facility.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed revised general land use
designation at this particular site:
Ms. Rebecca Weersing
Ms. Jeen Bennett
Ms. Kathleen Stowe
Ms. Don Stowe
Mr. Herman Thorne
Mr. Larry Markham
Mr. Neal Ziff
Mr. Jack Williams
41775 Yorba Avenue
29201 Ynez Road
30241 Cabrillo Avenue
30241 Cabrillo Avenue
30851 De Portola Road
30105 Cabrillo Avenue
43801 Coronado Drive
41640 Yorba Avenue
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, relaying the
following comments:
o There was no demonstrated need to make a change in the zoning;
o Alternate properties on the southeastern portion of Margarita Road, which were
rezoned, still have not be redeveloped;
Recommended reviewing the rezoning of this property during the General Plan
update;
Recommended that prior to changing the zoning the permitted uses allowed in the
new zone be investigated, specifically as to their impacts;
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 3
o The proposed zone change would reduce the rural integrity of the Los Ranchitos
area;
o This parcel was appropriately zoned residential;
Recommended that the parcel of discussion be required to implement an equestrian
trail in order to provide connectivity with existing trails;
Referenced a letter dated November 20, 2002 (the date of this hearing) written to the
Chairman of the Planning Commission from the Los Ranchitos HOA, outlining the
communications between the HOA and the church use representatives, as well as
specifying the HOA's concerns regarding land use compatibility, traffic analysis,
access, the permitted uses within the proposed zone, the FAR, and building height
permitted in this zone (Professional Office), and buffering issues;
o The rural character of Temecula, which would be impacted by this proposed zone
change, was one the City's most attractive characteristics; and
o The fear that the rezoning of this parcel would set a precedent in this area.
It is noted for the record that the Planning Commission did not receive the submittals
from the HOA (which were provided to staff at the time of this hearing) prior to the
hearing.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Stowe relayed his concern that if this zone change were
approved, other properties would also be changed from residential to commercial which
would negatively impact traffic.
In response to Commissioner Guerdero, the applicant relayed that it was the church's
goal to sell this particular parcel and develop a church building on an alternate site.
Commissioner Guerriero advised that he was not convinced at this particular time that a
zone change was necessary.
While empathizing with the goals and desires of the church representatives,
Commissioner Mathewson noted that he was reluctant to support the request, advising
that the information provided did not justify implementing a zone change; and suggested
that for proposed zone changes such as this one, a Planned Development Overlay
(PDO) be developed.
Commissioner Telesio noted that he disagreed with the comments relaying that the
proposed zone change would create inconsistencies, relaying that there was commercial
property to the south and to the east of this site, and that the parcel was located on a
major arterial; noted that access to De Portola Road could be addressed; advised that at
the previous hearing when this item was addressed a proximate homeowner had noted
his support of the proposed zone change; concurred that the permitted uses allowed
with the zone change should be addressed, as well as access issues; and relayed that
he could support the proposed zone change.
Chairman Chiniaeff provided an overview of the parcels in this location, two of which
were within the HOA, and three of which were not; noted his concern with a potential
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 4
hospital use proximate to this area; with respect to the concern regarding alternate
parcels being rezoned if this application were approved, advised that the potential for
future requests for rezoning exist at this time, opining that the logical boundary was De
Portola Road in his view; and queried whether it was feasible to develop a PDO for this
rezoning request.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that this
application request did not include a PDO, advising that the Planning Commission, as
well as staff, would have the opportunity to review whatever development plan was
submitted for this parcel and to ensure that there would be adequate buffering.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Hogan noted that the area to the east of this
property was within the Paseo del Sol Specific Plan and was zoned commercial, relaying
that to the best of his knowledge there would be no equestrian trails in this area.
Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, concurred that this rezoning
request should be considered during the General Plan update process.
In response to the Planning Commission's discussion regarding continuing this matter
off calendar, Assistant City Attorney Cudey advised that it would be appropriate to
forward a recommendation to the City Council that the rezoning not be approved, and to
recommend that the matter be reviewed during the General Plan update process.
In order to not forward an incorrect message to the City Council which would imply that
the Planning Commission would not desire this parcel to be considered for rezoning,
Commissioner Telesio relayed a desire to recommend to the City Council that the
rezoning be considered during the General Plan update process. In response, Assistant
City Attorney Curley advised that this recommendation could be included in the motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to
recommend to the City Council that this application not be approved, and that this
parcel's rezoning be considered during the General Plan review process. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
Plannin.q Application No. PA01-0418, PA01-0509, PA01-0510 Change the General
Plan Land Use Desiqnations from Business Park (BP) to Community Commercial
(CC) on three parcels; and Amend the Reqional Center Specific Plan to remove Lot
1 of TPM 30107 from the Specific Plan; and Chanqe the Zoninq Designations from
SP-7 to CC on one parcel, and from BP to CC on two parcels located on the south
side of Overland Drive between Marqarita and Ynez Roads, Emery Papp, Associate
Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application Nos. 01-0418, 01-0509
and 01-0510;
3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-054
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0418, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM
BUSINESS PARK (BP) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
(CC) ON THREE PARCELS; PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 01-0509, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO
REMOVE ONE PARCEL FROM THE REGIONAL
CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-7); AND PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 01-0510, A ZONE CHANGE FROM
BP TO CC ON TWO PARCELS, AND FROM SP-7 TO CC
ON ONE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF OVERLAND DRIVE BETWEEN
MARGARITA AND YNEZ ROADS, AND GENERALLY
KNOWN AS LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF PM 30107.
By way of overheads, Associate Planner Papp presented the staff report (as per agenda
material), highlighting the location of the parcels which were proposed to be rezoned and
re-designated in the General Plan, advising that the proposal included removing one lot
from the Regional Center Specific Plan; noted the benefits to the City with the proposed
changes; provided additional informational regarding the noise and traffic impacts
associated with this proposal which would not be significant; noted that staff was
recommending that there be no type of drive-through, or service station uses permitted
in the Community Commercial areas as well as restricting alternate uses (as denoted in
the staff report); relayed that this property was adjacent to three major arterials, and was
within walking distance of two high density residential project areas; advised that the
proposed zoning change would reduce the allowable FAR and lot coverage; noted that
the Negative Declaration was circulated from October 31st to November 19th, advising
that staff had received no comments; provided additional information regarding the
burrowing owl issue which had been addressed; and noted that the applicant would be
required to obtain clearance from the Department of Fish and Game regarding the
presence, or the lack thereof, of Riverside Fairy shrimp in the drainage channel.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Papp confirmed that it was
anticipated that the proposed change would create the potential for additional jobs,
noting that the type of work was not analyzed; advised that specific project impacts
would be evaluated during the Design Review Process, noting that the southwestern
corner parcel had been conditioned to include an additional twelve foot setback along
Margarita Road. For clarification, for Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning
Ubnoske additionally relayed that professional office development was permitted in
Community Commercial zones.
Mr. Terry Jackson, representing the applicant, thanked the staff for their arduous efforts
regarding this project; and concurred with the conditions associated with the proposal.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Chairman Chiniaeff. (Ultimately
this motion passed; see page 7.)
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 6
For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided additional
information regarding professional office uses being permitted within Community
Commercial; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding
the permitted FAR and height of the buildings in the proposed zoning.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioner
Olhasso who was absent.
4
Planning Application No. PA02-0549 Application to consolidate five smaller two-story
apadment buildings into two three-story apartment buildinqs in Sub-Area D, reducin.q
the overall number of apartment buildinqs on-site to 22 and thereby creatinq more
open space on-site located south of Hiqhwa¥ 79 South, north of Temecula Creek,
east of Jedediah Smith Road, and west of Avenida De Missions, Emery Papp,
Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0549; and
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-055
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0549, A SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE APPLICATION TO CONSOLIDATE
SEVERAL SMALLER TWO-STORY APARTMENT
BUILDINGS INTO FOUR ADDITIONAL THREE-STORY
APARTMENT BUILDINGS, GENERALLY LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, BETWEEN
JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE MISSIONS,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 961-010-006.
Via exhibits, Associate Planner Papp provided the staff report (of record), noting the
applicant's desire to consolidate some of the apartment buildings in Sub-Area D in order
to create more onsite Open Space and parking spaces; noted the differentials between
the original proposal for Subarea D and this particular proposal, noting the
reconfiguration of building space; and relayed that Community Services staff was
concerned regarding the trail at the southerly portion of the site being only separated by
approximately four feet from the proximate building, noting various options that the
applicant could utilize to address this issue.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Papp relayed that he would revise the
resolution to more clearly identify the building reconfiguration, which would result in the
project having five additional 3-story buildings (noting that with the consolidation of the
buildings, two new 3-story buildings would be created which was what was indicated in
the resolution.)
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 7
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Papp relayed that the
parking would be increased by eight spaces; provided additional information regarding
the increased Open Space; and for Commissioner Telesio, confirmed that several of the
buildings were slightly rotated to change the orientation.
Mr. Steve McCormick, representing the applicant, presented an alternate graphic in
order to clarify the Planning Commission's questions, specifying the location of the
proposed buildings and the building sizes, and comparing this plan with the original
project plan; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the applicant was willing to comply to
the added requirements regarding the trail and its proximity to one of the buildings (as
referenced during the staff report); and for Commissioner Guerriero, specified that
Building No. R19 would be a 2-story building.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero's comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske
relayed that if it was the Planning Commission's direction staff could implement changes
into the Design Guidelines if determined necessary, as part of the substantial
conformance. Associate Planner Papp noted that there would be no changes regarding
the materials or the color scheme, while there were minor modifications in the roof plans
due to the changes in the number of stories. The applicant confirmed that this proposal
would conform to the materials and colors included in the original Conditions of
Approval.
MOTION: Math moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's
recommendation, subject to the following:
Add-
· That Building No. R14 be further separated from the trail, being revised to the
satisfaction of the Community Services District staff;
That if after staff investigated, if it was determined that the Design Guidelines
should be revised, that this revision be implemented as part of the substantial
conformance; and
That the title of the resolution be modified to provide further clarity regarding
the proposal.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0112 To desiqn, construct and operate an unmanned
70-foot tall Nextel Wireless telecommunication monopole structure and a 200-square
foot telecommunications equipment shelter Rancho California Water District Norma
Marsha Reservoir Site, located on the east side of Marqarita Road, south of Rancho
California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road, Michael McCoy, Proiect Planner II
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption from CEQA (Class 32, in fill development)
5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-056
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0112 A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN,
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SEVENTY-FOOT TALL
UNMANNED NEXTEL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
MONOPINE FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO
CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA
RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.
954-020-005 & 011.
Project Planner McCoy provided a brief overview of the staff report (of record),
highlighting the design of the monopole, and the site analysis; presented the existing
facilities within a mile's radius of this proposed site; noted the recommended revisions to
the Conditions of Approval, as follows: that Condition Nos. 10-12 should indicate that the
requirements were required Priorto the Issuance of Building Permits in lieu of Priorto
the Issuance of Grading Permits, and Condition Nos. 16-18 should indicate the
requirement Prior to Final Inspection in lieu of Prior to Final Occupancy.
For Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Principal Planner Hazen
provided additional information regarding Condition No. 17 (regarding the requirement
for the applicant to schedule an inspection of the facility by staff prior to final inspection),
advising that staff would be inspecting the installation, comparing the facility to the
photograph of the existing monopole. Commissioner Guerriero requested in the future
that this inspection information be included in the staff report.
Principal Planner Hazen relayed that in the future staff would be requiring applicant to
provide photographs of the monopole proposed for installation.
For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the Planning Commission
could condition the project, requiring that the monopole design shall substantially
conform to the Exhibit Photograph presented, including the branch allocation and
arrangement.
Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that in the future staff provide information regarding
whether the proposed facility's design would be consistent with the existing facility on
Margarita Road that the Planning Commission was pleased with.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner McCoy provided additional
information regarding collocation of a second facility at this proposed site.
Ms. Barbara Saito, representing the applicant, thanked Project Planner McCoy and
Principal Planner Hazen for their diligent efforts regarding this project; with respect to the
architectural drawings of the trees, clarified that although the drawings may not appear
to be consistent with the existing facility located at the water tower site, these were the
same drawings which had been submitted for that facility, and that this proposed
monopole would be a replica of the Margarita Road monopole (the water tower site) if
that was the desire of the Planning Commission, advising that this proposed monopine
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 9
would be approximately 20 feet lower in height from ground elevation than the Margarita
Road installation; relayed that the sample materials provided were from the
manufacturer of the existing monopine, advising that if the Planning Commission had
viewed an alternate tree which was visually more pleasing the applicant would be willing
to contact those manufacturers; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the applicant was
going to install a monopine that replicated the existing tree on Margarita Road; and
noted that AT&T has approached the applicant regarding collocating at this facility.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation subject to the modifications to the Conditions of Approval as
stated in the staff report (see page 9 of the minutes, the first paragraph.) The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
6 Planning Application No. PA02-0342 Development Plan to construct, establish and
operate a 22,260 square foot industrial/warehouse buildinq with second-story office
on 1.1 acres located east side of Bostik Court, approximately 170 feet south of
Winchester Road (APN 909-360-008), Matthew Harris, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0342
(Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-057
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA02-0342, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A
22,260 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL/ WAREHOUSE
BUILDING WITH SECOND-STORY OFFICE. THE SITE
IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
BOSTIK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET SOUTH
OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-360-008
By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Harris provided a brief overview of the
staff report (per agenda material).
Mr. Shane Shaw, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their arduous work with
respect to this project; and for Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional
information regarding the enhanced concrete treatment.
Mr. Brian Murphy, representing the applicant, provided a history of the development of
this project being developed in the City of Temecula; distributed a catalogue of the
products which were sold by this particular company; and for Commissioner Guerriero,
noted that truck deliveries would primarily take place in the buildings across the street
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 10
since this particular building would be primarily utilized for Research and Development
(R&D).
Commissioner Guerriero congratulated the applicant regarding the company's success,
and welcomed the project to Temecula.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was
absent.
7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0397 Development Plan to construct, operate and
establish an 11,642 square foot executive suite office buildinq on .95 acres locate at
27247 Madison Avenue, north of Sanborn Avenue; submitted by Herron+Rumansoff
Architects, Inc., Rolfe Preisendanz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0397
(Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act;
7.2 Adopt a Motion to continue for redesign.
Via overhead maps, Assistant Planner Preisendanz presented the project plan (of
record), highlighting the location, and the underlying zoning (Service Commercial);
relayed the rationale for staff's recommendation to continue this item in order that the
applicant could redesign the site plan which does not meet the Design Guidelines,
specifying the differential regarding the building's setback; noted the property owners
rationale for locating the building at the rear of the property which was due to the desire
to not have a rear-facing entry and to avoid four-sided architecture.
Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the constraints of the parcel.
Concurring that there were site constraints, Assistant Planner Preisendanz relayed that
the building would most likely need be reduced in size to move the building further
forward; and noted that the majority of the surrounding lots were vacant.
Mr. Kevin Brown, the applicant, relayed that he would be the owner and user as well as
the landlord for the remaining suites in this project; with respect to the setback issue,
advised that the proposed location of the building was the most functional; relayed that
there was mature landscaping existing at this time; noted that he had one of the smallest
lots in this area with a unique shape which provided constraints; opined that to relocate
the building on the lot and/or reduce the building size would detract from the building's
architecture; and when comparing this project to those in the surrounding area, opined
that this project had more architectural detail due to the colors, texture, and theme
elements.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Brown specified the color concrete variations proposed
on the building; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the column treatments were
R:P[anComm/minutes/112002 11
extended approximately seven feet from the building, for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirming
that this element was recessed.
Mr. Brown presented the proposed landscape plan.
Mr. Russell Rumansoff, architect representing the applicant, presented the design
elements of this particular project; advised that for this particular site, the current
proposal reflected the most appropriate location for the building; for Chairman Chiniaeff,
noted that the straight-line appearance of the roof was a positive strong architectural
element.
Mr. Ron Sullivan, 27710 Jefferson Avenue #301, noted his support of this particular
project, including the design elements; and relayed the visual benefits of staggering the
building setbacks in this area.
Mr. Glen Caldwell, 27740 Jefferson Avenue, relayed his support of this proposal,
advising that the Nor[h Jefferson Business Park needed a quality project such as this
one.
Ms. Anne Marie Hecht Brown, representing the applicant, provided additional information
regarding the landscape plan; and relayed hopes that the Planning Commission would
support the project's proposed design, opining that this was a beautiful building
proposal.
Commissioner Guerriero concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff's previous concerns
regarding the proposed flat roof design.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that the building needed further articulation; and
concurred that the parapet treatment was weak.
With respect to the citing of the building, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could
support the proposed location.
For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Brown relayed that there was a color differentiation
treatment at the roof line; advised that the CC&Rs restrict the project to a flat metal roof;
for Commissioner Guerriero, noted that it was his understanding that he would also be
restricted from adding a tile faCade; and advised that the proposed project had more
articulation than the alternate projects in this area.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Brown noted that when the building was
constructed, the awnings could be made round to create a softer impact, or antiquated-
style spears could be added with swale awnings. Mrs. Brown, representing the
applicant, relayed that in her experience the black colored awnings held up well over
time.
Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Telesio, recommended that the awning
design be revised as the applicant had expressed a willingness to do in order to create a
more consistent design.
Commissioner Telesio acknowledged the difficulties with respect to modifying the roof
design.
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 12
Commissioners Guerriero and Telesio suggested that the applicant consider widening
the color band treatment near the parapet to create visual interest.
Commissioner Mathewson advised that in his opinion the building appeared box-like,
and the roof design was weak.
Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant consider implementing additional
architectural treatments as had been suggested by the Planning Commission,
Commissioner Telesio recommending that the depth of the portico be increased.
For Principal Planner Hazen, Assistant City Attorney Cudey relayed that the Planning
Commission could approve an alternate roof treatment but that if the applicant had
private party constraints, i.e., the CC&Rs, the applicant might never get the authority to
build the approved project.
The applicant suggested implementation of a larger cornice treatment at the top of the
building to create visual interest.
Mr. Rumansoff, representing the North Jefferson Business Park, confirmed that a tile
roof was prohibited, and that a variance had never been granted; commented on the
existing projects in this area; and for Commissioner Telesio, clarified that the roof
restrictions were solely related to materials.
For Mr. Rumansoff, Commissioner Mathewson recommended that he review recently
approved projects in Temecula to obtain the concept of the level of architecture the
Planning Commission would suppod.
Commissioner Guerriero recommended that there be some type of bolder treatment
added to the top of the building to reduce the long horizontal appearance.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the December 18th
Planning Commission meeting in order for staff and the applicant to work together to
implement additional design elements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Telesio. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below,)
In response to the applicant's queries, Commissioner Telesio relayed that he could
support the project if the color band was enlarged (at the top of the building) and if the
awnings design was revised, which was echoed by Commissioner Guerriero.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the linear appearance be broken up, that
the colonnades be taken further out, and that the wafkway be extended out. In response,
the applicant relayed that the Classic Mediterranean style had recessed colonnades.
Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant submit pictures of Class
Mediterranean architecture to staff.
At this time voice vote reflected approval of the motion with the exception of
Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 13
8
Planninq Application No. PA02-0223 A Request for a findinq of Public Convenience
or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to up.qrade the existing Type-20
(Off Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Type 21 (Off Sale General) license
authorizinq the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the
premises where sold located in the Moraqa Plaza Shoppinq Center at 29762 Rancho
California Road on the north side of Rancho California Road, between Lyndie Lane
and Moraqa Road known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-022, Rolfe Preisendanz,
Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0223 (Public
Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved);
8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR
A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY
TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE
CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF
SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-
SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE
MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND
MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. APN 921-310-022.
8.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 02-0223 A MINOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL
BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE
20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE
21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE
MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN LYNDIE LANE AND
MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. APN 921-310-022.
R:PlanCornm/minutes/112002 14
Staff presented the staff report
Assistant Planner Preisendanz provided an overview of the staff report (of record),
relaying the rationale for staff recommending denial of this padicular request for the
finding to upgrade this use's current Alcohol Beverage Control License (ABC) from a
Type 20 to a Type 21, noting the following:
· That currently per the Depadment of Alcoholic Beverage Control's (ABC's) data, ten
percent (10%) of this use's sales were related to alcohol;
That based on ABC's determination there currently exists an over-concentration of
licenses within this census tract, noting that while there were 12 Off-Sale Licenses in
this census tract, only five should have been permitted (per information from ABC);
· That due to the data from ABC, staff could not make the finding justifying the
upgrade of this current ABC license;
That if this request was approved and an upgraded license was issued, the current
license would still remain in circulation in that census tract and could be sold (per
information obtained from ABC);
That on the questionnaire criteria, which aids in determining whether a use warrants
a finding for granting a request for an ABC license, seven out of the ten questions did
not meet the criteria (per agenda material); and
That if the Planning Commission determined that there was a Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity, then the Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would need
to be approved as well, and staff would request that the item be continued in order
that the necessary findings, conditions, and resolutions could be prepared.
Staff addressed the questions of the Planninq Commission
Via overheads, for Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant Planner Preisendanz specified the data
included in the staff report, denoting the existing Type 21 licenses in this census tract,
Chairman Chiniaeff concluding that the majority of these particular licenses were at
restaurants (many of which were located in the mall) and the big box uses, advising that
there were approximately three or four of these licenses for liquor store uses.
Assistant Planner Preisendanz clarified that ABC does not distinguish between liquor
store licenses and the big box uses' licenses, reiterating that if this license was granted,
the current license coutd be added to the number of licensed uses in this census tract
since the license could be sold.
The applicant's representative provided an overview of the proposal
Dr. Sami Jihad, representing the applicant, provided additional information regarding this
issue, relaying the following:
· That the process of attempting to upgrade the current ABC license from Type 20 to
Type 21 has been frustrating;
R:PlanCornm/minutes/112002 15
· Referencing Attachment 9 in the staff report, noted that the Police Department
consented to the Finding of Public Convenience;
Referencing Attachment 11 (per the agenda material), relayed data that the Finding
of Convenience had been met since customers supported the convenience which
would be provided by having this use a one-stop shopping place;
That although the applicant opined that a Minor CUP was not needed at this location
since the Planning Department confirmed that this was a pre-existing legal
nonconforming use, the applicant was willing to comply with the conditions
associated with the CUP, which was a permit that could be revoked at the discretion
of the Planning Director;
That the application had been submitted to the City approximately 7 months ago,
relaying the problems the applicant had in receiving a response from staff for a
lengthy period;
That ABC failed to notify the City of the applicant's intent to cancel the current
license if the upgraded license was granted, ergo the approval of the license would
not render an additional license in the census tract (referencing a letter dated
November 6, 2002, from ABC confirming the applicant's consent to cancel the
existing license concurrent with the approval of an upgrade, which was provided to
the Planning Commission at the hearing):
· That the use had been in business for two years with no violations;
· That the current existing licenses were primarily for large box uses;
· That 160 letters were sent to the neighbors informing them of the applicant's request
for an upgraded liquor license, and that as of today not one neighbor had responded.
· That this use had demonstrated suppod of the community, and in particular the
schools and churches; and
· Appealed to the Planning Commission to grant the request for a Finding of Public
Convenience warranting the upgraded license (Type 21).
The public was invited to comment
The following individuals spoke as proponents of the applicant's proposal:
Mr. Dereas Roman
Ms. Cindie Jackson
42200 Rancho California Road
42105 Del Monte Street
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the proposal for the following
reasons:
· Opined that this request for an upgraded license should be granted based on the
Finding of Public Convenience; and
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 16
· Emphasized the convenience for the residents to not have to travel to a larger box
use to obtain distilled spirits.
Rev. Larry Fisher, 42101 Moraga Road, relayed his opposition to the applicant's
proposal, noting the proximity of a church, a day care center, and an elementary school
to this use; advised that the church was experiencing problems with individuals
consuming alcohol in the wooded area proximate to the church and school; advised that
the Sheriff's Posse came out on Saturday, November 16th to survey the area due to
recent problems; specified his concern regarding children cutting through this use's
property to access the church which could create a dangerous situation unless the cut-
through traffic was physically restricted; and urged the Planning Commission to deny the
applicant's request for an upgraded Liquor license.
In response to Rev. Fisher, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that denying this partLcular request
would not prevent individuals from purchasing liquor at this use since at this time they
could purchase wine and beer, that if individuals desired to have distilled spirits they
could obtain it at alternate big box uses, and that if individuals frequented the wooded
area to consumer alcohol proximate to the school and church, this padicular applicant's
proposal would not impact the problem.
Rev. Fisher clarified his concern that easier access to distilled spirits could worsen the
existing problem, exacerbating the danger to children in the area; and concurred with
ABC that a license should not be granted to a use within close proximity to a school or
church.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Rev. Fisher noted that while the agenda material
Lncluded data stating that the Police Department offered no opposition to the request, the
Sheriff's Posse was patrolling the area on Saturday, November 16th.
Assistant Planner Preisendanz commented on the Police Department's response to the
applicant's request for an upgraded license.
The applicant's representative provided rebuttal
Mr. Jihad relayed that he had had previous conversations with Rev. Fisher wherein he
had offered to install a fence to prevent pedestrian cut-through traffic from this particular
use to the church, noting the applicant's willingness to be conditioned as such; and
reiterated that this use has had no violations in the two years it has been in business.
The Planninq Commission offered closinq comments
Noting his consistent opposition to a proliferation of liquor licenses, Commissioner
Guerriero noted that alternate larger cities were attempting to reduce the number of
liquor licenses due to the proliferation of such licensing; concurred with the data that
there was a proliferation of liquor licenses in this census tract; opined that the applicant's
request was solely based on the desire to raise retail sales and that having a Type 21
alcohol license would not create convenience due to the proximate accessibility; noted
that when the Police Department conducted "Sting Operations" it was this type of
business, typically, that was cited for violations; and relayed his opposition to approving
this request.
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 17
Referencing the applicant's comments that this approval would not further worsen the
proliferation of such licensed uses, Commissioner Mathewson noted that even the
applicant recognized that there was a less than ideal situation with the number of
licensed uses in this area; and advised that while he had no doubt that this use was an
asset to the community, he could not justify a Finding of Public Convenience in this area,
and ergo would not support the request.
Relaying that he did not share the views of the Planning Commissioners' previous
comments, Commissioner Telesio advised that he was a proponent of a small business
improving its business, noting that there appeared to be a bias with respect to the larger
businesses being granted upgraded licenses (i.e., the Vons, the Ralph's market stores);
noted that while the upgraded license would not serve as a convenience for everyone, it
would serve as a convenience for those who desire to purchase alcohol and not travel to
the larger uses; advised that since the Police Department offered no opposition to the
requirements for an upgraded license there must not be a direct preponderance of
evidence of crime associated with this request; with regard to the trespass issues,
recommended that a fence be installed which the applicant was in agreement to; and
relayed that the approval of this license would not add to the number of existing licenses.
Concurring with Commissioner Telesio, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the Finding of
Convenience could be met due to residents being able to walk to this use, relaying the
emphasis in the City on pedestrian travel; advised that while he was opposed to the
abuse of alcohol, this was a business that residents frequented; relayed that the
numbers associated with the current licenses located in a census tract were arbitrary
findings.
FAILED MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to
approve staff's recommendation for denial of the request for a Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity to upgrade the current Alcohol Beverage License.
Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected failure of the
motion due to Commissioner Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff voting no and the vote
being split.
Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that a split vote reflected no action since there
was not a majority vote in either direction, i.e., either approval or denial.
MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to continue this item to the December 4th Planning
Commission meeting in hopes of having a full Commission present. Commissioner
Telesio seconded the motion. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.)
For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske and Assistant City Attorney
Curley relayed that Commissioner Olhasso would be provided a copy of all the testimony
heard at this hearing prior to voting on this item.
At this time voice vote was taken regarding the motion and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who was absent.
R:P[anComm/minutes/112002 18
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that she
would discuss with Administrative Secretary Mclntyre expediting the forwarding
of the Planning Commission's mail.
In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Principal Planner Hazen noted that staff
would follow up on the Bel Villagio project to address paint and colored awnings
being implemented which were not consistent with the Planning Commission
approval.
In response to Chairman Chiniaeff's comments, Director of Planning Ubnoske
relayed that she would provide additional direction to the planners regarding not
needing to provide a verbal report of the material the Planning Commission had
obtained in their packets and had reviewed. Assistant City Attorney Curley noted
that in a few alternate jurisdictions staff would question the Planning Commission
as to whether they desired a verbal staff report in addition to the written
provision.
Providing further comments, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the maps
and diagrams associated with the projects be moved nearer to the front of the
agenda item material in order to be more accessible.
For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that the small-
sized plans were placed in the agenda material for the purpose of the record.
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that at a future point in time the agenda
packets might be placed on discs.
Chairman Chiniaeff noted that he was not getting paid the meeting fee for al; the
meetings he was attending.
For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed when an item
was continued, the public hearing remained open and public testimony would be
heard, noting that the public could be advised to not repeat comments.
Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed, for Commissioner Guerriero, the latitude
and the parameters provided to an applicant during the presentation.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional input.
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 19
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:20 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular
meeting to be held on Wednesday, December 4, 2002 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
~niae~ff,
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning
R:PlanComm/minutes/112002 20