HomeMy WebLinkAbout050201 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 2, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M.,
on Wednesday May 2, 2001, 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 Chiniaeff.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Chiniaeff, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Director of Planning Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
City Attorney Thorson,
Senior Planner Hazen,
Senior Planner Hogan,
Associate Planner Thornsley,
Project Planner McCoy,
Project Planner Rush,
Fire Safety Specialist Davidson, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of May 2, 2001
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes from March 7, 2001
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1, and
2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3
Planninq Application 00-0421 (Chan.qe of Zone) and PA00-0422 (General Plan
Amendment) To approve a General Plan Amendment to chanqe the Land Use
Desiqnation from Neiqhborhood Commemial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC)
and Open Space (OS). To approve a Chanqe of Zone to chan.qe the zonin.q from and
Nei.qhborhood Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial {CC) and Open Space
Conservation (OS-C) located at the southeast corner of Butterfield Staqe Road and
Hi.qhwa¥ 79 South and identified as Assessors Parcel Numbers 952-200-002, 011,
012 and 013. - Patty Anders, Associate Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve a Negative Declaration for Planning Application PA00-0421 and PA00-
0422; and;
3.2 Adopt Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 00-0422 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND
013", AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 00-0421 (CHANGE OF ZONE) TO
AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
Bu'ri'ERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, ALSO
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 952-200-002, 011,012 AND
013 ".
Via overhead maps, Senior Planner Hogan presented the staff report (of record), noting
the request for a General Plan Amendment and a change of zones, relaying the current
zoning designation as Neighborhood Commercial for the entire site, specifying that the
proposal was to upgrade the commercial area from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to
Community Commercial (CC), and to designate the channel area as permanent Open
Space Conservation (OS-C); noted the limitations with respect to permitted commercial
uses in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone, advising the since this site was
located on a key corner along a major arterial road, staff opined that the NC zoning was
not an ideal use for this area; relayed that the proposed changes would not have a
significant negative impact with respect to traffic generation (per the traffic analysis); and
via supplemental agenda material, noted the two letters staff recently received regarding
this item (since the agenda packets were distributed) which expressed opposition to the
proposed changes.
In response to Commissioner Webster's queries, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that with
respect to the surrounding zoning to the east of this site, that while he did not have
specific data, it was his understanding that the County would be upzoning portions of
this area; provided additional information regarding the building setback lines; advised
that the 11 acres of usable property did not include the half-width improvements of
Butterfield Stage Road, noting that additional dedications would be assessed when
specific development proposals are submitted.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Hogan provided additional information
regarding the traffic analysis conducted in association with this proposal; confirmed that
the flood control easement takes away approximately forty-two percent (42%) of this
site, advising that due to this portion of the property, the site would generate less traffic
than if the entire site had been developed as Neighborhood Commercial (NC.)
Senior Planner Hogan noted, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, that at this time no parcel map
has been submitted along with this request, providing additional information regarding
the four current parcels, clarifying that the existing pads would still be developable.
In response to Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Hogan specified that he received
the letter in opposition to this proposal from MDC Vail, today.
Mr. Tom Jerele, Sr., representing the applicant, provided additional information
regarding the methodology utilized in the traffic analysis which was consistent with the
original General Plan's traffic analysis; and for Commissioner Webster, advised that the
primary purpose for the zone change request was due to the size of the permitted uses,
noting the desire to accommodate a larger user.
Mr. Robert Kahn, traffic engineer, representing the applicant, for Commissioner
Mathewson, specified that with the existing General Plan designation the entire parcel
would generate approximately 15,000 trips a day, noting that using the usable parcel
available, Community Commercial (CC) was estimated at about 9,000 trips a day,
relaying that if a comparable sized Neighborhood Commercial (NC) was analyzed,
(utilizing the usable parcel) that the trip generation would be similar (i.e., 9,000 trips a
day); advised that the proposal was a substantial reduction from the General Plan's
estimated traffic; and provided additional information regarding the factors considered in
the traffic analysis.
In response to Mr. Kahn's comments, Commissioner Mathewson disagreed that if the
CC and the NC zones were calculated with the same Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the trip
generation rates would be essentially equal.
Mr. Jerele further specified the traffic analysis for this parcel, noting the applicant's
copious efforts to follow the guidelines, analyzing the entire parcel map with the existing
zone, the entire parcel map with the proposed amendment, and the usable parcel map
with the proposed amendment, advising that the applicant worked closely with staff to
ensure that the projections were accurate.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided
additional information regarding the traffic analysis which encompassed comparing the
traffic model created from the General Plan, specifying the manner in which it was
determined that this proposal will create considerably less traffic than what was originally
proposed.
Reviewing the rationale for originally zoning this area as NC in the General Plan,
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted the desire to provide a transition to the rural densities
along the west side of Highway 79 (South) towards Vail Lake; advised that with the
County's current proposals, this previous zoning may not be appropriate; opined that the
concerns at this time should be, as follows: 1) the impact on the adjacent properties,
which appeared to be properties in transition, and 2) the overall traffic impact occurring
along Highway 79 (South); and noted that while he was not opposed to the proposed
changes, it was his desire that a permitted large use not be located at the edge of the
City.
Noting that he was not specifically concerned with respect to the proposed changes in
zoning, Commissioner Mathewson advised that in his opinion the traffic analysis was not
consistent in the applications of FAR, while noting that since there would be no increase
in traffic generation, he would not oppose the request.
Based on this particular site, and the adjacent land uses, Commissioner Webster
concurred with the applicant's desire to change the zoning; and recommended that there
be a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) developed, allowing the uses per the CC
zoning, while keeping the Development Standards per the NC zoning, advising that this
would satisfy the applicant's concerns, and also provide the opportunity to design a
quality project to fit on this unique parcel.
Senior Planner Hogan concurred that the transition between the potential County's
suburban residential, and this site, would be a key issue; relayed that the specific
development proposals would be presented to the Planning Commission, which would
provide an opportunity to address any concerns.
Commissioner Webster provided additional information regarding the benefits of a PDO,
opining that this would clarify what the developer could expect, as well as what the City
could anticipate.
Presenting another option, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the zoning could be left,
as is, and that the Planning Commission could consider a zoning change along with a
development proposal.
Requesting clarification regarding the Planning Commission's concerns, Director of
Planning Ubnoske relayed that the differences in the Development Standards between
CC and NC were minimal, specifying the various differentials.
In response, Commissioner Webster noted that the maximum FAR differences in CC
and NC were between 0.4 and 1.0 which was significant, additionally relaying that the
R:PlanConmYminutes/050201 4
differentials in the two zones with respect to setbacks, height, and maximum coverage
standards which constituted a significant difference.
For informational purposes, Senior Planner Hogan relayed that if a proposed project
exceeded FAR, the Planning Commission would need to approve that request.
Additional discussion ensued regarding revising the parcel arrangement.
Commissioner Webster recommended that there either be a PDO for this site, or that the
Planning Commission consider a zone change in conjunction with a development
proposal.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to leave the zoning, as exists, until an
application is submitted specifying the development. Commissioner Telesio seconded
the motion. (Ultimately this motion was amended; see below,)
The applicant relayed that efforts could be made to work with a specific development in
conjunction with the zone changes.
For informational purposes, City Attorney Thorson relayed that it was acceptable for the
Planning Commission to move that there be no changes at' this time, noting that if it was
the Planning Commission's desire for nothing to occur, this could be done without
prejudice to the applicant, in order for the applicant to bring back a proposal in
conjunction with the zoning changes; for Commissioner Chiniaeff, noted that with the
Planning Commission's action, the General Plan Amendment could be brought back,
relaying that the specific development plans would come in as a separate application.
Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that this item could be continued off calendar in
order to allow the applicant time to bring in a specific development proposal with zoning
changes.
Mr. Jerry Kokoszke, representing the applicant, reiterated the rationale for the request
for the zone changes, noting the problems the applicant has had with potential tenants
due to the standards being more stringent with respect to the allowable size of uses,
citing a grocery store which was restricted from developing on this site; and relayed the
goal to be able to accommodate a larger use.
MOTION: Amending his previous motion, Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue
this item off calendar, and that the applicant bring back proposed zone changes in
conjunction with a development proposal. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Telesio. (Ultimately this motion was withdrawn; see below.)
Commissioner Telesio noted the desire to provide the applicant the flexibility he has
requested.
For Commissioner Mathewson, and Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning
Ubnoske advised that the applicant would best be served with a Planned Development
Overlay (PDO), noting that the standards would be revised to allow a larger use.
At this time Commissioner Chiniaeff withdrew his motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to continue this item off calendar, and to direct
staff to work with the applicant to prepare a PDO on this site to be presented to the
Planning Commission at a future date. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.)
For clarification, and in response to Senior Planner Hogan, City Attorney Thorson
clarified that since this item was being continued off calendar that there was no
recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council at this time, noting that staff has
been directed to bring back a PDO to the Planning Commission.
For Mr. Jerele, Sr., Director of Planning Ubnoske further clarified a PDO, noting that the
overlay could address the existing restrictions with respect to size of uses, and
essentially would enable the applicant to create their own zone for the property, noting
that a list of proposed anticipated users, square footages, height, landscape and setback
requirements would be presented to the Planning Commission with the PDO.
Mr. Jerele Sr., provided additional information regarding this particular site. In response,
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the applicant's past discussions with potential
users would aid in the development of the overlay.
Providing clarification, City Attorney Thorson further explained a PDO, noting that it
would be an amendment to the Zoning Code, relaying that the permitted uses and other
requirements (i.e., height standards) would also be listed, advising that the PDO would
not restrict the site to one particular user, or a specific applicant.
The applicant's representative reiterated that his primary concern was the desire for the
site to be able to accommodate a larger user. In response, Chairman Guerriero and
Commissioner Chiniaeff provided additional information regarding the PDO, which would
provide the applicant the requested flexibility.
At this time voice vote was taken reflecting unanimous approval of the motion.
4 PlanninR Application No. PA01-0033 (Development Plan) - Hank's Hardware - a
Development Plan application to desiqn, construct and operate a 19,710 hardware
and lumber store, with a partial second-story storaqe area @ 41731 Enterprise Circle
South, 1 block west of Jefferson Avenue and 1 block south of Winchester Road -
Michael McCoy, Project Planner.
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for PA01-0033 pursuant to Section 15332 of the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
4.2 Adopt a Resolution Entitled:
R:PlanComrp#ninutes/050201 6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 010
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'FY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0033
(DEVELOPMENT PLAN), TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 19,710
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING SUPPLY AND HOME IMPROVEMENT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 1.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF ENTERPRISE CIRCLE SOUTH AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-270-023.
By way of overheads, Project Planner McCoy provided an overview of the project
(via agenda material), highlighting the location, the General Plan and Zoning
designation (i.e., Service Commercial), the site design and project layout, the
access, the loading area, the surrounding land uses, the landscape plan, and the
berm which will screen the parking area; relayed that the City's Landscape
Architect has recommended that the proposed flowering pear trees be replaced
with more effective shade trees and be moved closer to the parking area to meet
the parking and shading requirements more effectively; specified the building
design, and the entry treatments; relayed the condition which had been added
(Condition No. 14) to require that the applicant make an effort to have installed
an 8-foot view obscuring chain-linked fence on the adjacent property in order to
screen the loading area from Winchester Road; noted the discussions between
staff and the applicant regarding creating more color banding (i.e., painted reveal
lines) in order to improve the visual aesthetic appearance; relayed the proposed
.38 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which was .08 above the target FAR; and outlined the
applicant's rationale for qualifying for the minor increase in FAR, noting the
economic benefits, and employment opportunities the project would provide.
For Chairman Guerriero, Project Planner McCoy relayed that Condition No. 14
addressed installation of an 8-foot chain-linked fence with a vinyl coating and a
view obscuring material; in response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, advised that this
condition was added due to the Development Code standards which address
screening loading areas, additionally noting that the rear of the parcel was
exposed to a to a distant public right-of-way due to the lack of adjacent
development; in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding the
potential for the adjacent property owner to not grant this applicant permission to
install a fence, advised that the applicant has had discussions with the adjacent
property owner in an attempt to gain approval for this installation. Senior Planner
Hazen added that if the adjacent property owner does not consent to the
installation of the fence then the rear loading doors would be exposed, as is the
adjacent building, advising that staff was optimistic regarding gaining the owner's
permission; and provided additional information regarding the screening material
(i.e., slats) placed in the fencing.
Project Planner McCoy specified that the adjacent property owner where the
fence would potentially be installed was currently owned by the Press Enterprise
Corporation and was for sale, noting that staff would address the fencing issue
with the property owner.
Mr. James Horecka, representing the applicant, expressed thanks to staff for
their efforts regarding the project; relayed the planning process the project
undertook; provided additional information regarding the applicant, Mr. Hank
Hornveld, noting the growth of the Hank's Hardware business, additionally
providing a brief history of this particular pamel which had plans which were
previously processed through the County, relaying that the project has been
redesigned, specifying various elements of the proposal; relayed the request for
a minor Far increase of .08; advised that the applicant was in agreement with the
Conditions of Approval with the exception of Condition No. 14 (regarding the
installation of the fence) opining that the intent of the Development Code was
that loading zones be screened from public ways, and was applicable with
respect to the fronts and sides of buildings; and relayed the applicant's efforts to
locate the loading area completely off of Enterprise Circle South so as to have no
view from the street, noting the distance from Winchester Road to the site.
Addressing staff's recommendation to replace the flowering pear trees with
London plane trees, Mr. Vincent Didonato, landscape architect for the applicant,
noted that he disagreed with the recommendation, relaying that the broad canopy
trees proposed around the parking area would fulfill the shading requirement;
specified that the pear trees have been proposed for this area adjacent to the
building due to their potential height of 30 feet whereas the sycamore trees would
ultimately be too tall; relayed that pear trees have been installed on the adjacent
property; and, for Commissioner Chiniaeff, specified that Condition No. 7a.
requires the applicant to replace the pear trees.
Mr. Roger Jaeger, 41325 Billy Joe Lane, noted that he was a long-term customer
of Hank's Hardware; and urged the City to help existing businesses in Temecula
as much as possible.
Mr. Abraham Feltus, 42675 Callie Contento, noted his concurrence with the
applicant's representative, recommending that the pear trees not be replaced
with sycamore trees; relayed that at Hank's Hardware he was able to obtain
hard-to-find parts, and experienced great customer service from Mr. Hank
Horneveld; and noted his support of this particular project.
For clarification, Senior Planner Hazen relayed that staff was not recommending
that the pear trees be replaced specifically with a sycamore tree, but an alternate
specie, Project Planner McCoy providing additional information regarding this
issue. In response, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that a London plane tree
was in the same family as a sycamore tree, which was specifically recommended
in Condition No. 7a.
For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks clarified that
the conditions associated with the action on this project would be the revised
conditions dated May 2, 2001 (per supplemental agenda material).
Concurring with the public comments, Commissioner Telesio relayed that there
was most likely not a better hardware store than Hank's Hardware; supported
enhancing this use's capabilities with the proposed project; with respect to the
pear tree/London plane tree issue, recommended that the applicant work with
staff regarding this matter; with respect to the fencing issues, queried the
necessity of screening the rear view to the degree that would be required with a
front or side view; and advised that he supported the project.
Commissioner Webster recommended approval of the project with the deletion of
Condition No. 14 (regarding the fencing), and 7a. (regarding replacing the pear
trees.)
With respect to the existing condition of the roads in this area, for Commissioner
Webster, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that he would check the
Pavement Management Plan.
Addressing Condition No. 14 (regarding the fencing), Commissioner Mathewson
recommended that the condition be modified, in lieu of deleting it, to state that
the applicant shall try to work to install the screening material; clarified that his
primary concern regarding this project was the issue of the request for a FAR
increase, relaying that with respect to the applicant's criteria outlining the three
items that were denoted as qualifying elements for the FAR increase, that he was
only in agreement with Item No. 1 (regarding the employment, fiscal, social, and
economic benefits of the use).
For clarification, and in response to Commissioner Mathewson, City Attorney
Thorson relayed that concurrence with one of the three provided elements
regarding this project qualifying for the requested FAR increase would be
sufficient for granting the request, if that was the Planning Commission's desire.
With respect to the fencing issues, Commissioner Chiniaeff relayed that in his
opinion the fencing was not warranted.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing, and to
approve staff's recommendation, granting the request for a FAR increase based
on the findings in the staff report, and with the Conditions of Approval, as revised
on May 2, 2001, and subject to the following modifications:
Delete-
· Condition No. 7a. (regarding replacing the pear trees)
· Condition No. 14 (regarding installation of fencing)
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster. (Ultimately this motion
passed; see page 10,)
For Commissioner Mathewson, Commissioner Chiniaeff advised that the motion
did not include requiring the applicant to attempt to obtain permission to install
the fencing on the adjacent property.
Reviewing previous projects required to screen loading areas, Chairman
Guerriem opined that there should be some type of screening material at the rear
of the site until the adjacent site is developed.
Additional discussion ensued regarding the fencing.
For Chairman Guerriem, City Attorney Thorson provided additional information
regarding the Planning Commission's discretion to require that the fencing be
installed on another property owner's site, or to require that the applicant just put
forth their best efforts in attempting to gain permission to install the fencing.
At this time voice vote was taken, reflecting approval with the exception of
Commissioner Mathewson who voted no.
At 7:43 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:52 P.M.
5
Planninq Application No. PA01-0147 (Variance) to desiqn and construct a 230
square foot room addition to a sin,qle-family residence that will encroach 7 feet into
the required 15-foot exterior side yard set back corner side yard setback located @
30464 Boqart Place (APN 919-461-009) - Rick Rush, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-0147 pursuant
to Section 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0147 A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 230 SQUARE FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO
ENCROACH 7 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 15- FOOT EXTERIOR SIDE
YARD SETBACK, LOCATED AT 30464 BOGART PLACE, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 919-461-009.
Project Planner Rush presented the project plan (of record); via photographs,
relayed the proposed room addition which would encroach seven feet into the
required fifteen-foot exterior sideyard setback, highlighting the location of the
project, the General Plan Designation and Zoning (Low Medium Density
Residential), and the total square footage; and advised that the applicant is
requesting the variance to accommodate a permanently handicapped family
member, noting that granting the variance will allow the applicant to build a
ground level bedroom.
Mr. Rick Ford, the applicant, reiterated the need for this downstairs addition,
relaying that at this time he is carrying a handicapped family member up and
down the stairway; for Commissioner Telesio, noted that in gathering signatures,
there had been no opposition to the project; for Commissioner Chiniaeff,
specified the location of the proposed windows, relaying that the fence would be
moved back; for Commissioner Webster, clarified that the front door would be a
typical front door and not have a back door appearance, noting that the computer
rendering door representation was the only door available to clip and paste.
Pointing out the window planter box denoted proximate to the front door,
Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended that a similar element be added to the
alternate window. In response, the applicant was agreeable.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Ford further specified his plans for
landscaping.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, City Attorney Thorson clarified, from a
legal perspective, the findings that would qualify the project for the variance; and
for Chairman Guerriero, advised that staff investigated associated elements with
the review of this project (i.e., the configuration of the lot, the impacts of the
project).
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing, and to
approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following modifications:
Add-
A condition requiring additional landscape on the elevation along
Pauma Valley Road, and a condition that a window planter box be
added to the window along this particular elevation.
· That the door be of an acceptable quality similar to the front doors in
this particular tract.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
6 Planninq Application No. 01-0026 (Conditional Use Permit) - Extended Stay America
- to desiqn and construct a 46,623 square foot hotel buildinq on a 1.86-acre lot and
the installation of a 12-foot in diameter dish antenna located @ the northeast corner
of Jefferson and Overland (APN 910-310-014 and 910-310-002). - Rick Rush,
Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA01-0026 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines;
6.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0026 A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A
46,623 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING (EXTENDED STAY
AMERICA) AND THE INSTALLATION OF A TWELVE-FOOT
DIAMETER GROUND-MOUNTED DISH ANTENNA ON A 1.86 ACRE
LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND AND
JEFFERSON, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-310-014
AND 910-310-002.
Presenting the site plans overhead, Project Planner Rush provided an overview
of the project (per agenda material), highlighting the location, the zoning
(Community Commercial), the dimensions of the site, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
which is .57, the access, the parking, the proposed walkway which will promote
pedestrian access, the location of the trash enclosure, and the satellite dish;
relayed that the proposed hotel would have 106 rooms ranging in size from 310
to 400 square feet; specified the setbacks which greatly exceed the
requirements; noted that the architecture was consistent with the adjacent uses
(i.e., the Hungry Hunter), relaying the building materials and the architectural
enhancements; noted the proposed screening of the air conditioning units;
presented the landscape plan, and the incorporation of river rock, the plan to
screen the trash enclosure and satellite dish area (in the northeast corner) with
landscaping and a six-foot wall; with respect to the FAR which is .27 above the
target, referenced the Code, Section 17.08.050, outlining the criteria for
qualifying for an increase in FAR, advising that staff concurs with the applicant's
determination that the project qualifies for a .27 FAR increase due to the
economic benefits, the meeting room facility, and the exceptional landscaping
and architecture; noted that staff has conditioned the project to require the
applicant to provide the meeting room to non-profit organizations at a discounted
rate, and additionally restricted the applicant from renting any room for more than
30 consecutive days; relayed that staff received a letter from Mr. David K. Hill
(per supplemental agenda material), outlining his opposition to the project due to
the negative impacts of the traffic generation; advised that staff has determined
that this use will not create any more traffic impacts than other uses that could be
developed at this site under this particular zoning, and that since the traffic from
this use would primarily not be generated during peak hours that this factor was a
beneficial; advised that the applicant has requested that Condition No. 41
(regarding public improvements) be revised to be required Priorto a Certificate of
Occupancy, in lieu of Prior to Building Permit, advising that the Public Works
Department had no objection to the revision.
Addressing Commissioner Webster's queries regarding Condition No. 41,
(regarding the installation of the raised landscape median), Deputy Director of
Public Works Parks noted the importance of the median for traffic control with
respect to egress and ingress movements into the facility; provided additional
information regarding the City's current project for rehabilitating Jefferson Avenue
from Overland Drive to the north City boundaries, noting the applicant's concern
with that project delaying the applicant, advising that it was staff's opinion that the
applicant could work with the contractor to coordinate the work.
For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Rush advised that the applicant
opted to model the architect of the Hungry Hunter's use in order to blend in with
this adjacent use, and to create a visually pleasing aesthetic appearance,
clarifying that the two uses were not owned by the same individual.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Project
Planner Rush specified that the applicant had added the meeting room due to
desiring to meet the criteria for the FAR bonus; and for Commissioner Telesio,
specified that there would be two employees per shift, and clarified the ratios for
developing the necessary parking requirements.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, noted that this building will not
have siding as does the Hungry Hunter use, but would be constructed of stucco
and stone, noting this minor correction on pages 3, and 4 of the agenda material,
additionally noting that the sewer easement was an Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD) sewer easement and not Rancho California Water District; with
respect to Condition No. 6 (regarding screening the satellite dish) noted that to
lower the dish six feet below grade would create a drainage problem, relaying
that the site was lower than the adjacent properties, noting a willingness to be
conditioned to screen in an alternate manner (i.e., lattice enclosure); provided
additional information regarding the size of the dish which was necessary due to
the video provider utilized; with respect to Condition No. 41 (regarding the
median), noted for the record, that it was the applicant's opinion that the
applicant should only be responsible for the project's frontage, and the project's
half of the installation, requesting that if the Pavement Management Plan was not
completed, that the applicant be able to meet this condition with a cash payment;
with respect to Condition No. 81 (regarding two points of access), relayed the
proposal to widen the driveway and add a raised median that would satisfy the
access needs for the Fire Department and the Public Works Department; in
response to Commissioner Telesio, noted that there would be a total of 8-10
employees; confirmed that the meeting room was added due to the Planning
Commission's previous approval of a FAR increase for an alternate hotel,
relaying that this conference room would be made available pursuant to the
conditions of staff; and advised that it was the applicant's opinion that the primary
element that contributing to the project's qualification for the FAR increase was
the benefit of the Transient Occupancy Tax (i.e., bed tax).
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Markham provided a brief history of
the access issues on site, relaying that access would not be made available to
this project either through the Hungry Hunter use or the RV use; provided
additional information regarding the proposal to widen the entry approaches,
advising that since this was a right-in, right-out only driveway there would be no
conflicts; with respect to screening the satellite dish, relayed that lattice and vines
would most likely be a better solution to the screening issue; for Commissioner
Mathewson, confirmed that the initial screening proposal was the six-foot wall
denoted in the agenda material; confirmed that the applicant would not be
opposed to removing the meeting room from the project plan; for Commissioner
Telesio, confirmed that three sides of the satellite dish could be screened without
interfering with the line of sight visibility of the satellite; noted that the towers
were an architectural treatment provided to enhance the visual appearance of the
project.
Addressing the Fire access issue, Fire Safety Specialist Davidson relayed that
the applicant's recommendation to provide access by widening the driveway with
a median allowing only right-ins, and right-outs has already been reviewed by the
Fire Department, and was acceptable.
With respect to screening the antenna, Commissioner Chiniaeff recommended
discovering which side could not be blocked, and subsequently engineering
screening on the remaining three sides; and with respect to architecture, noted
the consistency with the adjacent use.
Concurring with the previous comments, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that
the screening of three sides of the satellite dish would be adequate; with respect
to Condition No. 41 (regarding the median), noted that he could support the
applicant's request to substitute the installation with a cash payment if the
Pavement Management Plan was not completed; with respect to Condition No.
81 (regarding Fire access), relayed that since the Fire Department had no
objections to the applicant's proposal he would support the applicant's request;
with respect granting the FAR bonus, advised that he could support the increase
based on the exceptional architectural treatments, as well as, the benefits of the
Transient Occupancy Tax; and recommended that the meeting room be deleted
from the plan if it was solely added in an attempt to meet the criteria for the FAR
bonus.
Commending the amhitect for the style, and enhanced articulation on the project,
Commissioner Webster relayed gratitude; with respect to Condition No. 6
(regarding the satellite dish), recommended modifying this condition to remove
the requirement to lower the dish; with respect to Condition No. 81 (regarding
Fire access), recommended modifying this condition per the Fire Department's
comments; and with respect to Condition No. 41b. (regarding the landscaped
median), recommended that the language be modified to state as determined by
the City Engineer and with the acceptance from the applicant. In response,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided the rationale for the median
extension requirements, noting the goal to provide for ingress and egress
movements, as well as public safety, confirming that the City is offering the
Development Impact Fee (DIF) credits for the portion installed outside of this
project's frontage.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Commissioner Webster
noted his concurrence with respect to the findings justifying the FAR increase,
and the recommendation to delete the meeting room.
Reiterating kudos to the applicant for the excellent architecture, Commissioner
Telesio concurred with the previous comments, specifically, as follows: that the
meeting room should be deleted from the plan, and that the satellite dish would
be adequately screened without lowering it; and relayed support of the project.
Chairman Guerriero noted the need for additional hotel sites in this area.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing, and to
approve staff's recommendation with the following revisions:
Modify-
· With respect to Condition No. 6 (regarding the screening of the
satellite dish), that in lieu of requiring that the antennae be placed
below grade, that screening be provided to the top of the
antennae dish on three sides.
· With respect to Condition No. 81 (regarding Fire access) that the
language be revised to indicate that the driveway would be
widened with a raised median.
· That the conference facility (meeting room) be removed from the
project plan (which is addressed in Condition No. 4.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected
unanimous approval.
At 8:50 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 9:00 P.M.
7 Planninq Application No. 00-0272 (Extension of Time Appeal) to appeal the Director
of Planninq's Decision to approve Planninq Application No. PA00-0272, an Extension
of Time for Vested Tentative Tract No. 23143 located @ the southwest corner of
Paula Road and Butterfield Sta.qe Road (known as Crowne Hill). - Thomas
Thornsley, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 00-0272 (Extension of
Time) 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;
7.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2001-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272 THE FIFTH AND FINAL EXTENSION
OF TIME FOR VESTED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 23143 FOR THE
REMAINING 696 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF PAUBA ROAD AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD,
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 952-020-009, -012, -013, -
015, -016, & -020 AND 952-030-012, -013, & -014.
Or,
7.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE APPEAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA00-0272 (EXTENSION OF TIME-APPEAL), AMENDING THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S APPROVAL AS CONDITIONED FOR
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0272, THE FIFTH AND FINAL
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
23143, FOR THE REMAINING 696 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAUBA ROAD AND BUTI'ERFIELD
STAGE ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 952-020-
009, -012, -013, -015, -016, & -020 AND 952-030-012, -013, & -014.
For the record, Commissioner Webster disclosed that Rancho California Water
District (RCWD) (his place of employment) worked as a co-permittee with the
take permit with Fish&Wildlife Services associated with this property, clarifying
the RCWD was not affiliated with this particular project; and for City Attorney
Thorson, clarified that RCWD's interest in the permit was not related to this land
area.
Providing additional information, Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, representing the applicant,
noted that Commissioner Webster was referencing the Sub-Regional Habitat
Conservation Plan for the off-site mitigation for properties.
Via overhead maps and diagrams, Associate Planner Thornsley provided an
overview of the Appeal of the Time Extension which had been approved for one
of the two maps that make up the Crowne Hill Development, relaying the specific
location; noted that the 5th and last extension was considered at a hearing on
February 15, 2001 at which time numerous residents from the surrounding area
attended the meeting to voice their concerns regarding the development of this
particular site, listed as follows: concern regarding the volume of grading that
would take place, the clearing of the land, and erosion control and dust impacts;
relayed that the residents were not concerned with the ultimate development of
homes on this property, but the impacts while the homes are being built;
specified the approximate 700 lots that are part of the current time extension; and
in order to address erosion control, relayed that the Planning Director assigned a
new condition requiring that erosion control methods be in place Prior to the
Issuance of a Grading Plan, and subsequently approved the time extension.
Noting that 15 days after the approval, the granted time extension was appealed
by a local resident, Associate Planner Thornsley specified the main issues in the
appeal, as follows: concern with respect to the clearing and grubbing of such a
large area of property, the extent of the mass grading, the visual impact between
the time that the site is graded and the development is completed, dust control
during development, the need for conditions to address the clearing of the
property, and the time allowed to develop homes or replace the vegetation;
clarified that the City has no jurisdiction over the clearing and grubbing of
property, and has no regulations that limit the amount of grading that can take
place at any one time on a project; noted that based on the level of infrastructure
that will be constructed on this particular site, and in order to meet the
requirement for the construction of parks, the grading would have to be
completed across the entire remaining area; reiterated the City's requirement for
an erosion control plan which must meet with the Public Works Department's
approval, additionally noting the previous conditions imposed from the original
approval, relaying that it was the City Attorney's opinion that with these
conditions there were sufficient methods by which to control the erosion;
provided additional information regarding the Gnatcatchers found on the site in
past years, discovered during a biological assessment, noting the applicant's
efforts with Fish&Wildlife Service to adopt a mitigation program, relaying that the
applicant now has the rights for the next 30 years to disturb this property as it
relates to the Gnatcatcher; with respect to Air Quality Management District
(AQMD) issues, noted that there is a requirement that prior to a development of
this size that the developer file a dust control plan for the grading; as a
requirement of the City, under Public Works, relayed that the developer is
required to file a Notice of Intent and to receive clearance from the State Water
Resources Control Board prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit; reiterated that it
was staff's opinion that there are sufficient erosion control measures in place,
and that the City has no legal basis to specify that additional measures be taken;
noted that staff had received five phone calls from various community residents,
as well as written correspondences, relaying that the comments were primarily
based on past issues regarding the project, and were not associated with the
matters of the appeal.
Clarifying the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission regarding this matter, City
Attorney Thorson noted that the applicant has requested an extension of the time
for the life of a vesting tentative map, advising that with respect to the extension
on a map, the Planning Commission's jurisdiction was limited to approving or
denying the extension, and not to impose any conditions without the consent of
the applicant; clarified that at this point, the Planning Commission was only
addressing whether, or not, the map should be extended; noted that if the
Planning Commission was to deny the extension, that the developer could still
complete all of the requirements and file for, and get, the final map recorded;
specified that this was a vesting tentative map, and that under California Law, the
applicant is entitled to rely upon all of the City's ordinances, laws, and polices
that were in effect in 1992 when this map was first approved, reiterating that
there were no City ordinances that govern granting a permit for simply clearing
the vegetation on the land, and that there were no ordinances addressing the
length of time after the land has been cleared that the applicant would be
required to construct the buildings or re-landscape; and reiterated the main
issues of the appeal which were regarding erosion and dust control, noting that
State Law requires that the applicant obtain a permit from AQMD prior to clearing
the land, relaying that this permit will require some type of dust control measures
for the entire project.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that the applicant
was in agreement with the conditions imposed at the approval at the Planning
Director's hearing.
In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's queries, Commissioner Webster
relayed that an AC)MD permit was not required to farmland.
For clarification, Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the applicant has been
restricted from abating weeds due to the environmental issues which have been
resolved with Fish&Wildlife Service, clarifying that at this time, if the applicant left
all the vegetation on the site, the Fire Department would come in and conduct
weed abatement. In response, City Attorney Thorson added that the Fire
Department would most likely not require that all the Vegetation be removed from
the land.
With respect to the AQMD permit, for Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director
of Public Works Parks noted that there were controls regarding dust after
grading, relaying that the applicant would be required to either place a chemical
suppressant on the ground, or to re-vegetate (i.e., with a light grass).
For Commissioner Telesio, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that without the
developer's approval, no conditions could be added to the project; with respect to
the removal of vegetation, noted that the developer would deal with AQMD
regarding dust control; and for Commissioner Chiniaeff, relayed the process of
addressing this appeal, noting that while the Planning Commission's jurisdiction
was limited, the comments that would be expressed during the public hearing
may have remedies (i.e., the Planning Commission could direct staff to work with
AQMD to address certain issues.)
Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that numerous conditions addressed in the
appeal already exist.
Mr. Roger Jaeger, 41325 Billy Joe Lane, the appellant, via overheads, outlined
his concerns regarding this site, as follows: the extensive grading, the dust
impacts, and the property being left vacant and absent of any vegetation;
provided a brief history of the project; acknowledged the Planning Commission's
restrictions regarding this issue; referencing the conditions associated with the 4th
extension, noted that it was stated that any subdivision phasing was subject to
planning approval, recommending that the Planning Commission direct the
developer to first build the homes between his property and the portion of the site
to be developed at a later point, if the entire site was to be graded; referencing
the conditions associated with the 5t~ extension of time, noted that Item No. 86
stated that a grading permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any
grading; while relaying discussions with staff regarding the difference between
stripping and grading, opined that the developer's plans constitute grading and
that a permit should be obtained; with respect to Item No. 11 (per the 1992
conditions), noted that this condition stated that all grading of slopes over three
feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the City's
Development Code; with respect to Item 20 B. (per the 1992 conditions), relayed
that this condition stated that underdeveloped land shall be maintained in a
weed-free condition and shall be planted with interim landscaping or provide
other erosion control methods, noting that the manner in which erosion control
was being addressed in the City was not working, noting the ineffectiveness of
sandbagging, advising that the weed-free condition would essentially create the
erosion impacts, recommending that mowing be conducted in order to keep the
root structure in place; queried the determination of what constitutes
undeveloped land,, with respect to Item No. 24B., 2b, relayed that this condition
addressed approximate timeframes for grading; with respect to Item No. 24B.,
2d., noted that this condition required that the developer identify the areas of
temporary grading outside of a phase; and referenced the language which
addressed landscaping requirements, recommending that this site be left natural,
or solely be mowed.
For Mr. Jaeger, Associate Planner Thornsley provided additional information
regarding the Ordinance (No. 457.75) referenced in the conditions, which was
the County's old grading ordinance, which the City adopted at incorporation.
Continuing his comments, Mr. Jaeger referenced Item No. 90 which addressed
the construction of full street improvements; advised that from Butterfield Stage
Road, erosion ruts could be viewed that were so large that a truck could drive
through; and noted the deteriorated sandbags left on curbs, emphasizing the lack
of effective erosion control.
For the record, Chairman Guerriero relayed that Ms. Eileen Runde, Ms. Judy
Howard, Ms. Connie Carroll, and Mr. Frank Frattto filled out request to speak
forms for the public hearing but had to leave the meeting, requesting that it be
noted that they support the appeal.
Ms. Pat Ommert, 43-250 Los Corralitos, representing the Rancho California
Horsemen, read into the record a letter (which was submitted to staff), outlining
her concerns, relaying her request to be advised of the status of the equestrian
trail currently designated along the flood plain area.
Ms. Annette Rosen, 42115 Colleen Circle, representing the HOA of Country
Roads Estates, relayed concern regarding the potential of this proposed project
to egress into the Country Roads Estates Development, noting the negative
impacts this egress would have on the privately maintained roads.
Mr. Abraham Feltus, 42675 Calle Contento, noted concern regarding the traffic
generated from this project; queried how the property facing the County Roads
Estates would be developed, recommending that landscaping be installed to
screen the rear of the development; relayed that the equestrian trail could be
utilized as a multipurpose trial; requested that the developer be required to
construct larger parks due to the need in this area; recommended that there be
an easement placed along Pauba Road to the Country Road Estates
Development; and concurred with the recommendation to mow or hydroseed to
address the erosion control.
Mr. John Wayland, 33342 Pauba Road, noted that promises had been made
over the years regarding this project, specifically requesting that the recreational
and equestrian trails be designated as such; relayed concern regarding the traffic
from this development negatively impacting the portion of Pauba Road which
was privately-maintained; and noted the original proposal of the developer to
build large, well-articulated homes, requesting to be provided information
regarding any change in these plans.
Mr. Samuel Alhadeff, representing the owner of the property, noted that the
majority of the public comments were from residents of the County, addressing
challenges that exist in the City; in response to Mr. Ommert's and Mr. Wayland's
comments, specified that there was a trail designation; for Ms. Rosen, clarified
that there is no access from the streets of this particular project into the Country
Roads Estates; for Mr. Feltus, recommended that County residents address the
need for parks with the County; provided an overview of the timely process of
addressing the environmental issues on this site at a cost of approximately $2
million; relayed the rights of a property owner to develop their property;
commended Mr. Jaeger for his efforts in investigating this issue, noting that his
quarrels were with the system which was not the property owner's burden;
addressing Mr. Jaeger's comments, clarified that a view was not a health and
safety issue, that it is difficult to forecast the economic future, that the property
has signs posted addressing restrictions regarding off-roading, that the
conditions referenced will be complied with as a requirement of the project, and
that the ruts on the property could not be addressed due to the environmental
issues restricting the property owner from taking any action on the property; and
relayed the unique agreement with Fish&Wildlife Service.
R: Plan ComnVrnlnut es~50201 1 9
Ms. Mary Rauschenburg, owner of the property, noted that there were no plans
at this time to clear the site, but that there would be weed abatement conducted
in compliance with any notices given; relayed that there will be efforts to avoid
going through additional environmental issues, noting that the site will most likely
be mowed; via photographs, displayed the surrounding properties; advised that
along with signage restricting off-roading, there would be signage restricting all
trespassing (including horseback riding) due to the liability issues; and for
Commissioner Telesio's queries regarding Mr. Jaeger's comments, noted that
she had relayed that there was a possibility that the site will be cleared due to the
endangered species issue, and that prior to that time Mr. Jaeger would be
notified, clarifying that at this time there are no plans to clear the land.
Sympathizing with both parties in this matter, Commissioner Mathewson
highlighted the issues addressed by Mr. Jaeger, advising that the concerns
raised have been addressed in the conditions.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson, Commissioner Webster noted that
the concerns raised by Mr. Jaeger, which are valid issues, are associated with
enforcement of the existing CEQA, and Conditions of Approval which will control
the applicant's development of this project; advised that enforcement will rely on
the actions of the individual agencies; with respect to the other items addressed
by the other public speakers, noted that those issues do not apply to the
Planning Commission's action tonight; provided additional information regarding
AQMD, noting that if there was a problem with dust control, AQMD would be the
entity to voice these complaints to, via phone calls, relaying that the phone
number is 1-800-CUTSMOG; advised that the Regional Water Quality Control
Board out of San Diego would enforce the erosion control and storm water run-
off; concurred with Commissioner Mathewson's recommendation to deny the
appeal, noting that enforcement issues are not applicable to this time extension
of a vesting tract map.
Reiterating the limitations of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Telesio
relayed that he concurred with Mr. Jaeger's concerns, noting that sufficient
erosion control measures are not in place, or are not being enforced.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to close the public hearing; to adopt
Resolution No. 2001-013, denying the appeal, and upholding the Planning Director's
decision to approve the application for the 5th and final extension of Vested Tentative
Map No. 23143; and to adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application NO. 00-
0272 (Extension of Time). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
For Chairman Guerriero, Senior Planner Hazen updated the Planning
Commission regarding the Cosco use, noting that the sign installation began over
the weekend and would be completed in a day or so.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Planning Department would be
losing two planners noting that Associate Planner Thomas would be leaving on
May 11th, and that Associate Planner Anders last day would be June 1 s; and
advised that staff is recruiting for these positions at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:26 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular
meeting to be held on Wednesday~ May 16~ 2001 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske,
Director of Planning