Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031903 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on Wednesday, March 19, 2003, 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. Chairman Chiniaeff welcomed Minute Clerk Norma Childs and Planning Technician Sid Pena. .ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of Mamh 19, 2003 It was noted by Chairman Chiniaeff that Item No .5 (Comprehensive Land Use Plan in association with a future retail commercial shopping center located on the southeast and southwest corners of Pechanga Parkway and State Highway 79 South) would be continued to the April 9, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 29, 2003; 2.2 Approve the minutes of February 5, 2003; 2.3 Approve the minutes of February 19, 2003. R: PianComm/minutes/031903 1 3 Director's Hearin.q Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for February, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1- 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Conditional Use Permit Requirements for Businesses Sellin,q Alcoholic Beveraqes - Dave Ho.qan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 File and receive. Principal Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), highlighting the City's current Development Code requirements and the recommended changes. In response to the Commissioners, Principal Planner Hogan noted the following: · That staff would concur with Commissioner Telesio's suggestions for staff to create local factors/impacts/problems in determining the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); · That a Specialty/Discount Store would be characterized as a World Market/Trader Joe's; · That the Discount Store category (Costco) would be currently defined in the Development Code but that the Specialty Market category is not. Commissioner Mathewson noted that the wine tasting/sales category should be restricted to ensure that sales are solely limited to wine tasting. Commissioner Mathewson relayed his concurrence with staff's recommendation requesting that additional justification be provided with regard to the uses that would no longer require a CUP. With regard to the Convenience Store/Mini Mart and Liquor Store categories, Commissioner Telesio expressed his preference to regulate on an enfomement basis with proper justification versus on a general regulation basis. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's comment, Principal Planner Hogan advised that from staff's perspective the need for a CUP would be easier regulated through the use versus the success/quality of the business but that staff could analyze information such as percentage of total sales and determining which percentage is alcohol related. R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 2 Because checks and balances are in place through the CUP process, Chairman Chiniaeff voiced his opinion for no change and concurred with Commissioner Telesio's comment relative to regulation. Speaking in support of staff's recommendation as it relates to differentiation among the various categories, Commissioner Olhasso referenced existing checks and balances through the CUP. Commissioner Guerriero questioned the number of Convenience Stores/Mini Marts/Liquor Stores and gas stations necessary in the City that sell alcohol. Considering the existing procedures in place, Commissioner Telesio spoke in support of no change. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0340 To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in association with a future retail commercial shoppin.q center located on the southeast and southwest corners of Pechanqa Parkway and State Hi.qhway 79 South RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0340 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0340, A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF A RETAIL/COMMERCIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX ON A 14.3 ACRE SITE. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND PECHANGA PARKWAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 961-010-001,004 &005. Planning Director Ubnoske advised that staff would recommend that this public hearing be continued to the meeting of April 9, 2003. Having met with the applicant and staff, Commissioner Telesio noted that the project is progressing and should be ready for the Commission's review by April 9, 2003. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue the item to the meeting of April 9, 2003. R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 3 6 Piannin.q Application No. PA03-017 An application for a seasonal strawberry stand located at 40240 Winchester Road, RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled PC RESOLUTION NO, 2003-013 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO DENY PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 03-017, A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A TEMPORARY FRESH FRUIT STAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 920-100-013 Planning Technician Pena referenced the staff report (as per agenda material), noting that the applicant was not in attendance; that the proposed site would solely be for selling and not for growing purposes; that the applicant was desirous of attaining access off Winchester Road to ensure marketability of his business; and that the existing driveway has not been properly designed for public use and does not meet Caltrans design standards. There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Chiniaeff voiced no objection to permitting access off Nicolas Road. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0426 to establish a siqn proqram for Etco Plaza, a shoppin.q center consistinq of two buildinqs located at 27270 Madison Avenue RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Continue this item for Modification/Revisions. Associate Planner Harris reviewed the staff report (of record), highlighting the sign standards as per the Development Code and noting that the applicant will be deviating from these standards. Mr. Harris referenced staff's recommendation to revise the sign program whereby all the non-conforming sign regulations are modified to comply with all existing applicable sign standards within the Development Code; to limit Wall Mounted Signage to the east and west sides of the buildings on Madison Avenue and freeway side; to prohibit signage on the north and south ends of the two buildings, noting there would be sufficient visibility on the east and west sides; and to continue the item for further review. R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 4 Staff clarified that it would be within the Planning Commission's purview to amend the Sign Standards if determined it would enhance the development. Having worked with the Planning Department with regard to the sign program, Mr. Afshin Etebar, applicant, 540 Westminster Mall, Westminster, described the proposed sign program, noting the following: Freestandin.q Multi-Tenant Identification Si.qns · That the intent of the proposed sign program would be to enhance the freeway side of the building and that possibly a variation of the sign standards be considered; · That commemial users/office users (ground floor) would prefer signage on the building facing the freeway as well as Madison Avenue; · That, in his opinion, the ordinance does not reflect clear guidelines with regard to mixed-use buildings; · That with regard to the Freestanding Signs standards, he would not view his project as a shopping center which has a standard of one sign per 300 lineal feet of street frontage per shopping center (applicant proposing two signs per 458 lineal feet of street frontage); · That because of the project location within the master planned area, thero would be no flexibility as to sign location because of landscaping; · That he would be willing to work with staff with regard to architectural elements of the Freestanding Multi-Tenant Identification Signs (2) proposed; · That address standards for the Freestanding Signs could be accommodated. Wall Mounted Si,qns · That five primary signs are being proposed versus four as was indicated in the staff report; · That there will be two primary tenants (1st & 2n~ floor.); that currently there is no tenant for the third floor of the first building; · That the second building currently has one tenant for the first floor; · That at maximum occupancy, he would propose to locate three signs on the freeway side and three signs on the Madison Avenue side; · That some tenants may request doubled-lined signs; that the articulation of the proposed buildings has limited signage area; therefore, some flexibility would be requested. R: planCornrn/minutes/031903 5 Secondary Tenant Siqns · That the color scheme of the secondary signs will be matching the primary signs; · That in his opinion, the proposed sign program would meet the requirements of Development Code 17.28.240. In response to the Commissioners, Mr. Eteban noted the following: · That each building would accommodate four tenants on the first floor, four tenants on the second floor, and two tenants on the third floor. For the Planning Commissioners, Assistant City Attorney Curley, clarified that, as per case law, there are parameters with regard to corporate Iogos, noting that the City may prohibit Iogos; that it may control the size of them; but that it may not change/alter a corporate logo. Mr. James P. Bras, 1749 E. 28th Street Signal Hill, representing the applicant, Sign Methods, Inc., concurred with Assistant Attorney Curley's comment regarding corporate Iogos. Commissioner Guerriero commended the applicant on the proposed sign program and voiced a willingness to be flexible. Commending the applicant on the architectural elements of the project, Commissioner Mathewson relayed his desire for less signage to limit the possibility of detracting from these elements; expressed concern with regard to the size of the letters and number of signs of each building; and noted no concern with the number of lines (single or double); Commending the applicant as well on the design of the project, Commissioner Telesio clarified his understanding of the sign request (one sign per building on the west side [freeway side] and one sign per building on the east side [Madison Avenue] per major tenant). In closing, Mr. Telesio relayed his preference to not utilize corporate Iogos. To eliminate staff/applicant confusion as it relates to corporate Iogos, Commissioner Olhasso suggested that staff and the applicant work together; recommended staff flexibility to ensure quality tenants; and voiced no concern with changing the font as long as there be adherence to the color scheme. Chairman Chiniaeff expressed concern with the proposed number of signs; stated that in his opinion, signage would not be necessary on the ends of the buildings on the east and west sides for the major tenants considering there will be signage for the major tenants on the freeway side (west side); and voiced no objection to the monument sign. Additional Commission discussion and clarification ensued as to Iogos and maximum number of signs per building per primary, secondary, and ground tenants with the following comments: R: PlanCornrn/minutes/031903 6 · Commissioner Mathewson emphasized his desire to permit one primary tenant identified per building with one sign per elevation (two signs maximum); · Commissioner Guerriero voiced no objection to placing a secondary sign on the north and south sides but expressed concern with the placement of a secondary sign on the east and west sides. By way of an exhibit, the Commission clarified its recommendation with the applicant voicing no objection as follows: · One primary sign per building on the east and west elevations (freeway and Madison Avenue sides); · One secondary sign for another major tenant on the second floor on either the north or south ends of the buildings. If there were four tenants on the second floor, no signage would be permitted on the north and south ends; · Two monument signs on the east elevation; · Provide a revised site plan to reflect the Planning Commission sign recommendation; · That no Iogos be granted. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this matter to the Planning Commission Meeting of April 9, 2003. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 8 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0689 An Extension of Time for Plannin.q Application No. PA00-0276 a Development Plan to desi,qn and construct a 151833 square foot office buildinq on a .64-acre lot located at the southwest knuckle of Enterprise Circle North (the empty buildinq pad north of 41582 Enterprise Circle North), Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0689 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-014 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0689 (THE FIRST ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0276 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 15,883 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING (KEETON BUILDING), ON A .64 ACRE LOT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST KNUCKLE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-282-013 R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 7 Associate Planner Rush reviewed the staff report (of record), advising that the applicant's representative was in attendance and voicing no opposition to the six added conditions of approval as well as one amended condition of approval (added condition nos. 4d, 11, 70, 71,72, and 73 and the amended condition no. 18). At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry R. Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle North, representing the applicant, reiterated concurrence with the revised conditions of approval, including the amended condition. At this time the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation with the added six conditions of approval, including the one amended conditions (see page 7). Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 9 Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0109 To amend the Development Code to do the followinq: define what a maior and minor modification to a development plan is, clarify the application process for projects requirinq both a development plan and conditional use permit, authorize the adoption by reference of complicated Planned Development Overlay proiects, create standards and procedures for Planned Residential Developments, clarify confusion concerninq the approval of si.qn pro.qrams as well as the allowable types, and duration of used for ambient balloons, update the approval authority table in Chapter 17.03 to conform to the other chanqes, Dave Ho.qan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-015 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THE PROCEDURES FOR MODIFYING APPROVED PERMITS, TO CREATE PROVISIONS TO ALLOW FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, TO MAKE OTHER MINOR CHANGES AND PROVIDE FOR THE READOPTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NOS. 5 AND 6" (PLANNING APPLICATION 03-0109) Principal Planner Hogan clarified the staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting the following: R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 8 · CUP noticing requirements increased from 300' to 600'; · Creation of minor and major modifications for Development Plans and CUPs; new fee schedule will be developed reviewing the various elements of each modification; · That minor and major modifications be administratively approved unless there were substantial changes which would require Planning Commission's approval; · Creation of a Planned Residential Development Element - varying zone standards on sites; · Planned Development Overlays (PDO) - adopted by specific reference; · With regard to the provided information, it was the Planning Commission's recommendation to change the verbiage of the first bullet under Minor Modification as follows: an increase of less than 10% of the building footprint; and to request that all Major Modifications be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. With regard to Section 2 A.2 (CUP for a Development Plan for a new building less than 10,000 square feet), Chairman Chiniaeff relayed his opposition with this section if it were to relate to the Liquor Store category with Principal Planner Hogan advising that this would not be a change of the current procedure and with Planning Director Ubnoske noting that the Planning Commission would review the need for public necessity or convenience. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve staff recommendation as amended: · Minor Modifications- an increase of less than 10% of the building footprint; · Major Modifications - to be forwarded for Planning Commission review. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS A. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that Code Enforcement is addressing the storage of sofas in the parking lot on Madison Avenue. B. Assistant Attorney Curley provided clarification with regard to Conflict of Interest as it relates to the Commissioners' voting abilities. C. Referencing the Commissioners' Handbook, Commissioner Telesio commented on ExParte communications. R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 9 D. For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided clarification with regard to the Building and Safety Code pertaining to all-weather (asphalt) road requirements. E. Commissioner Mathewson apprised staff of a flooding issue at General Kearney Road at James L. Day Middle School. Commissioner Mathewson also expressed concern with a PVC and vinyl sign functioning as a monument sign at La Masters Building Advantage Rent-a-Car. F. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that staff is working on resolving the car lot issue on Ynez Road (located on the North Plaza property). PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORTS A. Because of the lack of quorum for the regularly scheduled meeting for April 2, 2003, it was the consensus of the members to reschedule the April Planning Commission meeting to April 9, 2003 and April 23, 2003. B. Planning Department reminded the Commissioners of the Form 700 deadline. ADJOURNMENT At 8:00 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next adjourned re(lular meetin_(I to be held on Wednesday1 April 9, 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Chiniae Debbie Ubnoske, Chairman Director of Planning R: PlanComm/minutes/031903 10