Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout031903 PC Agenda In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,1 please contact the office of the City Clen~ (909)' 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable thel Cty to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibili~ to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102~35.104 ADA Title II] ~ AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE MARCH 19, 2003- 6:00 P.M. Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2003-013 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Chairman Chiniaeff Roll Call: Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no.~t on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted bY one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these Items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 19, 2003 R:\PLANCOMMV~.gendas~003~03-19-03.doc 1 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 3 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case'Update for February, 2003 COMMISSION BUSINESS 4 Conditional Use Permit Requirements for Businesses Sellin.q Alcoholic Bevem.qes, Dave Ho.qan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 File and Receive PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or In written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Continued from February 19, 2003 5 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0340 To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Jn association with a future retail commercial shoppinq center located on the southeast and southwest corners of Pechanqa Parkway and State Hi.qhway 79 South. Matthew Harris. Associate Planner 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: R:'~PLANCOM M~endas~003~,03-19-O3.doc 2 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. New Items 6 Plannin.q Application No. PA03-017 An application for a seasonal strawberry stan~ located at 40240 Winchester Road, Sid Pena, Plannin.q Tech RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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. 7 Planninq Application No. PA02-0426 To establish a si,qn pm.qram for Etco Plaza, a shoppinq center consistin.q of two buildinqs located at 27270 Madison Avenue, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Continue this item for Modification/Revisions 8 Plannin,q Application No. PA02-0689 An Extension of Time for Plannin,q Application No. PA00-0276 a Development Plan to desiqn and construct a 15,833 square foot office buildin.q on a .64-acre lot located at the southwest knuckle of Enterprise Cimle 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; R:~P LANCOMM~Agendas~2003~0~ 19-03.doc 3 8.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0689 (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. 9 Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0101 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 proiects requirin.q both e~ 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 chan.qes, Dave Ho.qan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- .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 REAl)OPTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NOS. 5 AND 6" (PLANNING APPLICATION 03-0109) COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: April 2, 2003 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 R:~ LANCO MM~Agendas~2003'~03-19-03.doc 4 JANUARY 29, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 29, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., o~ Wednesday, January 29, 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 Commissioner Guerriero. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriere, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Principal Planner Hazen, Senior Planner Naaseh, Associate Planner Papp, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 29, 2003. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of September 18, 2002. R:PlanComm/minutes/012903 I : MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 . and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planninq Application No. PA02-0667 An application to establish two (2) parcels for condominium purposes, beinq a subdivision of Parcel 8 and Parcel 14 of Parcel Map 30468; chanqinq the occupancy of 400 multi-family apartment units to owner- occupied condominiums located south of Hiqhway 79 South, nodh of Temecula Creek, east of Jedediah Smith Road, and west of Avenida De Missions, Emery Papp, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0667; and 3.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0667, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP APPLICATION TO ESTABLISH 'rvvo PARCELS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, BETVVEEN JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE MISSIONS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO, 961- 010-006. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Papp presented the project plan (of record), noting the desire of the applicant to change the occupancy of the 400 units of this project from renter-occupied to owner-occupied; and relayed that revisions to the conceptual grading plan resulted from Condition No. 8 (for the Development Plan for the Parcel Map), requiring the relocation of one of the buildings from the public trail. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4 Planning Application No. PA03-023 A Development Plan for a Substantial Conformance to Planninq Application 00-0213 for the Bel Villaqqio proiect that includes chanqes to the square footaqes and the elevations of buildings L, M, N, and O, chanqinq the location of Buildinq O, and chanqing the exterior material for the trim above the windows for existinq and future buildinqs located Southwest corner of Marqarita Road and North General Kearney Road (APN 921-09-71, 72, and 78), Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner I R:PtanComm/minutes/O 12903 2 RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Continue for redesign. Via overheads, Senior Planner Naaseh provided an overview of the proposal (per agenda material), noting the applicant's proposed changes to the approved elevations; relayed the proposed color change being implemented at staff's direction; and advised that staff was recommending that this item be continued for redesign due to the following reasons: 1) the elimination of the tower element on the Ethan Allen building, and 2) the trim element above the windows (approved to be a stone treatment) was proposed to be changed to a pre-cast concrete, advising that on the buildings which have been constructed the pre-cast concrete element has been installed. For Commissioner Telesio, Senior Planner Naaseh clarified that while it Would be difficult for the applicant to remove the existing trim treatment, it would not be impossible, advising that staff was recommending that the applicant replace the treatment with the stone element which was approved for this project; confirmed that it was staff's recommendation that the future constructed buildings be built with the originally approved materials; noted that currently the project was painted with the approved colors, advising that staff was recommending that an additional color be added on the back of the buildings along Margarita Road to provide relief (noting that the applicant was willing to paint the back of one of the buildings with the new paint and if the Planning Commission approved, would paint the remaining buildings.) In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Naaseh noted the differentials between what the applicant was proposing at this time and what was originally approved, clarifying that since the tower element was a major feature, it was staff's opinion that this item should not be eliminated; and confirmed that staff was not opposed to the proposed revisions regarding Buildings M and N. Ms. Vondana Kelkar, the applicant, relayed the hopes that the Planning Commission could approve the proposal for the Ethan Allen building; presented photographs, by way of overheads, of alternate Ethan Allen stores, in particular the corporate-type elements, i.e., the cornice treatments, the blue awnings, the pyramid glass skylights, and a square- shaped building; noted the efforts to obtain a commitment form Ethan Allen, ergo the request for the Planning Commission to approve these particular revisions; and specified the added tile treatments to Buildings M, N, and O. Mr. Mike Clements, 'representing the applicant, provided an overview of the discussions with the Ethan Allen representatives, noting the efforts over a three-month period of time to revise the original design plan; presented photographs depicting the original proposal and the current one which was more consistent with the approved project with the exception of the removal of the tower element; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the potential tenant opted not to implement the skylight element, advising that he would discuss with the potential tenant incorporating this feature back into the plan; for Commissioner Mathewson, noted that the prototype buildings varied with respect to whether they were stand-alone buildings or not, advising that the desire of the tenant was to establish an individual identity; and clarified that the potential tenant was strongly opposed to the implementation of tile treatments on their building. R:PlanCommJminutes/012903 3 Mr. Jeffrey Ostomel, Esq., representing the applicant, relayed that the applicant's negotiations were on hold at this time, noting the desire of the Ethan Allen representatives to obtain design approval prior to committing to being a tenant, clarifying the rationale for the applicant not desiring for this portion of the request to be continued, whereas the alternate issues, i.e., the wind~)w treatments, the paint application issues could be continued in order for the applicant to have the opportunity to work with staff. Noting that although she was not serving on the Commission at the time this project was originally approved, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that it was her understanding that · the Planning Commission was seeking a "Lifestyle Center," opining that this particular proposal was not consistent with a "Lifestyle Center" design due to the lack of veneer treatments; and noted that adding free-standing features would be visually pleasing. Commissioner Telesio commented on the balance between attracting high-end tenants while not reducing the proposed design quality of this center with the implementation of corporate treatments; relayed that it would be his desire to make efforts to obtain high end uses and still maintain the continuity of the center, opining that if that resulted in seeking a more amenable tenant he could support that. Concurring with Commissioner Telesio's comments, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that while he strongly desired to have Ethan Allen to opt to be a tenant in this center, the approved architectural style and theme should be represented, advising that he was opposed to a national chain coming in with a prototype requirement which significantly would change the design standards to suit their needs; suggested moving the tower element form Building L to Building N, that the entry feature on Building N be moved over to Building L; with respect to the cornice treatments on Building L, recommended that this treatment also be applied to Buildings M, and N; and clarified that if Ethan Allen would not be willing to make further modifications he could not support the proposal at this site. Reiterating the plethora of effort expended regarding the design of this particular center, Commissioner Guerriero relayed hopes that Ethan Allen would work with the applicant and staff to implement improvements, recommending that discussions continue with the Ethan Allen representatives. Noting that the original proposal for Ethan Allen included the skylight element, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that the applicant either incorporate this treatment back into the project plan, or that a hip roof element be added with a tile treatment. In response to Planning Commission query, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that this project had an existing approval, that the applicant could move forward with the existing entitlement, that the applicant was back before the Planning Commission requesting revisions, that at this time it was within the Planning Commission's discretion to approve an amendment to the project that the Commission determined met the applicant's intent as well as the City's goal, that the Planning Commission was not solely limited to taking action on the proposed revisions, that the Planning Commission could recommend alternate revisions, and that the applicant could either accept or reject the Planning Commission's decision and opt to move forward with the existing entitlement. Chairman Chiniaeff opined that the window treatments should reflect the approved stone material; with respect to the revisions to the south elevation of Building O, recommended R:PlanComm/rninutes/012903 4 that there be added articulation; and recommended that the applicant schedule additional meetings with Ethan Allen, apprising them of the Planning Commission's direction. Mr. Ostomel relayed that although the applicant would meet again with Ethan Allen to provide information regarding the Planning Commission's direction, that he was not optimistic with respect to the Ethan Allen representatives agreeing to implement additional revisions. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to continue this item to the February 5, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 5 Planninq Application No. PA02-0567 A request for a findinq of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a niqhtclub to include a type 48 liquor license, live music, dancin.q, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existinq buildinq located at 28822 Old Town Front Street and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921- 310-022, Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0567 (Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved). 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR A TYPE 48 LIQUOR LICENSE (ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES) FOR THE EDGE NIGHTCLUB LOCATED AT 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203 KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 922-093-003. 5.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/minutes/012903 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0567 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A NIGHTCLUB TO INCLUDE A TYPE 48 LIQUOR LICENSE (ON-SALE GENERAL-PUBLIC PREMISES), LIVE MUSIC, DANCING, AND OTHER ENTERTAINMENT USES IN AN EXISTING 4,860 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOCATED AT 28822 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET, UNIT NO. 203 KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 922-093- 003. Commissioner Olhasso advised that she would be abstaining with respect to this Item and left the dais at this time. By way of overhead census tract maps, Associate Planner Rush previded an overview of the proposal (per agenda material); noted staff's receipt of a letter written on January 24, 2003 by Helen and James Chichester, outlining their concerns regarding the proposal, which was received on January 28, 2003 and distributed to the Planning Commission as per supplemental agenda material; and specified the rationale for staffs recommendation to deny the request for a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for a type 48 liquor license, noting the following: · That currently there are 46 on-sale licenses within this census tract, whereas current data from ABC states that there should be three licenses permitted; · Staff could not make eight of the ten required findings for the PCN (as per agenda material); · The existence of two churches within the 500' radius of this site; and · The proposed parking does not meet the requirements for the Development Code. Commissioner Telesio advised that the fact there were 46 existing licenses could be misconstrued since most likely the majority of these licenses were for restaurants. In response to Planning Commission queries, Sergeant Rile relayed that currently the club was not licensed to sell alcohol; that there have been three or four arrests for possession of alcohol by minors outside of this club; that on New Year's Eve the club held an event where alcohol was served and ABC closed down the location based on violations that night; that whenever there was a night club selling alcohol, Police preblems would most likely be encountered; for Commissioner Guerriero, noted that t~ere were adjacent proximate businesses with children present; that he would be opposed to the club being open to minors while alcohol was being served; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, opined that a site more preximate to the restaurant area would be a more suitable location for a night club use. R:PlanComm/rnint~tes/012903 6 For clarification, Associate Planner Rush relayed that a type 48 liquor license does not allow minors (individuals below the age of 18 years) to be in the nightclub when alcohol was being served. Referencing the Development Code where it was stated that businesses that sell alcohol shall not be located within 500 feet of any religious institution, Commissioner Mathewson queried whether there were existing options for a waiver. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that there were no waiver options. Ms. Allison Hanna, the applicant, relayed the following: · That the club would solely be open to individuals 21 years of age, and older, with the exception of one night a week when there would be promotions for a younger crowd, i.e., 16 years of age and older; that there would be no alcohol served on those promotional nights; · That she had not been aware of any negative incidents occurring at the club as referenced by the Police Officer; ~ · Referencing the ABC Code, stated that if the use did not sell alcohol the use was permitted to open up; · That ABC did charge the use with illegally selling alcohol on New Year's Eve and the applicant was in the process of attempting to get those charges dismissed due to no wrongdoing being committed; that on New Year's Ever there was a charge for food and the individuals presented consisted primarily of friends; · That the use had six security guards at all times to patrol the parking lot; · That she had taken over the property in January of 2000; referencing a letter from the City (per supplemental agenda material), dated January of 2000, which stated that the CUP would be valid if a Certificate of Occupancy and a valid business license were obtained, relaying that it was her understanding that these were the only items needed; · That at this time they had invested approximately $800,000 in this project which was still not open with a license for alcohol sales; · That the three liquor licenses which were secured have been withdrawn by the owners of license due to not being able to close escrow because of being unable to get the final permits needed to open; · That it was still her desire to open as a night club; · That two years ago they scheduled a private birthday party for her husband wherein two deputies came to the site due to receiving a call that there was liquor being sold; that she had included a copy of the invitation in the supplemental material; that no liquor was sold; · That she has been forced to sell her home, lose her savings, as well as her husband's pension due to the financial impacts of not being able to open; R:PlanComm/rninutes/012903 7 · Queried the rationale for staff approving the previous CUP on the premises and declining this application; that when the first CUP was issued there were more alcohol licenses in existence at that time; that there was only one other night club in the area; · That for the Planning Commission's review, copies of the applications to ABC were provided; and · That when she took over the property it was her understanding that it would be three years from that date before the CUP expired; and that a week prior to opening she was notified that the CUP had expired without any notification. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the Code states that if a business closes, that three years from that date (which in this case was May of 1999) the CUP would expire. Principal Planner Hazen relayed that the business changing ownership would not impact the expiration date. Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that typically a CUP runs with the land. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Ms. Hanna confirmed that she took over the business in January of 2000; that while there were a few private events, the club was not open to the public at that time; and that the use was not operating as a nightclub until August of 2002. For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Curley confirmed that a CUP was premised on a specific land use or request for operation; and provided additional information regarding the general definition of a nightclub. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that catedng was a permitted use in this zone; and referenced the Code regarding conditions deeming the CUP abandoned. Continuing her presentation, Ms. Hanna relayed the following: · That the church uses have been approved recently, that when the property was taken over there were no existing churches, that due to the lack of notification regarding the most recently approved church, owners of the property were going to appeal this approval; · Provided additional information regarding her application for a CUP which she withdrew due to being told that a CUP was not needed; that she re-applied in October of 2002; · Commented on the type of establishment she and her husband have created; that she had no desire to open a teen club; that the project could not survive financially much longer without opening; that she recently signed a six-month contract with a promoter for national acts which would not be feasible without the sale of alcohol; and · That the City of Temecula needed a source for evening entertainment. R:PlanComm/minutes/012903 8 For Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that submission of a CUP application did not provide a claim of privilege but the date of approval, advising that the Code did not create any opportunity for locking in a right prior to that approval. In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Ms. Hanna confirmed that originally she had applied for a CUP in July of 2002; that she withdrew that application based on information from a manager they had who had stated that the use did not require a CUP; that when the club opened in August the club was receiving citations; and that she then reapplied for a CUP. Mr. Ronald Hanna, the applicant, provided a brief history of how he and his wife determined to open a nightclub; and advised that through the years of working to comply with regulations he had no knowledge that he would be denied approval for his request, as staff was recommending. While he had numerous comments regarding the proposal, Commissioner Telesio noted the Development Code impeded the request from approval due to its proximity to a religious institution. Concurring with Commissioner Telesio, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that this was an unfortunate circumstance. Commissioner Guerriero advised that while reviewing the documents the applicant provided, it appeared there were many misunderstandings; noted that based on the information in the material, it appeared that the applicant charged for liquor to be sold on New Year's Eve; and reiterated that due to the Development Code standards the Planning Commission could not approve this request. Relaying concurrence with the previous comments, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that a nightclub would be more appropriate as a freestanding use and in an alternate location. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's comments, Mr. Hanna provided additional information regarding the New Year's Eve event, noting that while their intentions were right, mistakes were made. Commissioner Telesio clarified that when the first religious institution received a CUP within the 500' radius of this site, the Development Code standards restricted an alcohol license from being permitted. Mr. Hanna queried why a church use would be approved when the applicant has been working for so long regarding this particular project; and requested guidance from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Mathewson reiterated that there were no waivers regarding the Development Code standards with respect to a religious institution being within 500' of the use. For informational purposes, Ms. Hanna relayed that the planner for the church use had relayed to her that the church had to sign a waiver due to the alcohol being served at the High Society use. R:PlanComm/minutes/012903 9 In response to Commissioner Telesio, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that while the City Council could not grant a waiver from the Code regarding this matter, it did have the power to change the Code. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, denying this application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who abstained. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS A. Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that per City Council direction the hotel project on Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue would be coming back to the Planning Commission. B. For Commissioner Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would question applicants as to whether it was their desire to get drawings, documentation, and site plans back after a meeting. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Update of Development Process) Principal Planner Hazen provided the Planning Commission an update of the revised Development Process, noting the following: · That a policy has been instituted requiring that appointments be made for the submission of applications; · That there was investigation in process regarding simplifying the applications, e.g., developing separate applications for each land use permit type; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that at this time there was solely one general application form for all application types; relayed that currently there was one fee, and that the fee schedule was being reevaluated Citywide; and that at a future Planning Commission meeting staff would bring forward to the Planning Commission draft forms of the separate applications; · That the tracking of projects was being improved via the City's existing computer network; · That at a future point in time the tracking of projects would be available on the City's website; and · That staff was investigating avenues to simplify the CEQA process by developing City standards to determine whether the exemptions could be expanded, as well as developing a standard CEQA Procedure Manual. R:PtanComm/rninutes1012903 10 ADJOURNMENT At 7:55 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re,qular meetin,q to be held on Wednesday, February 5, 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Debbie Ubnoske, Chairman Director of Planning R:PianComrn/minutes/012903 11 FEBRUARY 5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 5, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, February 5, 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 Commissioner Mathewson. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Battalion Chief McBdde, Fire Captain Neuman, Fire Safety Specialist Branaugh, Senior Planner Naaseh, Associate Planner Long, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I ARenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 5, 2003. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of October 2, 2002. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of October 16, 2002. R: PlanComm/minutes/020503 I 213 Approve the Minutes of October 29, 2002. 2.4 Approve the Minutes of October 30, 2002. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained from Item No. 2.1. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3 Planninq Application No. PA03-023 A Development Plan for a Substantial Conformance to Planninq Application No. PA00-0213 for the Bel Villaq.qio proiect that includes chan.qes to the square footaqes and the elevations of buildings L, M~ N, and O, chan.qing the location of Buildinq O, and changing the extedor material for the tdm above the windows for existinq and future buildin.qs located on the southwest comer of Mar.qarita Road and North General Keamey Road (APN 921-09-71, 72, and 78), Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Provide direction to staff Senior Planner Naaseh presented the staff report (of record), relaying the following: · That this item had been continued from the January 29, 2003 Planning Commission meeting due to the following reasons: 1) the proposed deletion of the tile from the tower element, as well as a reduction in the size of this element, and 2) the modification of the material for the window trim treatment from a stone veneer to painted concrete; · Noted the applicant's current proposal to restore the tile on the tower element, to simulate the stone veneer for the concrete treatment which appeared pleasing from a distance but not stone-like when in close proximity, relaying the applicant's request that the Planning Commission allow the concrete treatment which has already been installed to remain, agreeing to install the approved material on the future buildings if that was the desire of the Planning Commission; · With respect to staff's recommendation to add additional accent color to the back of the buildings, noted the applicant's willingness to add this treatment, relaying that Commissioner Guerriero had been appointed to determine whether the accent painting was acceptable and if it was not, the paint would go back to the odginal approved colors; and · Advised that the applicant has requested that if Ethan Allen determines not to be a tenant in the Bel Villaggio Center that the project design revert back to the original approved design. R: PtanComm/rninutes/020503 2 For Commissioner Olhasso, Senior Planner Naaseh specified the locations of the concrete window treatment; and for Commissioner Telesio, relayed that the request to revert back to the odginal design would encompass deleting the additional treatments added to suit the Ethan Allen tenant, e.g., the enlarged comices treatments. Mr. Jeffrey Ostomer, Esq., representing the applicant, recapped the revisions to the project, as follows: · Specified the modifications to Building O; · With respect to Buildings L, M, and N, noted that tile has been added to the tower element; · Reiterated the request of the applicant that if Ethan Allen opted not be a tenant, that the applicant would be able to eliminate the items installed for the Ethan Allen use; e;g., the enlarged cornices, the recessed lighting; the blue awnings, the raised landscaped planters, the ceramic tile, and the adjustment of the building footages and to revert back to the previous design with the exception of keeping the tower elements as redesigned; · With respect to the window trim element, advised that the approved material (stone) was modified (to a concrete material) primarily due to liability concerns, in particular the weight of the stone treatments; invited the Planning Commission to visit the site, noting that the faux treatment had the visual appearance of stone; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the archways were stone, and that the window trim treatments were the painted concrete treatment; advised that if the Planning Commission preferred the stone treatment it would be the applicant's desire that the installed treatments remain and the remainder of the buildings be constructed with the stone; noted that if the Planning Commission required the applicant to replace the existing concrete treatment with the stone it was the applicant's desire that a temporary Certificate of Occupancy be granted; and noted his desire to have on the record the applicant's request to be relieved of the requirement to install the stone treatment. With respect to the stone treatment, Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that the Planning Commission approved what the applicant had proposed. With respect to staff's recommendation to add cornices on Buildings M, and N, Mr. Ostomel relayed that it was the applicant's preference to not add this treatment in light of the enlarged cornices on Buildings L. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Ostomel relayed hopes that if Ethan Allen opted not to be a tenant in this center, that a new tenant would not request revisions, advising that it was possible that a new large use may desire to incorporate corporate design elements; and with respect to the liability issues associated with the installation of the stone treatment, confirmed that if the applicant was required to replace the faux window treatment with the stone material every effort would be made to anchor the stone properly. Commenting on the fact that this center was touted by the applicant as a high-end project, Commissioner Guerdero advised that stone lintels have been placed on buildings for over 200 years; noted that the painted concrete did not have the same R: PlanComm/minutes/020503 3 warm and textured appearance as the Stone; and with respect to the tower element, concurred with staff that the tile roof should not be eliminated and that the tower should not be reduced in size. Providing clarification, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that if Ethan Allen opted not to be a tenant in this center and the design reverted back, it would be his desire that it revert back to the original design and that the current design of the tower not be maintained; with respect to the stone treatment, advised that he was not inclined to support a modification regarding that element; with respect to the applicant's request for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy, noted that he could support the request as long as there were assurances that the work would be completed and that future phases of development would be rastdcted if the work was not done. Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson, Commissioner TelesiO relayed that it would be his desire to revert back to the original approved design if Ethan Allen opted not to be a tenant in this area; noted concern regarding the applicant implementing a faux · treatment which was not approved, and then requesting that it be retroactively changed, advising that he was opposed to the precedent this would set, noting the importance of approved materials being implemented. While desiring to work together regarding the implementations that the Ethan Allen use was requesting to be incorporated, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that the added tile was proposed was worse than the last proposal; reiterated that her recommendation had been to add additional stone veneer in place of the tower element; and advised that she was disappointed with the design, noting that it did not have "Lifestyle Center" features. With respect to the lintels, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the Building Official would not permit an installation to be installed which did not meet Code which would be helpful information for the insurance company, advising that it would be his recommendation that the Certificate of Occupancy in the next few buildings be held until the stone treatment was installed; advised that to have the larger cornice treatments on the Ethan Allen building and smaller treatments on the other buildings would maintain the appearance of the Ethan Allen use being set apart; concurred that if the building design reverted back to the odgina! design, that it should be the design with the approved tower element; and noted that he could accept the tile treatment. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Ostomel relayed that if the lentils were replaced on the existing building it would constitute the replacement of at least 20 treatments; and that the order time for the stone was 16-18 weeks, and the construction time would be approximately a week per building. Chairman Chiniaeff advised that the faux stone was more appropriately used in Industrial buildings, where it was viewed from a distance. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Ostomel relayed that the Ethan Allen representatives were coming to discuss being a tenant on February 18th. Reiterating her comments, Commissioner Olhasso advised that with respect to the design revisions, more was being lost than gained, recommending that if the Ethan Allen representatives did not approve of the tile treatment, that stone be added to the fa(;ade R: PlanComm/minutes/020503 4 to raise the level of design; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, specified that by "Lifestyle Center" she was referring to a high-end well-designed center, e.g., the Irvine Spectrum. For informational purposes, Commissioner Guerriero noted that he visited the site to view the concrete treatment, opining that if this was going to be a high-end project as was proposed, the design standards should not be reduced, by cutting comers; reiterated that the original tower element was vital and that without this treatment the center would have the appearance of a strip center;, and opined that the odginal tower element was much more pleasing than the revised design. For Commissioner Olhasso, Senior Planner Naaseh specified the rendering which represented the applicant's entitlement, which was the rendering without the second story faux windows. FAILED MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing, and to reject the revisions to the design plan and to revert back to the originally apprOved plan. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected a failed motion due to Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, and Mathewson voting no. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to close the public headng; and to approve the presented revised elevations if Ethan Allen opted to be a tenant at this location, subject to installing additional smaller (i.e., smaller than the treatments on the Ethan Allen building) cornice treatments on the remainder of the buildings in this padicular row, and that the stone lintel be installed on all buildings, as was originally approved, and that Certificate of Occupancy be withheld on future building (to be determined by staff) until the treatment replacement work had been completed; to approve the added paint accent color on the back of the buildings, as previously discussed; to allow the applicant to revert back to the odginal approved design if Ethan Allen opted not to be a tenant in this center; and to approve Resolution No. 2003-007 which staffwould draft to accurately represent the Planning Commission's direction. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 7.) Commissioner OIhasso queried whether Chairman Chiniaeff would desire to amend the motion and require that additional stone veneer be added where the rendering indicated a brick color application on Buildings L, M, and N, which would entail adding the treatment at the entries of Buildings M and N, and on the two sides of L (to the cornice.) Reopening the public hearing, Chairman Chiniaeff queried the applicant for input regarding Commissioner Olhasso's recommendation. The applicant's representative relayed that if these changes were made to these buildings, the additional treatment would need to be carried throughout the center to create consistency, additionally noting that the costs associated with adding this treatment would be significant, advising that the applicant would be opposed to the implementation. At the close of the applicant's representative's comments the public hearing was closed once again. R: PlanComm/minutes/020503 5 Assistant City AttOrney Curley advised that since the applicant had an existing entitlement, imposition of this added recommendation without the agreement of the applicant would most likely not address the matter. At this time voice vote was taken regarding the motion reflecting approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerdero and Olhasso who voted n_.g.o. 4 PlanninR Application No. PA02-0643 Desiqn and construction of a 55,809 square foot 99,room, 3-story hotel buildinq ona 2,41-acre Vacant parcel located on the east side of Jefferson Avenue approximately 230-feet nodh of Rancho California Road (APN 921-060-038), Dan Long, Assoc ate Panner RECOMMENDATION 4.1Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0643 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0643 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - HAMPTON INN SUITES) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A THREE STORY, 55,809 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL BUILDING ON A 2.41 ACRE VACANT PARCEL, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF JEFFERSON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 230-FEET NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-060-038. Via overheads, Associate Planner Long provided an overview of the proposed project (per agenda material), noting the following: · Highlighted the various changes in the proposal including the color scheme (noting the plan to incorporate a parchment-colored white paint on the trim to provide an accent) and the proposed roundabout-type turning area's conceptual design which would be located at the primary entrance of the site for provision of adequate space for the turning radius for the larger fire trucks; · That a condition should be added requiring the applicant to redesign the private street to the satisfaction of the Public Works, Fire, and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit, noting that the applicant has indicated that the property owner would not object to the redesign of the entrance and has received a verbal approval, advising that a condition should be added requiring the applicant to obtain written approval for this design; · that Condition Nos. 13 and 14 (regarding landscape) should be deleted since they Would no longer be necessary; R: P[anComm/minutes/020503 6 · Noted that the applicant has requested an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), relaying that staff was able to make the associated findings warranting the increase due to the proposed exceptional landscaping and amhitectural design, and that staff has prepared a spreadsheet (provided via supplemental agenda material) with all the existing and/or proposed hotels in the City with each respective FAR for the Planning Commission's review; and · That the Public Works Department has added an additional condition regarding the TUMF fee which would be applicable for this particular project if the building permit was not issued by a certain date. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Long noted that staff would recommend that the pamhment-colored white paint color be added to the outriggers and on the tdm on the arches; for Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that the tdm color would not be a pure white but a subtler white called "Pamhment;" for Commissioner Guerdero, noted that the applicant has indicated that the wrought-iron railings would be rounded; and confirmed that the air conditioning units were window-mounted. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the new hotel use at Disneyland had similar colors and did not add the white accent trim color, resulting in a visually pleasing appearance. For informational purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that this parcel was part of a parcel map approved for this whole site, advising that the driveways were located to provide access to the entire site, noting staff's opposition to allowing left- turn movements out of these driveways (with the exception of signalized exits) due to the heavy traffic on Jefferson Avenue; advised that this project was conditioned to build a raised median on Jefferson Avenue limiting movements to dght-in and right-outs; noted that an altemate option considered was to extend the driveway across the entire site to the Del Rio Road signal, advising that to implement this plan staff would need to work with the developer; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the bulb turning area would be temporary until the next approval on this site; confirmed that the owner has had a stockpile permit for this area; and noted that the road would not need to be modified to be brought out of the flood plain. Addressing Fire Department access, Battalion Chief McBride relayed that at the main entry there would need to be some shift of the roadway in order to accommodate the Fire Department ladder trucks' turning radius; and specified the fixed access point per the parcel map and the Public Works requirements, specifying the area in which the road would need to shift. For Chairman Chiniaeff, staff provided additional information regarding the private driveway, noting that access to the hotel use would most likely be provided via a reciprocal ingress and egress easement. Mr. Tim Sheid, representing the applicant, introduced the development team who was available for questions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Edc Jacobs, from Hilton Hotels Corporation, representing the applicant, for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that of the approximate 1400 Hilton Hotels which have been built across the nation, all of these have included the under the window-mounted R: PlanCom m/minutes/020503 7 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, specifying that the window was integrated with the units placed fully inside the guest reom. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that it was his understanding that the direction provided at a recent City Council meeting was that the Council was opposed to the window-mounted air conditioning units, concurring with Commissioner Guerfiero, that a balcony treatment would aid in screening the units. For Chairman Chiniaeff, the applicant's representative noted agreement to staff's recommendation to highlight the building with a parchment white-colored tdm. Mr. Wendel Potratz, project design manager representing the applicant, relayed that Hilton Hotels Corporation maintained a high standard with respect to the extedor appearance of the hotels, advising that most of the existing HVAC units existing in town, project beyond the wall face which creates a negative visual appearance; presented a photograph of a recent Hilton project, noting that the thin louvers were an integral part of the frame, and that at staff's recommendation a protruding faux balcony treatment has been added to every window with the exception of the ground level windows which would be screened with landscaping; for Commissioner Guerdero, noted that the balcony treatment was designed to protrude about six-to-eight inches and that the colonnade treatments would project out two-to-three feet, providing shadowing; provided additional information regarding access issues;.for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that the applicant has agreed to install a fountain, and that if the Planning Commission does not find a sewer-pipe fountain desirable, the applicant was willing to work with staff regarding alternate designs; and commended staff for their excellent work and amicable manner with respect to working with the applicant on this project. For informational purposes, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed for the applicant that he had reviewed the plant palette proposed and that a few of the proposed plantings would freeze in this climate, advising that he had provided a list of these particular plantings to Associate Planner Long. Mr. James Bree, property owner for this entire site, for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that he would not be opposed to installation of a temporary road. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that although she was not present at the recent City Council meeting when window-mounted HVAC units were discussed, that the City Council's concern was most likely the aesthetics issue, that if the project were conditioned to add a balcony treatment which would further screen the integrated units, the Council would most likely be agreeable, and that if the City Council was not pleased she would receive feedback from the Councilmembera. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Potratz noted that there would be one satellite dish with a circumference of approximately three feet in diameter, which would be located proximate to the trash enclosure, confirming that it would be screened with the exception of where it was pointed. With respect to the faux balcony treatments, Mr. Potratz relayed the liability issues related to guests mistaking the faux treatment for a functional balcony, noting that guests have accidentally climbed out the window thinking there was a balcony. R: PlanCommlminutes/020503 8 Additional discussion ensued regarding the City Council's direction regarding window- mounted HVAC units as well as regarding the findings qualifying a prOject for an increase in FAR. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Long relayed that there was no signage proposed along the freeway, that the applicant had opted to install a pylon sign along Jefferson Avenue, and that the Code only permitted one or the other signs. Chairman Chiniaeff recapitulated the issues at hand~ Le., the window-mounted HVAC units, the proposed FAR increase, and the added condition regarding the read issue. Regarding the request for an increase in FAR, Commissioner Guerfiero noted that the proposed landscape plan was eight percent (8%) above the requirements, recommending that the fountain be extremely enhanced which would aid in qualifying the project for the proposed FAR. Principal Planner Hazen provided additional information regarding the City Council's concem with respect to the previous hotel project and the suitability of the site, which was located on a different type of parcel. Chairman Chiniaeff noted that the Council also addressed the desire for central air conditioning units and exceptional architectural design. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to close the public hearing; and to approve the project subject to the following: Modify- That a condition be added requiring the applicant to redesign the private street to the satisfaction of the Public Works, Fire, and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit; · That a condition be added requiring that this project be subject to TUMF fees if building permits were not issued prior to July of 2004; · That a 24-foot wide all-weather surface be installed over to the Del Rio Road signal; · That the fountain design be extremely enhanced; · That Condition Nos. 13 and 14 (regarding landscaping) be deleted; and · That the faux balcony treatments be designed to bow out in lieu of bellying out. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS A. For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was in the process of working with the computer consultant to develop screens to input additional detailed Code Enforcement information, noting that this process was anticipated to take approximately two months. R: PlanComm/minutes/020503 9 B. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff would insert the updated Development Code information into a three-ringed binder for the Planning Commission. C. For Commissioner Guerriero, Principal Planner Hazen relayed that during the Design Guideline update the Planning Commission would be invited to a field tour in order to provide input as to which existing design elements were pleasing and which were not; and for Commissioner Olhasso, noted that when the City van was made more available staff would plan tours to visit alternate cities; D. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of I~lanning Ubnoske advised that Administrative Secretary Mclntyre would provide detailed information to the Planning Commission regarding the upcoming conference. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Status update of Development Process streamlinin.q report Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that at the February 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, staff would provide the Commission with the detailed staff report regarding the Development Review Process, which would be presented to the City Council on February 25th. Discussion of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) criteria Regarding FAR, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that staff would be considering changing the Development Code with respect to hotels as it relates to FAR, advising that the criteria which justifies the warranting of a FAR increase could either be modified short-term or modifications could be made when the consultant works with the Design Guidelines; for Commissioner Olhasso, noted the need to develop detailed definitions to address this issue as well as most likely including attached graphics; and invited the Planning Commission to e-mail either her or Principal Planner Hazen with any recommendations regarding this issue. ADJOURNMENT At 7:50 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday~ February 19~ 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Debbie Ubnoske, Chairman Director of Planning R: PtanComm/minutes/020503 10 FEBRUARY 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 19, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, February 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 Commissioner Olhasso. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Principal Planner Hazen, Associate Planner Harris, Associate Planner Rush, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR I Af:lenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 19, 2003. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of November 6, 2002. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of November 20, 2002. 2.3 Approve the Minutes of December 4, 2002. R: PlanComm,/minutes/021903 1 2.4 Approve the Minutes of January 15, 2003. 3 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for January, 2003 MOTION: Commissioner OIhasso moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson who abstained from Item No. 2.1 and Commissioner Olhasso who abstained from Item No. 2.2. COMMISSION BUSINESS Development Review Process it is noted that staff distributed a copy of the detailed updated Development Review Process to the Planning Commission, which was further addressed during the Director's Report. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4 Planning Application No. PA02-0272, PA02~0271, PA02-0273, and PA02-0274 A General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use desiqnation from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial, A Specific Plan Amendment for the Marqarita Villaqe Specific Plan to amend the land use desiqnation of Planninq Area 19 from Neiqhborhood Commercial to Community Commercial and to amend the text within the Specific Plan, A Development Plan for the desiqn, construction and operation of a 48,372 square foot ~lrocery store, a 13,217 square foot druq store, a 11,571 square foot shop buildinq, a 10,568 square foot shop buildinq, and a 9,603 square foot shop buildinq, A Conditional Use Permit to operate a drive throuqh at a 13,217 square foot dru.q store, and to permit the sale of alcohol at a 48,372 square foot qrocery store and a 13,217 square foot druq store, located on the south side of · Rancho California Road and east of Meadows Parkway, Rick Rush, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program based on the Initial Study, which was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0272, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0271, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE MARGARITA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO AMEND THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF PLANNING AREA 19 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE TEXT WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0273, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, A 11,571 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, A 10,568 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING AND A 9,603 SQUARE FOOT SHOP BUILDING, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. 4.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minut es/021903 3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02- 0274, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DRIVE THROUGH AT A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, AND TO PERMIT THE SALE OF ALCOHOL AT A 48,372 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE AND A 13,217 SQUARE FOOT DRUG STORE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND EAST OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-030-001. Commissioner Guerriero advised that he would be abstaining from this item, and left the dais at this time. Staff presented the proiect plan By way of overheads, Associate Planner Rush presented a brief overview of the project (of record); noted the revised table of permitted uses for this particular project (as per supplemental agenda material); highlighted the revisions to the site plan, as follows: the access point along Rancho California Road has been shifted further to the east, the drive-through element has been relocated to the south elevation with a single drive aisle, the drug store has decreased in size by more than 3,000 square feet, parking has been located directly adjacent to the drug store, the drug store entrance has been re-oriented, the drive aisle at the rear of the market has been eliminated, a fire turn-around point has been designated, and the truck circulation route has been revised with which staff was satisfied; and with respect to the Sav-On use, relayed that staff received a letter from Sav-On stating their need for the drive-through component. Addressing the queries of the Commission, Associate Planner Rush noted the following: · Confirmed that although the Planning Commission recommendation was to remove the drive-through component of the Sav-On use, it was the opinion of the Sav-On representatives that this element was a vital portion of their business; · Confirmed that staff was satisfied with the circulation reconfiguration; · Specified that the loading area would be screened with a combination of landscaping, berming, and a wall with a vined trellis; · Noted that the Sav-On representatives did not specify whether all the drive-through business would be lost without the drive-through or if it was anticipated that customers would walk into the store; · Confirmed that the drug store entrance was relocated to the southeast corner of the project from the northeast; · Confirmed that there would be landscaping on all four sides of the building; · Noted that the applicant did submit a revised noise study; · Relayed that with the mitigation the noise levels would not exceed the standards established, confirming that the noise impacts from the truck movements at the residences fails below the 65 ambient; R: PianComm/minutes/021903 4 · Specified that the air conditioning units noise levels would be mitigated via architectural elements and a parapet wall, and that the study took into consideration the screening of the units; · Confirmed that the trucks would be required to turn off their engines during delivery, advising that the mitigation measure could be revised to require a second stacked truck to also turn of its engine; · Confirmed that installation of a solid wall at the ridge point was not part of the mitigation; · Advised that if this site developed as a Neighborhood Commercial site, the overall Square footage could be the same or more, confirming that this particular proposal was under the overall target square footage for Neighborhood Commercial. Tl~e applicant provided an overview of the proiect Mr. Clement and Mr. Wolf, representatives of the applicant, presented the project proposal, noting the following: · That since the last Planning Commission hearing when this item was considered, the applicant has met with staff addressing all of the previous concerns; · Specified the truck travel circulation route, confirming, for Commissioner Telesio, that the market trucks would back into the loading dock; · Confirmed that the Sav-On representatives specified their need for the drive-through component due to the desire to provide the community service for the sick, handicapped and ill customers of being able to access the pharmacy via a pick-up window, advising that Sav-On strongly desired this component, confirming that if the drive-through was eliminated Sav-On would not proceed with efforts to be a tenant in the center; · That some of the reduced square footage at the drug store was added to Building D; · Noted the main street amenities, including the widening of the pedestrian areas; and the extension of enhanced architectural articulation at the front of the project; · By way of a sight line section rendering, specified the screening elements of the proposal; · Specified locations which would be appropriate for restaurant uses; · Via a computer program analysis, relayed that the truck path was feasible and would be adequate for the Fire Department trucks; · Provided additional information regarding the architectural enhancements on the front elevations, confirming that the signage on the renderings of the market correctly indicated the functions which would be in the building, confirming that Vons had approved the elevation and that if the project Was approved this particular proposal would be constructed; and · Relayed that the current plan with the Vons representatives was to move the manager from the existing Vons to the new store, noting the tremendous success of the current Vons. The public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project, as proposed: Mr. Bert Obregon 333 S. Grand Los Angeles/also a part time resident in Vintage Hills Mr. Paul Jacobs 32370 Corte Zamora Ms. Jenifer Alvarado 41528 Riesling Court R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 5 Ms. Pamela Stangl 31945 Camino Higuera Mr. Tony Harris 41629 Corte Higuera · Ms. Marie Jewett 41651 Cypress PointWay Ms. John Stangl 31945 Camino Higuera · Mr. Jodi Harris 41629 Corte Higuera · Ms. Petra Valasakos 41665 Corte Higuera The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to the proposal, due to the following reasons: o Opined that the traffic study was incomplete, outdated and inaccurate; o Opined that the noise study was incomplete due to being based on the inaccurate traffic study; o The mitigation measures do not address the traffic impacts; o It appeared that the Planning Commission determined to approve this project against staff's recommendation prior to the first hearing ever taking place; o The proceedings for this project have not been impadial; o The applicant has offered nothing to warrant a zoning upgrade; o Stated that the applicant misrepresented wrought-iron fencing behind the proximate residences as a sound barrier which the Planning Commission did not challenge; o A supermarket would generate additional traffic trips; o The General Plan does not state that residents should be located less than a mile from a grocery store; o The Planning Commission would most likely suffer an embarrassing rejection if it approved this project with the proposed oversized building due to the likelihood of the City Council overturning the Planning Commission's decision as had occurred recently regarding a hotel project with an oversized building; If the Planning Commission adhered to the General Plan, this particular proposal could not be approved; o Queried whether the portion of Rancho California Road in this area would be widened; o Queried whether there would be additional signals placed at residential tract entrances; o Opined that the residents of the City were not well-represented on the Planning Commission; Opposed to the proposed size of the market; o Appreciated the recent revisions implemented; o The view of the building from the adjacent residences; o The truck access route traversed through the main street portion of the project which was designed to be pedestrian-oriented; o Concurred with the Planning Commission's previous recommendation to eliminate the drive-through; o Queried the anticipated traffic volumes at the shopping center in comparison to the proximate Albertson's Shopping Center; Noted the importance of keeping the wine country free from commercial development; A Vons market would not serve as a good gateway to wine country; o Noise impacts; o Concern regarding the property not being well-maintained; o Queried the enforcement of the restricted store hours, and the construction hours; Signage, specifically regarding the big red letter lighted signage on the Vons use; R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 6 o Concern regarding truck stacking; Light impacts; o Relayed appreciation to the Planning Commission for serving on behalf of the community; o The wrought-iron fencing on the adjacent residences was not adequate for mitigating the noise and view impacts; o The proximity of the market to the residences; and o Noted that it appeared the Planning Commission was not interested in the public comments, failing to provide eye contact when comments were being expressed. For Mr. Obregon, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there would be ingress and egress off of Meadows Parkway. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Jacobs stated that a grocery store would generate more traffic than a Trader Joe's type of use. It is noted that Mr. Orbregon (a part-time resident in Temecula) submitted a written statement to staff outlining his concerns regarding the project. The applicant provides rebuttal In response to comments expressed, Mr. Clement, Mr. Kain, and Mr. Mercado, representatives of the applicant, relayed the following information: · This particular project would serve as a traffic mitigator; · The noise generated from the project was significantly lower than the existing noise impacts from the City streets; · The existing slope on the property was well-maintained, and that the applicant was open to residents communicating landscaping concerns, i.e., removal of fallen tree limbs; · That the project has been reduced by approximately 5,000 square feet verses what was addressed in the traffic study; · That the traffic study was conducted in 2001, with a forecast of seven percent (7%) yearly growth in forecasting future traffic, noting the conservative factors built into the study; · With respect to the access issue, relayed that the Rancho California Road access has been evaluated with no left turns out of the site, noting the assumed traffic movements which were taken into consideration; · With respect to the public comment whereas it was stated that most of the traffic for the center would be generated on weekends, that if this factor was realized that would become a fourth factor in conservatism in the analysis since the traffic study assumed activity occurring within the peak hours; · Confirmed, for Commissioner Mathewson, that a trip generation analysis was conducted in September of 2002; · For informational purposes, noted that the highest generating store in terms of traffic per thousand feet would be a 7-Eleven use standing alone, confirming that the smaller the size of the commercial building, the higher the trip generation rate per square foot, clarifying that dividing the buildings square footage into smaller uses would not reduce traffic; · Confirmed that when comparing Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial in overall square footage of the site, Neighborhood Commercial would R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 7 generate more traffic, confirming that this proposal included less overall square footage than was permitted in Neighborhood Commercial; · Acknowledged that there may be an indeterminable amount of U-turn movements initially in the residential areas, although this factor would not create a capacity concern or be a significant negative factor, relaying the more convenient routes available at signalized intersections; o In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that the growth factor figured into the traffic analysis was more than reasonable, advising that Senior Engineer Moghadam was comfortable with the assumptions utilized in the traffic study, and for Commissioners Mathewson and Telesio, confirmed that in overall square footage, Neighborhood Commercial produced more traffic than Community Commercial; · For Commissioner Olhasso, provided additional information regarding the line-of- sight of the project from the adjacent residences backyards, noting the proposed dense landscaping proximate to tt~e wrought-iron fencing, clarifying that there would be no activity at the back of the building; · Specified the remote relocated location of the screened trash enclosure areas, confirming that the trash enclosures could be roofed with ventilation; · Reiterated that the hours of store operation for Vons was from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and Sav-On from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.; · For Commissioner Telesio, specified that the traffic study demonstrated that the traffic eastbound on Rancho California Road was fairly insignificant, confirming that the marketing perspective was an approximate two-mile radius, that there would be approximately 30,000 residents within that radius, that the draw would come from half-way to each of the proximate markets, i.e., half-way to the Albertson's to the west, and the Ralph's to the north, and to the shopping centers to the south on Highway 79 (South), advising that typically grocery stores are traveled to as to the most convenient, closest market; o Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding staff's support of the left-in access at Rancho California Road, confirming that the Public Works Department has the option of ctosing this access point in the future, if it was determined necessary; · For clarification, noted that the Conditions of Approval prohibited any type of drive- through on this site other than the specific pharmacy pickup; · In response to Commissioner Olhasso, confirmed that the project was also prohibited from permitting a gas station; · For Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that the building was moved closer to the hill to gain additional pedestrian area, relaying that the applicant was agreeable to moving the building back; and clarified that with the moving of the building, the landscape buffering was significantly increased, while the building was only moved five or six feet. At 7:35 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:41 P.M. The Planninq Commission offered closinq comments For Chairman Chiniaeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske confirmed that the project did not exceed the permitted height under Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial; and advised that since this was part of a Specific Plan the Planning Commission could make reasonable recommendations in terms of the environment. R: PlanCornm/minutes/021903 8 Since the proposed maximum height was approximately 30 feet, which would be the height of a two-story home, an office building, and other uses, Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that rather than requiring that the height be reduced that the screening be required to be adequate, i.e., increase the density of the landscaping on the slope. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that typically projects were conditioned to be continuously maintained. With respect to the concern expressed regarding the height of the building, Commissioner Telesio relayed that the height was under what should have been expected since it was under the maximum height of the current zoning; and concurred with addressing the issue of sight and noise via increased landscaping or the installation of a wall. Referencing the noise study, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that the project was not required to mitigate with installation of a wall; concurred that increased landscaping would aid in screening the project, in particular recommending the installation of larger evergreen trees of a faster growing species, Commissioner Telesio recommending that the larger trees be placed at the top of the slope, Chairman Chiniaeff noting that various trees grow faster if installed at a smaller size. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that the City's Landscape Architect could provide recommendations. Discussion ensued regarding requiring the installation of a block wall. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the drive-through component of the Sav-On should be eliminated. Additional discussion ensued regarding the internal truck route traversing through the pedestrian area. Mr. Clement noted that 58-foot trailer trucks would be delivering to the Sav-On use, advising that Sav-On receives deliveries approximately twice per week, and Vons five times per week, Director of Planning Ubnoske relaying that the delivery times for the Sav-On use would be restricted to the hours from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Mercado relayed that the existing Vons generated a volume of approximately $30 million a year, which far exceeded the average, and that this proposed market would most likely capture some of the volume from the neighboring stores. Noting that he did not have the expedise regarding the marketing issues of this project, Commissioner Mathewson advised that his focus was determining whether this project made good planning sense from a variety of factors, opining that this was the charge of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Telesio reiterated that in the previous planning by the County, this site was planned for commercial to service the larger community to come, relaying that the potential impacts associated with a commercial project existed when the proximate residents purchased the property. In response to a few negative comments expressed regarding the Planning Commission during the public comment period, Commissioner OIhasso relayed that she served on ' R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 9 the Commission to serve the community which she loves; noted that she took under serious consideration the public comments expressed for every project, referencing the notes she takes during that period of the meeting; and advised that she was proud of the work of the Planning Commission and stood by the recommendations this body forwarded to the City Council. Chairman Chiniaeff opined that this was a logical site for this type of use; that the project would reduce traffic; that the proposed site plan appeared to be the most appropriate for the uses; that the truck traffic would be minimal; and that there should be added landscaping on the slope. With respect to the revised Schedule of Permitted Uses, the Planning Commission made the following revisions: · Recommended that the following uses be deleted as permitted uses; o Animal hospital/shelter o Antique restoration o Auditoriums and conference facilities o Automotive part- sales o Community care facilities o Congregate care housing for the elderly o Daycare center o Emergency shelter o Equipment safes and rentals o Garden supplies and equipment sales and serve o Hardware stores o Movie theaters o Musical and recording studio o Nurseries retail o Nursing homes/convalescent homes o Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 square feet o Parcel delivery services o Pest control services o Radio and broadcasting studios, offices o Recycling collection facilities o Sports and recreational facilities · Recommended that the following uses be modified: o Offices, professional services with less than 3,000 square feet, including, but not limited to business law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, Real Estate, insurance be permitted (Note: The modification being the allowable maximum square footage being revised to indicate 3,000 square feet.) o Restaurants to be permitted solely as a conditional permitted use and that lounges be prohibited. Director of Planning Ubnoske additionally advised that the footnotes (on page 5) on the Schedule of Permitted Uses would be modified to create consistency with the matrix modifications of the Planning Commission. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 10 For the public, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that drive-through uses were not permitted, Commissioner Telesio recommending that restaurants be permitted solely via a CUP which was added to the modifications (as noted in the above modifications) Additional discussion ensued regarding the requests for permits to sell alcohol, no opposition being expressed. MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation, subject to the following modifications: Modify- That the landscaping plan along the slope be modified and that the applicant be directed to work with staff to provide evergreen landscaping and a plan that was acceptable to the Planning Director as per the direction the Planning Commission provided in the minutes of the meeting; · That the Sav-On Drug Store be modified to exclude the drive-through component; and · That the Schedule of Permitted uses be modified as specified in the Planning Commission recommendations denoted on page 10 of the minutes, in the bulleted section. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of CommissiOner Guerriero who abstained. 5 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0340 To establish a Comprehensive Land Use Plan in association with a future retail commercial shopping center located on the southeast and southwest corners of Pechan.qa Parkway and State Highway 79 South, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Determination of Consistency exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0340 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 11 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 PARKVVAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 961-010-001,004 &005. By way of overhead maps, Associate Planner Harris presented the staff report (of record), highlighting the location of the site, the previously adopted Development Agreement (DA), the proposal to create guidelines and criteria in order for the future projects on site to be processed via an Administrative Development Plan, the 14 individuals sites on the parcel, the buildings' proposed frontage onto the driveway, the three access points, the two architectural styles, the architectural enhancements, the color schemes, the signage plan, the landscaping plans, the business association which would oversee the landscape maintenance on the parkways, slopes, entry statements and all common areas; noted the staff recommended added conditions, as follows: that the buildings be required to add either real or spandrel glass along the street elevations for visual interest, that the freestanding signs have architectural elements on all sides of the sign, requiring that street addresses be incorporated into each sign, and that the actual sign standards of the Development Code be incorporated into the comprehensive Land Use Plan; relayed that one of the conditions of the approved parcel map was that the parkways along Pechanga Parkway and Highway 79 (South) be installed prior to the occupancy of the first building on the property, advising that staff was also recommending that the major entry statements at the corners at Pechanga Parkway and Highway 79 (South) be installed at the time that either one of those property corners were developed and that the minor entry statements be installed on both sides of the driveway at such time as the first abutting lot is developed; and noted the requirement that the rear slope along the southern property perimeter be installed prior to occupancy of the 1St building permit. In response to Commissioner Olhasso and Telesio, Associate Planner Harris advised that there was no rendering for the major tenant, that the represented elements in the guidelines would be required to be incorporated on all the buildings regardless of size; and for Commissioner Olhasso, relayed that the individual projects would need to get approval via the Planning Department. For clarification, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that this proposal was undergirded by a DA, advising that the developed proposal was of derivative from the DA, and that the intended goal of this program was to streamline the projects as was done with the mall stores. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Harris confirmed that there would be CC&Rs for the property. R: PtanComm/rninutes/021903 12 Referencing Exhibit I and page 6 of the Design Guidelines, Commissioner Mathewson relayed that he would be opposed to metal canopies being installed over the pump islands, recommending that the language be strengthened with respect to the roof treatments for the service stations. Mr. Brook Morris, representing the applicant, provided an overview of the Design Guidelines and criteria, noting the goal to create a unique project style with visually pleasing features, relaying the two architectural styles, the alternatives in the color scheme, the colored renderings of each of the elevations of each type of building, the requirement for each building to incorporate the enhanced articulation elements (i.e., stone treatment, cornices element, tile materials) into each building, advising that the efforts with respect to the proposal was to ensure a good final product; for Commissioner Mathewson, relayed that the language which he referenced where metal roofing could be utilized could be deleted, advising that as the proposal evolved, the permitted materials have changed; for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that the project would be much less intense than was allowed with an approximate eighteen percent (18%) lot coverage in lieu of the approximate thirty percent (30%) permitted; noted the location of the 12' block wall in the vicinity of Pechanga Parkway/Highway 79 (South) which would aid in screening the project from the residents in this area, as well as the landscaping; confirmed that a gas station would be permitted on the east corner but not on the residential side of the project; and provided additional information regarding the right-of- way and rear slope landscaping, the signal installation, and the access points. For Commissioner Olhasso, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the median project was not part of the requirements for this project, noting the monies which would be used for that project; and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that at this point there were no partial medians planned as part of that particular median project. Commissioner Guerriero relayed a desire for a more dramatic monument/entry treatment (i.e., a water treatment) welcoming people to Temecula since there was no element as such in the southern part of town; and suggested that the City and the applicant jointly participate in creating a unique element at this location. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's comments regarding the monument treatment, Mr. Morris noted the maintenance issues associated with water tceatments, advising that he was open to recommendations. Commissioner Mathewson noted that an enhanced monument treatment would not need to be a water treatment, suggesting that this location would be an appropriate place for art in a public place. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Morris relayed that with respect to the landscaping there would be Master CC&Rs on the property, there were lien rights if the property was not maintained, advising that typically the manager installed all the landscaping (with the exception of the perimeter area adjacent to the buildings) and then the individuals were billed; and relayed that there would be master maintenance of all the parking lot, parkway, and slope landscaping. For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Morris relayed that the building setbacks would vary, Director of Planning Ubnoske advising that staff would investigate and add language to the Design Guidelines to restrict the development of one long linear structure along the street frontage in lieu of four or five buildings. Mr. Morris relayed that he would not be opposed to the restriction of the development of a 250' building on the street, but that he R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 13 could not agree to restricting the building length below 80' or 125' due to that being in the range of a buildable size. For Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Mords relayed that the building layout was such that the front of the buildings would face the internal driveway road, confirming that there would be glass treatments on the street elevations; and for Commissioner Guerriero, relayed that there would be seating areas, entries with trellis, and enhanced paving which could also be implemented into the seating areas, noting areas which would be appropriate for seating elements. in response to Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Morris noted that the photo depictions were included in the exhibits as examples since the applicant assumed that existing projects in Temecula would have elements pleasing to the Planning Commission since these projects were approved by the Commission, advising that the applicant would be willing to remove any photograph examples that the Planning Commission would recommend deleting; with respect to the "Wine Country" architectural style, relayed that this style was more rustic than the Mediterranean style with an antiquated appearance; and referencing Exhibit Fl, noted the stone treatments, the trellis elements, the raised border treatments, relaying that these particular detailed treatments tie into the "Wine Country" theme. Mr. Mark Broderick, 45501 Clubhouse Drive, spoke in opposition of the project, noting his concern regarding the dangers associated with the proposed access and egress points and the heavy traffic existing in this area; and suggested that the developer deed this property over to the City, a monument be constructed, and citizens' lives be saved. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. Morris relayed that the driveways have been approved in the traffic study, providing additional information regarding access to the site. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that these points were reviewed with Caltrans, noting that the City and the developer have been working with Caltrans, which has resulted in the right-in only driveway. Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the proposal, white noting his pleasure with the proposal for the buildings to face inward, relayed that the Design Guidelines were not specific enough to ensure unique high-end products. Commissioner Telesio noted that the materials denoted were adequate, but that the guidelines lacked the specificity to provide assurance regarding what the finished product would be. Commissioner Olhasso noted that she would not be comfortable until she had more details regarding the appearance of the major tenant. Commissioner Mathewson queried what changes the Planning Commission could affect in light of the existing DA. In response, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the Planning Commission had complete discretion regarding the Design Guidelines, confirming that per the DA, the individual projects would be reviewed at a staff level. Concurring with Commissioner OIhasso, Commissioner Mathewson relayed his discomfort with inclusion of some of the photograph exhibits, noting the inconsistencies when compared to the renderings. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 14 Director of Planning Ubnoske suggested deleting the photograph exhibits, and that in lieu of the photos there be actual architectural details, e.g., cornices, window, and railing treatments. Commissioner Mathewson recommended that the guidelines be more specific as to what encompassed a Mediterranean style. Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that different photographs of exemplary architecture could be included with specific denotations regarding which treatment was being represented (i.e., specific call-outs). Concurring with Chairman Chiniaeff, Commissioner Olhasso relayed that the applicant should not limit photographs to pictures of Temecula, the Planning Commission suggesting that the applicant visit cities such as Palm Desert, Newport, Carmel Mountain Ranch, Ranch Santa Fe, and Del Mar. Commissioner Olhasso advised that Temecula was continuing to raise the bar with respect to architectural expectations. Echoing Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the guidelines should address the mass of the large buildings, advising that while the Planning Commission would no longer accept an architectural plan similar to the Cosco building (neither the old building or the new one), that the new Kohl's building in the Redhawk area had architectural details on the back of the building which were pleasing. Recapitulating the Planning Commission comments for clarification, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed the following: the Planning Commission was recommending that additional language be added to the guidelines which would address breaking up the linear line of the buildings, that specificity be added regarding the Mediterranean style, that there be provision of a rendering of a typical seating area, that an elevation for a major tenant be provided, that the existing photographs be removed and be either replaced with new photographs, that there be call-outs regarding the specific treatment being represented in the photograph, or that actual architectural elements be added, and that the metal material be prohibited from being utilized for roofing, in particular on service stations; and clarified that the CUP projects within this parcel would be reviewed at a Director's Hearing, and not at the Planning Commission level. Chairman Chiniaeff echoed Commissioner Guerriero's previous comments, noting that since this site was a gateway project to Temecula that there be a pleasing monument treatment included in the proposal, and that the buffering standards be strengthened between the commercial and the residential area. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this matter to the March 19, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio. (Ultimately this motion passed; see page 16,) For clarification for the applicant, Commissioner Telesio relayed that if it was the applicant's understanding that existing development in the City of Temecula was the level of design the Planning Commission would approve, advised that the existing development was primarily approved by the County, that the bar had been raised with respect to design standards in the City of Temecula, and recommended that the applicant visit previously recommended cities in order to incorporate unique elements. R: PlanComm/minutes/021903 15 Referencing Exhibit El, Commissioner Mathewson noted that the photographs provided as Mediterranean Design features did not specify which features were being called out, recommending that there be additional Specificity. At this time voice vote was taken regarding the motion reflecting unanimous approval. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commending staff, Commissioner Olhasso applauded the architectural work completed on the KB Homes Project in Crowne Hill. B. Commissioner Guerriero relayed that the tree planters in the sidewalk area at the Cosco site had been cemented in. Director of Planning Ubnoske advised that staff would address this matter. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT A. Referencing the Development Review Process Report, which had been provided to the Planning Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske provided a general overview of the process, advising that the revised process was working well. ADJOURNMENT At 9:46 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next re.qular meetin.q to be held on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Debbie Ubnoske, Chairman Director of Planning R: PlanComrn/minutes/021903 16 ITEM #3 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning DATE: Mamh 19, 2003 SUBJECT: Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Director's Agenda items for February 2003 February 6, 2003 PA02-0511 The fifth and final one-year Extension of Yogesh Approved Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Goradia 25004 located north of Nicholas Road and east of Seraphina Road February 20, 2003 PA03-016 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate On Deck Inc. Approved an indoor baseball/softball training facility in an existing vacant 14,000 square foot light industrial building located at 42230 Zero Drive February 27, 2003 PA02-0625 A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate Integrity Auto Approved a used automobile showroom and brokerage located at 28730 Via Montezuma, Suite 104, Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2 p:XPLANN ING~DIRH EARXMEMO~2003XFebruary 2003.memo.doc p:kPLANN INGkD1RHEARWIEMOX2003Wcbruary 2003.memo.doc 2 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING February 6, 2003 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item no.__~t listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Item No. 1: Case No: Planning Application No. 02-0511 (Extension of Time) (Continued from January 30, 2003) Applicant: Yogesh Goradia Location: Northerly of Nicholas Road and east of Seraphina Road Proposal: The fifth and final one-year Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25004 EnvironmentalAction: Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted (Sec. 15162 - Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations). Case Planner: Rick Rush ACTION: APPROVED p:XPLANN1NGXDIRHEARXAgendasX2003\02q)6-03 ACTION AGENDA.doc ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING February 20, 2003 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item no._.~t listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakem. Item No. 1: Case No: PA03-0016 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Applicant: On Deck Inc. Location: Located at 42230 Zevo Drive Proposal: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate an indoor baseball/softball training facility in an existing vacant 14,000 square foot light industrial building Environmental Action: This project is exempt from CEQA review due to Class 1 Categorical Exemption 15301 (Existing Facilities) Case Planner: Rick Rush, Associate Planner ACTION: APPROVED P:~PLANNING'~DIRHEAR~Ageadas\2003\O2-204)3 ACTION AGENDA.dec ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING February 27, 2003 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Don Hazen, Principal Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Principal Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Principal Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a white "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Principal Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. Item No. 1: Case No: PA02-0625 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Applicant: Integrity Automotive, Art Bueno Location: 28730 Via Montezuma, Suite 104 Proposal: A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a used automobile showroom and brokerage located in Suite 104, 28730 Via Montezuma; Submitted by Integrity Automotive, Art Bueno. Environmental Action: Categorical Exemption per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) Case Planner: Dan Long, Associate Planner ACTION: APPROVED p:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR~Agendas~2003\02-27-03 ACTION AGENDA.doc ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITy OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 19, 2003 Conditional Use Permit Requirements~ for Businesses Selling Alcoholic Beverages Prepared By: David Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider this issue and provide direction to staff on any needed the changes to the Development Code relating to the regulation of businesses selling alcoholic beverages, BACKGROUND: Staff has identified the potential need to modify or clarify two aspects of the Development Code pertaining to the regulation of businesses selling alcoholic beverages. The first component is to clarify which businesses need a conditional use permit to operate. DISCUSSION: The Development Code currently requires that any business selling alcoholic beverages needs a conditional use permit (CUP). This is true whether the business is a grocery store, department store selling packages of specialty beer, a restaurant, or a liquor store. Staff . is concerned that the current code section may be written too broadly and that requiring a CUP for businesses that have little or no probability of problems or secondary impacts could be unnecessarily regulatory. In an effort to try to address the underlying issue, staff has identified ten basic categories of alcohol-selling businesses. These categories seem to represent the universe of alcohol selling establishments in the Temecula area. These business types have different potentials to create adverse impacts on the surrounding community. Examples of these businesses include bars, lounges, liquor stores, and convenience stores. Other businesses, such as department stores, grocery stores, and restaurants serving beer and wine generally cause few problems. Staff suggests that the Commission focus on these ten different business types in attempting to develop regulations to address community alcohol sales concerns. The ten general categories of alcohol selling businesses are as follows: · Bar/Lounge/Nightclub · Grocery Store · Convenience Store/Mini Mart · Specialty Market · Liquor Store · Wine Tasting · Service Station · Restaurant-with a full bar · Department or Discount Store · Restaurant - beer and wine only Staff has considered this matter and has a suggested an alternate delineation for when a conditional use permit is required. The table below shows this alternative approach and is intended solely to provide a starting point for the Commission's discussion on this matter. R:\Ordinances~Alcoholic Beverages 2002~Staff Report PCl.doc Badlounge/nightclub Liquor Store Convenience Store with the Yes sale of alcoholic beverages Service Station with the sale of alcoholic beverages Restaurant - with full bar Yes Department Store with the sale of alcoholic beverages Grocery Store with the sale of alcoholic beverages No wine Tasting and Sales Specialty or Discount Store with the sale of alcoholic beverages Restaurant - beer and wine No only i Based upon the Commission's direction, a development code amendment will be prepared to further clarify the City's conditional use permit criteria. R:\Ordinances~Alcoholic Beverages 2002\Staff Report PCl.doc 2 ITEM #5 CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Co~nmission FROM: Matthew Har~, Associate Planner DATE: March 19, 2003 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Rainbow Canyon Shopping Center (PA02- SUBJECT: 0340) The above referenced application establishes guidelines and criteria for a future retail/commercial shopping complex on a 14.3 acre site. The project site is located on the southeast and southwest corners of State Highway 79 South and Pechanga Boulevard. Since being continued to the March 19th meeting, the applicant has again requested that the item be continued to the April 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. The additional time will allow for · redesign of building architecture and details. R:',DESIGN GUIDELINES\lst Continuance Memo.doc 1 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING March 19, 2003 Planning Application PA 03-017 (Temporary Use Permit) Prepared by: Sid Pena, Planning Tech RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. .ADOPT a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-~ 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. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Gary M. Craig Bob & Gary's Field Fresh Berries 39610 Medina Ct. Murrieta, Ca 92562 PROPOSAL: An application for a seasonal strawberry stand LOCATION: Located at 40240 Winchester Road in Temecula, CA SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Neighborhood Commercial (NC) South: Very Low Density (VL) East: Low Medium (LM) West: PDO 3, Public Institutional {PI) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commemial (NC) EXISTING ZONING: Planning Area 9, Commercial "B" (Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:\T U P~OO3~Strawberry Stand, Staff Report\Staff Reporl AND COAs.doc 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Single-Family Residential East: Low Medium (LM) West: The Fountains Senior Apartments & Chapparal High School · BACKGROUND: Temporary Use Permit Application PA03-017 was submitted to the Planning Department on January 9, 2003. The project was denied on February 5, 2003, because all of the findings for approval could not be made and the applicant did not want to modify his plan. On February 19, 2003, the applicant filed an appeal of the Director's decision. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The application is an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application No. PA03-017, a Temporary Use Permit ('TU P) for a seasonal fruit stand located on southeast comer of Nicolas Road and Winchester Road. The fruit stand was planned to be open from February l~tto July 31st 2003. The hours of business would be from 9:00 am to dusk, 7 days a week. The applicant is proposing to locate a 16' x 13' mobile fruit stand on 1.12 acres of undeveloped property. Ten (10) parking spaces will be provided on site, with (1) handicap space. ANALYSIS The project does not meet the intent of the Development Code in that the applicant is proposing egress and ingress off of Winchester Road. In their memorandum dated February 27, 2003 (Attachment 5), Public Works indicated that public access off of Winchester Road would create a safety hazard. In addition, the existing dirt driveway to the site is not properly designed for public use and fails to meet Caltrans design standards. Access could be granted from Nicolas Road, but the applicant does not want to revise the plan. Staff was unable to make the required findings for approval and denied the application on February 5, 2003. On February 19, 2003, the applicant filed an appeal and requests that the Planning Commission overturn that decision. APPEAL The application for Appeal (Attachment 3) lists the following issues, which the appellant alleges was wrongly determined by staff: 1. Mr. Craig would like to have access off of Winchester Road for his fresh fruit stand. 2. Mr. Craig believes that since other businesses located on Winchester Road have access points from that street, his fruit stand should have access as well. FINDINGS In denying the application, staff was able to make the first two mandatory findings, but was unable to make the third finding. R:\T U P~003\Strawber~ Stand,Staff Report\Staff Report AND COAs.doc 2 Temporary Use Permit (Section 17.04.020.D) 1. The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the surrounding area. The Project is consistent with nature, character and the use of surrounding area. The proposed fruit stand is a retail use, which is consistent with Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan. 2. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The temporary use permit has been routed to all applicable agency and departments. The project will be conditioned and inspected by Riverside County Health department, Building and Safety and Fire for compliance with local codes and ordinance. 3. The nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Project is not consistent with the goals and policies within the Goal 3, section the General Plan, which requires that, the City, "Protect the health, safety of the public from encroachment by commercial uses". The applicant has not complled with the requirements that there shall not be any curb cuts allowed and access through Winchester Road all access should be made through Nicolas Road. Under no condition shall there be access through Winchester Road. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny PA03-017. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve the appeal, staff recommends that the project be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting in order to prepare the appropriate findings, resolutions and conditions of approval. However, please note that Winchester is a Caltrans highway and the Planning Commission can only recommend where a driveway should be located. The ultimate decision will lie with Caltrans to decide whether to approve or deny. ATTACHMENTS 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 2. Exhibits - Blue Page 7 A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan 3. Appeal Application - Blue Page 10 4. Approved Parcel Map - Blue Page 11 5. Public Works - memorandum dated, February 26,2003 - Blue Page 12 R:\T U P~003\Strawberry Stand,Staff Report\Staff Report AND COAs.doc 3 I ~.~:~,~,:....;-: ATTACHMENT.NO. 1 _ . ~ ~: L?-i PC:RESOLUtION NO. 2003- ~. rt ANDCOAs.doc ~' PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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 92-100-013. WHEREAS, Bob & Gary's Field Fresh Berries, filed Planning Application No. 03-017, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, Planning Application No. 03-017 was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and WHEREAS, the application is exempt from environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Administrative review of the application the Planning Director denied Planning Application No. 03-017 on February 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application PA03-017 was properly filed by Mr. Gary Craig on January 9, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the appeal, staff report, and the complete public record at a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the Planning Director's findings were consistent with the requirements of the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all other applicable state and local laws; and WHEREAS, the appeal application failed to adequately present a flair argument" and lacked sufficient evidence to overturn the Planning Director's decision; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findin,qs. The Planning Commission, in denying the appeal of the Planning Director's decision to deny Planning Application No. 03-017 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.04.020.D of the Temecula Municipal Code: TEMPORARY USE PERMIT (Section 17.04.020.D) 1. The proposed temporary use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the surrounding area. R:\T U P~003\Strawber~7 Stand¥Staff Reporf,,Staff Report AND COAs.doc 5 The project is consistent with nature, character and the use of surrounding area. The proposed fruit stand is a retail use, which is consistent with Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan. 2. The temporary use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The temporary use permit has been routed to all applicable agency and departments. The project will be conditioned and inspected by Riverside County Health department, Building and Safety and Fire for compliance with local codes and ordinance. 3. The nature of the proposed use is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The Project is not consistent with the goals and policies within the Goal 3, of the General Plan, which requires thatj the Cityj "Protect the health, safety of the public from encroachment by commercial uses': The applicant has not complied with the requirements that there shall not be any curb cuts allowed and access through Winchester Road all access should be made through Nicolas Road. Under no condition shall there be access Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of March 2003. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary {SEAL} STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby cedifythat PC Resolution No. 2003-. was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of March, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\T U P~003\Strawberr¥ Stand, Staff Report~Staff Report AND COAs.doc 6 A~R'ACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS . ,~ R:\T U P~003\StrawDerry Stan~Staff Report\Staff Report A~D COAs.doc / CiTY OF TEMECULA Project Site N CASE NO. - PA03-017 (Temporary Use Permit) EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP pLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 19, 2003 R:\T U P~2003\Sh'awberry Stand\Staff Report\Staff Report AND COAs.doc 8 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA03-017 (Temporary Use Permit) EXHIBIT- B SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 19, 2003 R:\T U P~2003\Strawberry Stand,Staff Report\Staff Report AND COAs.doc 9 AI'I'ACHMENT NO. 3 APPEAL APPEICATION ~"~ ~port AND COAs..doc ~, .- F of Temec City Commqnlty DeveloPment Department 43200 Business Park Drive · Temecula · CA · 92~90 P.O. Box 9033, Temecula * CA · 92~89~9033 (90~) 694-64OO · FAX (90~) 694-64~ Appeal A. PURPO~ The ~ of ¢~ ~ p~ b ~ p~de a ~ of ~ for ~ns a~ by or dis~sfi~ ~ ~ ~on ~ by ~ ~s~ve ~en~ of ~ Ci~ ~ ~ ~i~on or ~f~m~t of ~y p~ons of ~ ~ment C~. B. ~G R~~S 1. ~ment ~B:~. 2. A~ Fo~. 3. Filing F~. C. N~CE OF ~P~AL.- ~ L~ A nofi~ of ~ ~ by ~y ~d~ who is ~fiev~ by or ~s~fi~ ~ a d~sion ~de by ~ ~ ~ ~s ~h~f, or ~ ~y action, ord,, ~em~t, d~sion or de~afion ~ not ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (1~ ~ ~ys ~ ~ of ~n no~ of ~e d~i~on. D. ~O~ OF APPEL - CO~S Reason or justification to suppo~ the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue which the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every item of evidence. (Attach separate sheet of paper if necessary). Y Desired action to be taken: IIn the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant shall be allowed five (~) calendar days in which to refilc the notice of appeal. ATTACHMENT NO. 4 APPROVE~ PARCEL MAP ~.~ ATrACHMENT NO 5 --~ oRKSzMEMORANDUM " ~.: ..-PUBLIC W '- ~ FEBRUARY 27, 2003 ~" ,Silverio Pen---~- winchester Rd Driye~Y~'ruPid~ ....................... ?age The driveway located on Winchester Road is unsafe for the following reasons: 1. The driveway located on Winchester Road serves as a maintenance access road to Santa Gertmdis Creek. Driveways intended for maintenance vehicles are usually cordoned off and are not designed for public access. 2. Per the Caltrans Highway Design Manual Topic 205 - Road Connections and Driveways, driveways intended for public use from a state highway should be designed with curve radii (see attached). The curve radii are designed to allow vehicles to make a safer mm into a driveway. Currently, there is 47,489 ADT on Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This is a substantial amount of traffic. The speed limit is at least 55 MPH. With such a high traffic volume and speed limit, a driveway approach with curve radii would be required for any type of development fronting a major thoroughfare. 3. The dirt driveway located on the property is unsafe because vehicles must make a u- turn upon entering the driveway making it difficult for vehicles to enter and exit simultaneously. The u-turn is necessary because there is about a 3-foot drop in elevation, which prevents vehicles from entering straight through. R:XJ1MENEZC'x0 3XMemo$\Winch est er Rd Driveway.TUP.doc ITEM g7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 19, 2003 Planning Application No. PA02-0426 (Sign Program) Prepared By: Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this item for modification/revisions. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Etco Investments LLC PROPOSAL: To establish a sign program for Etco Plaza, a shopping center consisting of two buildings. LOCATION: 27270 Madison Avenue EXISTING ZONING: Service Commemial (SC) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Service Commemial (SC) South: Service Commemial (SC) East: Service Commemial (SC) West: Service Commercial (SC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Service Commercial (SC) EXISTING LAND USE: Building Under Construction SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Commercial South: Commercial East: Interstate 15 West: Vacant BACKGROUND On September 15, 2001, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan (PA00-0448) allowing the development of two 35,400 square foot, three-story commemial/office buildings on two separate abutting parcels. In accordance with Code Section 17.28.020(A), Condition of Approval No. 33 requires that the applicant submit a comprehensive sign program for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the buildings. Development Code Section 17.28.080 specifies that the purpose of a sign program is to ensure that all proposed signs on-site are in harmony with other on-site signs, buildings and surrounding developments. This harmony is achieved through the evaluation of sign design elements including R:XD PX2000~00q)448 Etco\Sign Program Staff Report.doc materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type and shape in relation to the buildings and development they identify. The Development Code also specifies that the sign program shall comply with all adopted sign standards. However, flexibility is allowed with regard to sign area, number, location and height if the proposed sign program enhances the development and more fully accomplishes the objectives of the adopted sign standards. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Building Architecture The two approved three-story buildings will be constructed of tilt-up concrete with matching amhitectural design. The buildings will appear adjoined by way of a central exterior courtyard, waterscape and decorative column features. Numerous diamond shaped etchings will be scored into the concrete walls and painted to provide the appearance of further relief. Extedor balconies will be provided on some elevations. The two building base colors will consist of off white and light tan. Three accent colors will be utilized to highlight windows, balconies, roof cornices and diamond shaped etchings including dark tan, clay and raw umber. A patina green corrugated metal mol is proposed along with light bronze window glazing and anodized aluminum window frames. Sign Program Freestandinq Siqns The applicant's sign program proposes two sixty-four square foot freestanding monument signs (see Exhibit G of sign program) to be located along the Madison Avenue frontage. The signs will have three sign panels on each side along with a decorative cornice cap and base. The sign cabinets will be internally illuminated with muted letters backed with white acrylic. Only the copy will be illuminated, not the overall face. The cornice cap and base of the sign will be fabricated from aluminum. A variety of paint colors will be utilized on the sign structure that match the building paint colors. No freestanding freeway-oriented signs are proposed in association with this sign program. Wall Mounted Siqns The applicant proposes a maximum of one 87.5 square foot "primary tenant" sign per building elevation (see Exhibit D of sign program). Furthermore, a maximum of four "primary tenant" signs will be permitted per building. A variety of location options are proposed (see Exhibits A, B & C of the sign program) including two on the east and west building elevations and one on the north and south building elevations. The signs will be constructed using individual reverse-pan aluminum channel letters with a Futura Heavy BT font. Internal white neon halo illumination will be utilized. The color of letter faces will be "Bark Mulch" (clay) which matches one of the building accent colors. A maximum of four, 30 square foot "secondary tenant" signs are also proposed per building elevation (see Exhibit E of sign program). Moreover, a maximum of eight "secondary tenant" signs will be allowed per building. A variety of location options are proposed (see exhibits A, B & C of the sign program) including four on the east and west building elevations, three on the south elevation of Building 1, two on the south elevation of Building 2, two on the north elevation of Building 1 and three on the north elevation of Building 2. The signs will be constructed using individual reverse-pan aluminum channel letters with a Futura Heavy BT font. Internal white halo illumination will be utilized. The color of letter faces will be "Loggia" (off white) which matches one of the building wall face colors. ANALYSIS Staff has evaluated the proposed sign program with the applicable sign standards of the Development Code. it has been determined that the applicant proposes to deviate from several of these sign standards. The following matrixes compare the specific applicable sign standards of the Development Code with the applicant's corresponding sign program. Issues in bold represent standards in which a deviation is proposed by the applicant. Non-bolded issues represent standards in which both the City and applicant are consistent. It should be noted that staff has not recommended that any adopted sign standard be reduced below the existing standard. Freestanding Multi-Tenant Identification Signs Issue Development Code Sign Standard Applicant's Proposed Sign Standard Number of signs One sign per 300 lineal feet of street Two signs per 458 lineal feet frontage per shopping center of street frontage Maximum sign Twelve foot maximum Eight foot maximum structure height Maximum sign area One-hundred square foot maximum Sixty-foursquare foot maximum per sign Maximum number Two maximum One maximum of signs per panel Minimum sign Ten inches Sixteen inches panel height Minimum letter size Five inches Twelve inches Sign location At least 5 feet from right-of-way or property Same line or 17 feet from face of curb whichever is less Maximum number Two Two of sides on sign Architectural Required at top, base and sides of signs Only provided at top and elements base Landscaping 200 square foot landscape area around Same perimeter of sign Address Freestanding signs shall include An address is provided on address ranges for businesses on site side of sign Sign Width Eight foot maximum Exceeds nine feet R:',D PX2000\00-0448 Etco\Sign Program Staff Report.doc 3 Wall Mounted Signs for Building with Three Stories or more in Commercial Districts Primary Tenant Signs Issue Development Code Sign Standard Applicant's Proposed Sign Standard Maximum number Two Four of signs per building Maximum sign area 175 square feet 87,5 square feet per elevation Maximum letter 2 foot -10 inches 2 foot if single line sign, 1 foot-8 height inches if double line sign Maximum symbol 4 foot - 6 inches 4 foot height Copy of sign Same copy for two allowed signs Same copy for two signs Number of lines of Single line Single or double line copy Illumination Allowed Proposed Maximum sign 60 percent 85 percent copy height to sign placement area height Maximum sign 80 pement 80 percent copy width to sign placement area width Sign location No part of sign can be located within No such requirements extreme left or right ten percent of width of sign placement area R:KD P~OOOXO0 0448 Etco\Sign Program Staff Report.dec 4 Secondary Tenant Signs Issue Development Code Sign Standard Applicant's Proposed Sign Standard Maximum number Four Eight of signs per building Maximum number Two , Four of signs per elevation Maximum sign 30 square feet maximum 120 square feet maximum area per elevation Maximum letter 10 inches 18 inches height Maximum symbol 16 inches 24 inches height Location of Located below the second floor Located below the second floor secondary tenant signs Retail shops with Maximum of one sign per building Standards not addressed in exterior doors on frontage. Maximum of one square foot sign program ground level of of sign area per lineal foot of business office building frontage Total Freestanding & Wall Mounted Signs Issue Development Coda Sign Applicant's Proposed Sign Standard Standard Maximum number of signs Four, including all No standard proposed per business freestanding and wall mounted signs onsite Staff believes the strict application of the existing applicable Development Code sign standards will serve to ensure that the quality of the building amhitecture is not diminished due to excessive signage. Therefore, staff recommends the sign program be revised whereby all the above non- conforming sign regulations are modified to comply with all existing applicable sign standards within the Development Code. In addition to the strict application of the Development Code standards, staff also recommends that all wall mounted signage be limited to the east and west elevations of both buildings. Staff believes the east and west building elevations provide more than adequate sign location options so as to be visible from both Madison Avenue and Interstate 15. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Staff has determined that the proposed sign program for the Etco Plaza development does not comply with all applicable sign standards identified in the Development Code. Moreover, staff does not believe the proposed sign standard deviations serve to more fully enhance the development nor do they more fully accomplish the adopted sign standards. Subsequently, staff does not believe the required findings for sign program approval can be made, and therefore, recommends that the sign program be continued to allow for modification and revisions. Attachments 1. Proposed Sign Program Document - Blue Page 7 2. Exhibits - Blue Page 8 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map R:~D PX2000X00-0448 Etco\Sign Program Staff Report.doc 6 CITY OF TEMECULA PROJECT SITE CASE NO. - PA02-0587 EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 19, 2003 R:\D P~2000\00-0448 Etco\Sign Program Staff Report.doc CITY OF TEMECULA ooo oo ':>00000000 ::)0000000< PO00000 EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION -(SC) Service Commercial PROJECT SITE · .. .' . .' · _' ... ... ... .-. .'..'..' .....-...: EXHIBIT C - ZONING DESIGNATION - ~ Service Commercial CASE NO. - PA02-0587 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 19, 2003 R:~D P~000~00-0448 Etco\Sign Program Staff ReporLdoc d n~ ~' 0 Z m ITEM #8 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 19, 2003 Planning Application No. 02-0689 (Extension of Time) Prepared By: Rick Rush, Associate Planner 1. ADOPT a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0689 pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 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- 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. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Keeton Trust PROPOSAL: An Extension of Time for Planning Application No. 00-0276 a Development Plan to design and construct a 15,883 square foot office building on a .64-acre lot. LOCATION: At the southwest knuckle of Enterprise Circle North [the empty building pad north of 41582 Enterprise Circle North (APN 909-282-013)]. EXISTING ZONING: Business Park (BP) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: BP (Business Park) South: SC (Service Commercial) East: CC (Community Commercial) West: BP (Business Park) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant · R:~E 0 TL2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Industrial businesses South: Bank building East: Office building West: Industrial businesses BACKGROUND The Planning Commission approved Planning Application 00-0276 on December 20, 2000. The expiration of this approval was December 20, 2002. Prior to the expiration, the applicant applied for an extension of time. This first time extension request was submitted to the Planning Department on December 18, 2002. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing a two story, 15,883 square foot office building referred to as the Keeton Building on a .64 acre site. Shared points of ingress and egress to the streets are at the northwest and southeast corners of the site providing access to this site and the bank to the south. Parking is provided adjacent to the building and a single row of parking is provided in front of the building parallel to the western entry drive aisle. As calculated by the City's parking standards for office use there should be 39 parking spaces provided on the site. As designed, the applicant is proposing 34 parking stalls. As a part of the original Planning Commission Approval, the applicant requested and was granted a minor exception for the required parking requirements. Additionally, the applicant was granted a FAR increase and a Minor Exception for a reduction of a building setback. The total square footage of this building, based on the outside dimensions, puts the floor area ratio (FAR) at .57 while the Development Code has a target ratio set at .40 FAR. The Development Code requires a 10 foot building set back from the street under the Business Park zoning. A minor exception allows for a 15% reduction that permits a setback of 8 1/2 feet and the applicant proposed 9 feet. The building's encroachment into the setback involves architectural relief features and the second floor overhang. ANALYSIS The project as proposed complies with the City's Development Code and the findings for a Development Plan. However, during review of the time extension request, the Planning Department and Community Services Department have requested adding or amending certain Conditions of Approval to reflect changes in current activities and/or codes. The Planning Department requests that Condition of Approval No. 4.d. be added requiring that all onsite compact parking spaces be converted to standard size spaces. The Development Code was amended to prohibit compact parking spaces in October of 2001. In addition, staff requests that Condition of Approval No. 11 be added requiring that the site address be painted on the roof of office buildings. Staff also requests that Condition of Approval No. 18 be amended to require that landscape construction drawings be both reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. These conditions have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Community Services Department, which did not have any conditions of approval in association with the original project approval, is now requesting that Condition Nos. 70-73 be required. The conditions are related to maintenance of landscaping, street light maintenance and using the City's franchise waste hauler. R:~E O ~[~2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is exempt from environmental review based on Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects) of the California Environmental Quality Act and there are no potentially significanf environmental constraints on the site. The project qualifies for an infill development exemption because the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning regulations; is located on a site within the city limits, which is served by all utilities; and is less than 5 acres in area. CONCLIJSlON/RECOMMEN DATION The project, as conditioned, is consistent with ail applicable City ordinances, standards, guidelines, and Policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of design and quality, and staff recommends approval of the time extension as originally conditioned along with noted modifications/additions. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F) 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposal, an office building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Business Park (BP) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable forthe type and density of office/commercial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt~ Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. R:~E O Tx2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc 3 Attachments 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 2. Exhibits - Blue Page 19 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map R:kE O qX2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust~Staff Report.doc 4 ATFACHMENT NO. 1 ~PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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. WHEREAS, Keeton Construction, filed Planning Application No. 02-0689 (Extension of Time Application), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on March 19, 2003,"at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010F of the Temecula Municipal Code: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. The proposal, an office building, is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the Business Park (BP) land use standards in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards for Business Park (BP) contained in the City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable forthe type and density of office/commemial development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions, and fire and building codes. RSE O T~2002\02-0689 Keeton TrustXStaff Report. doc 6 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety of those working in and around the site; The project has been reviewed for, and as conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Section3. Environmental Compliance. The project will have no significant environmental impacts and has been found to be categorically exempt, Pursuant to Section 15332 class 32 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves Planning Application No. 02-0689 (The first Extension of Time for a Development Plan) to design, construct and operate a 15,883 square foot office building on a .64 acre lot located at the southwest knuckle of Enterprise Circle North, and known as Assessor Parcel No's. 909-282-013 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of March 2003. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19'h day of March, 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\E O Tx2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 02-0689 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 15,883 square foot office building on a .64-acre lot, located at the southwes~ knuckle of Enterprise Circle North. DIF. Category: Office Assessor Parcel No.: 909-282-013 Approval Date: March 19, 2003 Expiration Date: December 20, 2003 (retroactive) PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 1. The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department- Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty- Four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements 2. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monet,ary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harm Jess the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. R:LE O Tx2002\02~0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc 9 3. This approval shall be used by the Expiration Date noted above; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. 4. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that they arc not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans, for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. c. If the limited landscape area between the right-of-way and the building make screening difficult or ineffective the Director of Planning may request more stringent screening methods such as screen/retaining walls and/or undergrounding of the utility/mechanical equipment. d. All compact size off-street parking spaces shall be converted to standard size parking spaces. (Added at March 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting) 5. Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and dirccted so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. Those lights shown on the elevation plan as '~pical exterior building lighting" shall be a decorative type complimentary to the building. Details of these lights shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review prior to installation. 6. All parking lot lights and other exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. 7. Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. All mechanical and roof-mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. 8. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Additionally, the following criteria must be met prior to development of the project: a. All trees installed on this site shall be 24-inch box size. (Added at Planning Commission Hearing 12/20/00) R:XF~ O T~2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc 9. The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. 10. The long expanse of the raised center portion of the second floor running the depths of the building shall be finished with same gazing system used on the exterior of the building. Material Color Windows, doors Aluminum frames with dark blue glazing Cornices La Harbra Stucco, Aspen X-23 Stucco first floor projections La Harbra Stucco, Aspen X-23 Base and column accent veneer Red Sand Stone (Morning Glory, Sandstone) 11. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The addresses(s) shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. (Added at Mamh 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting) Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 12. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that Will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and retum one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 14. An application for a lot merger shall be submitted for the parcels involved with this project. 15. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E & F", (Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plan, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final Conditions of Approval and submit five (5) full size copies. 16. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E', the colored amhitectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 17. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department - Planning Division. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H1" and "H2," or as amended by these R:~E O ~2002\02~0689 Keeton Trast\Staff Report.doc conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: (Amended at Mamh 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting) a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code 0Nater Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 19. The applicant or owner of this project shall submit a use and parking ratio synopsis, for any proposed tenant(s), for staff's review and approval to ensure that the proposed tenant use of the building is compliant with the use and parking ratios approved by the Planning Commission. (Added at Planning Commission Hearing 12/20/00) Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 20. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 21. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. 22. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in are and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off- street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000." In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 23. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. R:~E O T~2002\02-06~9 Keeton Trust\Staff Report doc 12 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Unless otherWise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 24. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 25. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 26. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 27. A G rading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary .. erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and pdvate property. 28. The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 29. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 30. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 31. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District c. Planning Department d. Department of Public Works 32. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. R:kE O TO.002\02-0689 Keeton Trust'xStaff Report.doc 33. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 34. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 35. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct by either cashier's check or money order, pdor to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 36. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. c. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 37. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 38. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 40. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 41. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:~E O T~2002\02-0689 Keelon Trust\Staff Report.doc BUILDING DEPARTMENT 42. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Fire Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecuta Municipal Code. 43. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan showing compliance with Palomar Lighting Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All streetlights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 44. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 45. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to commencement of any construction or inspections. 46. Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the buildings is required. The path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope, travel slope, stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,1998). Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility 47. All buildings shall comply with the applicable provisions of the California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998. 48. Provide the proper number of disabled parking spaces located as close as possible to the main entries in accordance with California building Code Table 11B-6. Provide a site plan as requested above which indicates compliance with this. 49. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans and structural calculations submitted for plan review. 50. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review. 51. Provide house-electrical metem at each building for the purpose of providing power for fire alarm systems and exterior lighting. 52. Schematic plumbing plans, electrical plan and load calculations, along with mechanical equipment and ducting plans shall be submitted for plan review stamped and original signed by an appropriate registered professional. 53. Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan review. 54. ' Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrant to the project that indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. R:XE O T~2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc 15 Monday-Friday: 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday: 7:00 a.m.- 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays 55. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 56. Restroom fixtures, number and type shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 29. 57. Provide an approved precise grading plan for plan check submittal for checking of site disabled accessibility. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 58. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 59. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix Ill,A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 GPM for a total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the appreval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 60. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 61. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902) 62. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) R:~E O '1~2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc 16 63. The gradient for a fire apparatus' access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14) 64. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to theFire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be signed by a ragistbred civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fi re Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) 65. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 66. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) 67. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) 68. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) 69. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. (CFC 902.4) 70. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Conditions 71. The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as, regular s.olid waste containers. (Added at Mamh 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting) RSE O Tx2002\02-0689 Keeton Trast\Staff Report.doc 72. All parkways, landscaping, on site lighting and fencing shall be maintained by the proPerty owner or maintenance association. (Added at Mamh 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting) 73. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. (Added at Mamh 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting) Prior to Building Permit 74. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. (Added at March 19, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting) OTHER AGENCIES 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 28, 2000, a copy of which is attached. 76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 1,2000, a copy of which is attached. 77. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control's transmittal dated August 4, 2000, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Date Name printed R:'tE O Tx2002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc ~8 ~ July 28, 2000 Thomas Thomsley, Case Planner City of Temecula Douglas V. Kulb~.,rg43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 sr.,-~,? ~.,~,~= Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Li~ ~..,.,=, SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY ,'~,,h~ ~'. Ko PORTION OF PARCEL 26 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19582-2 st,,,, ,~ :, ,.*.,,... APN 909-282-013 .leffrtiv . .Mink er PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-276 · ~0~. ~'..~..mr Dear Mr. Thomsley: ~.~...L.~'o~... Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the 'r,.,..~,.~ boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water s~rvice, !,ff ,h..~ ........ therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between ,.,~,..~,,~,,. RCWD and the property owner. v,,~,-,. ~o,.k If fire protection is required, the customer Will need to contact RCWD for fees and ,'..~,~,,.~r requirements. ~.,..,.-..~,~. ....... Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an c.:,.~-,~...~ ,',,.-,.,, Agency Agreement that assigns water management fights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT i,-":" ~-~7-. ............. '--'"': ....... Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 00~SB:at I I IW012-T6WCF COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: August 1, 2000 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~slcy FROM: o~vt ~vl,~r~t u~w~s-empervisor RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA00-0276 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA00-0276 and has no objections. Senitary sewer and water sen, ices may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearan(~e, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewefing agencies. 3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). SM:dr (909) 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan review tbr final Department of Environmental Health clearance. AUG 0 4 2000: i 909/955-1200 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT citY of Te..mecula Planning uepartment Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: Lad esandGentieme : Re: 00 - 0 ?..7/o The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated ct.ties.~ ~n,e.District. also ,do.es not ptan check~ city land use ca?es, or provide State Divis. ion of Real Estate.!e~e~ o,r .om.e.r tlcoo.naza .rg. repq. rts tor su..cn c~_ses, uis~q coom_.ments/reco.rnrhe_ndations for su.cn ~ses a. re normally !im_iteq to items or sl~c. itc interest to me uistrict inc~uoing uisbict Master urainage Plan facilities, omar regional ucoa control and drainage facilities which could b~. consider..e.d a Iogi.cal componenfor ext.ensio .n. of a.master pla. n system, and District Area urainage Plan ~ees (development mitigation tees). In addition, inmrmauon or a genera~ nature is provided. The Dist~ct has n. otr.eviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked COmments do not in .any way constitute,or imply uis~ct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazam, public' health and safety or any other such issue: . v// This pr.o[ect would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor. are other facilities of regional Interest proposed. This project involves District Ma.,.s, ter Plan facilities. The Distdct will accept ownership of such facilities on -- .written request of the CitY. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards, and District plan check and insp.ecti,on will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be raqu~reo. This p.roje .ct propos.es channels storm .drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be cons~oore~3 regiona~ in nature and/or a ~ogical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would cons.~der accepting ownemhi@ of such taC~llties on wnttan request .of the C. Ity. Facilities must be constructed to I.~istrict standards, and D~strict plan check and inspection will De required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be requireo. ~ ~ _This project is located within the limits of the Districts ~ URl~l~-r'~ ~,~[I./5/~/',f/'a Area urainage Plan for which draina, ge fees have been adopted applicable tees s~o~ld be paid Dy cashier's c~.e.c.k or money qder only to. m.e FIo .od .Control District prior tb issuance of buil~ting or gradi.n~permitsi wnicnever comes nrst. Fees to ce paio Should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance orme actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This prOject may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water ~Resource.s Conffol Board. Clearance fo.r grading recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the ~ity has oetermined that the project has neen granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this 'project inv.?Ives a Fedex! Emergen..cy Man.age. merit Agency (FE.MAJ mapped'flood plain, then the City should require me app~i.can, t to proviue all stu(~ies, ca~cumtions, plans and other irifovmat[on required to. meet FEMA raquirement.s, an~ should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grao rig, recordation or other nnal approva~ of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a. n~u~l w..~ercourae or mapped fi .o~. plai.n, is i_mp..acted b_y this project, the, City should ~q.uire the air, Ii.cant. to o~btain a ~ection 160111603 Agreement ~r~m me ualifomia uepartment of Fisn and Game ano a Clean water am ~ection 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Ce~'fication may be required from the local California Regional Water QualitY Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. ~.~V~/trUly yours, , / STUART E. MCKIBBIN ' Senior Civil Engineer c: oate: CITY OF TEMECULA \ CASE NO. - PA02-0689 EXHIBIT - A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 19, 2003 R:\E O T~002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc 20 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION --(BP) Business Perk EXHIBIT C - ZONING DESIGNATION - (BP) Business Park CASE NO. - PA02-0689 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 19, 2003 R:\E O T'~2-002\02-0689 Keeton Trust\Staff Report.doc ITEM #9 STAFF REPORT- PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 19, 2003 Planning Application No. 03-0109 (Development Code Amendment) Prepared By: David Hogan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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 RE-ADOPTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NOS. 5 AND 6" (PLANNING APPLICATION 03-0109) BACKGROUND Staff has identified a number of potential changes to the Development Code. This proposed amendment would make the following changes to the Development Code: · Define what a major and minor modification to a development plan is, and clarify the application process for projects requiring both a development plan and conditional use permit. · Create standards and procedures of Planned Residential Development. · Authorize the adoption by reference for complicated Planned Development Overlay projects. · Clarify confusion concerning the approval of sign programs as well as the allowable types, and duration of use for ambient air balloons. · Update the approval authority table in Chapter 17.03 to conform to the other changes. ANALYSIS Modification to Development Plans In the process of working on the ongoing User Fee Study, staff has identified a need to create standards for both major and minor modifications to Development Plans. At present, there is no appropriate fee for a request to modify a development plan approval. The only options are to charge R:\DEVCODE~03-0109 Amendment~STAFFRPT PC.doc 1 a fee for a new development plan or take the application in as a Planning Department only, administrative development plan. To rectify this problem, staff is proposing to create two categories of modifications, Major and Minor. Examples of major and minor modifications are listed below. Major Modifications · Increasing the height of the building by more than 10 feet or one-story. · An increase of more than 10% of the building footprint. · A substantial change in the architecture of the building or substantial changes to the extedor elevations, including but not limited to the locations of windows or doom. · A modification in the approved access to the project site. · The shift of building location that effects the layout and location of the required parking or site access, or that substantially effects the site landscaping. · A change in the number of primary structures. Minor Modifications · An increase of less than 10% or less of the building footprint. · A change in the layout of the parking or loading area. · The relocation of windows or doom on one or two wall surfaces. · An adjustment in the location of buildings provided the general location of each building is similar to the approved development plan. Modification subject to Planning Department staff review only (no staff review by other Departments is necessary.) · Changes to the approved landscaping plant palette. · Changes in exterior colors or materials. Another aspect in the Code area that needs clarification is the relationship between development plans and conditional use permits. At present, the Development Code indicates when a conditionally permitted business in a new building would require a conditional use permit (CUP) and development plan (DP). Both the CUP and DP address site layout and architecture issues, while the CUP would address the operational issues. This overlap has created confusion. An example of the potential confusion this overlap creates is found in some of our older conditional use permits. In processing the CUP, normal site layout and architecture issues were addressed. If the City revokes the conditional use permit, what would happen to these conditions? To keep this type of event from happening, this clarification would make it clear that access, site layout, landscaping, and architecture issues are addressed through the development plan and that special operational conditions and circumstances are addressed through the conditional use permit. This proposal would not change when a conditional use permit is required and will not alter the current approval authority contained in Table 17.03.010. Planned Residential Developments As the City gets closer and closer to build-out conditions, many of the more constrained and challenging sites are being proposed for development. Staff would like to create a simpler mechanism that would facilitate creative residential site designs while protecting local open spaces and ensuring neighborhood compatibility. R:~DEVCODE'~03-0109 Amendment\STAFFRPT PC.doc 2 The proposed provisions would remove the minimum lot size requirements and setbacks. Each project would be able to be considered on its own merit. However, all planned residential developments would still have to comply with the following important factors: · The total number of units would not exceed the total number of units, based upon the density targets, indicated by the General Plan Land Use Map; · The project would still comply with the use previsions for the underlying residential zone; · Flexible site development standards would be used to protect open space and habitat areas; and · The Planning Commission would retain authority to approve the project. For example, a 10-acre site with a Low Density Residential zoning designation (1-acre minimum lot size) would, under traditional zoning, be limited to 10 lots that are all at least 40,000 square feet in size. With the proposed planned residential development provisions, the property owner would still be limited to 10 units, however the applicant would concentrate all 10 units on a portion of the site and leave the remainder of the site undisturbed. These 10 units could be either be at a suburban density, small lot single family, or some form of attached residential product depending on the site, its particular location, and the character of the surrounding area. Other Chanqes The remaining changes involve clarifying the Sign Ordinance and the elimination of the reduced public hearing notice radius for conditional use permits in existing buildings. The current code does not clearly allow the use of holiday ambient air balloons during the Christmas season. This amendment would provide guidelines for how and when they could be used. This amendment would also clearly state that staff approves sign programs. These changes are contained in Sections 8 and 10 of the proposed ordinance. The final changes represent a minor change in how some of the Planned Development Overlays (PDO's) are approved. The detail and size of the two most recent PDO's, numbers 5 and 6, are very different from PDO's 1 through 4. This difference has made it difficult to incorporate the documents into the Development Code. As a result, staff is recommending that these two documents be removed from the Development Code and made freestanding ordinances in the manner that specific plans are freestanding documents. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the Development Code and has identified that the project has no potential to have an adverse impact on the environment. This amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code represents a series of minor changes mostly regulating the implementation of the zoning procedures and requirements and further clarifying the approval authority matrix and sign regulations. As result, staff is recommending that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that~ a no impact finding pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines be made. Attachments 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 2. Draft Ordinance - Blue Page 7 R:'~DEVCODE~03-0109 Amendment~STAFFRPT PC.doc 3 'A~'I~ACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 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 T0~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) WHEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the City's Development Code; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the amendment on Mamh 19, 2003, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recommendation of Approval. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula amending 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code, substantially in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission hereby finds that this amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code represents a series of minor changes mostly regulating the implementation of the zoning procedures and requirements that have no potential individually or cumulatively to impact the environment. As a result, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. R:'~DEVCODE-~03-0109 Amendment\STAFFRPT PC.doc 5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 19th day of March 2003. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby cedify that PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19~h day of March 2003, by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~DEVCODE'~03-0109 Amendment~STAFFRPT PC.doc 6 ATFACH~MENT NO. 2 DRAF;[ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. 03- 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) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2003, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to tl~e City Municipal Code; WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, .the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on to consider the proposed amendments to the Temecula Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adds Section 17.05.030 to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "17.05.030 Modifications to an Approved Development Plan A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this sect[on is to establish the requirements and procedures to allow the administrative modification of an unexpired development plan or conditional use permit. For the purposes of this Section, the following changes are not eligible for consideration as an administative modification: a change in the type of building (commercial, office, industrial), a substantial intensification of the project or type of use, or substantial changes to the project layout or access. Proposed project changes that are not eligible for a modification under this Section will require resubmittal of a new application. B. Types of Modifications. Modifications to approved development plan are divided into two categories, major and minor, if a proposed modification includes both major and minor modifications, the application shall be considered a major modification. The final decision as to whether a modification is major or minor shall be at the sole discretion of the director of planning. R:\DEVCODE\03-0109 Amendment\PDO PUD Ordinace.doc 1. Major Modifications to approved development plans include the following types of project changes: a. Increasing the height of the building by more than 10 feet or one- stow. b. An increase of more than 10% of the building footprint. c. A substantial change in the architecture of the building or substantial changes to the exterior elevations, including but not limited to the locations of windows or doors. d. A modification in the approved access to the project site. e. The shift of building location that effects the layout and location of the required parking, site access, or substantially changes the conceptual landscape plan. f. A change in the number of primary structures. g. Changes to a conditional use permit that require the physical modification of the site. 2. Minor Modifications to approved development plans include the following types of project changes: a. An increase of less than 10% or less of the building footprint. b. A change in the layout of the parking or loading area. c. The relocation of windows or doors on one or two wall surfaces. d. An adjustment in the location of buildings provided the general location of each building is similar to the approved development plan. e. Changes to a conditional use permit that do not require the physical modification of the site. 3. Modifications to approved development plans that are subject to the administrative development plan process include the following: a. Changes to the approved landscaping plant palette. b. Changes in exterior colors or materials. C. Application Requirements. Applications for modifying development plans shall be completed in accordance with Section 17.03.030 of this development code. D. Procedure for Approval. The approval of a minor modification to a development plan shall be approved administratively and shall never require a specific notice or consideration at a public hearing. The approval of a major modification may also be R:\DEVCODE\03-0109 Amendment\PDO PUD Ordinace.doc approved administratively. However, the director of planning may refer major modifications and changes in building design to the planning commission for consideration. A public hearing and additional notices are also not required for major modifications. E. Findings. Approving .modifications to an approved development plan shall require the same findings as were made on the original approval. F. Revocations. Approval of a modification to a development plan may be revoked or modified by the director of planning in accordance with Section 17.03.060." Section 2. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends portions of Section 17.04.010. A. Subsection C is hereby amended to read as follows: "Authority. Conditional use permits shall require a public hearing as follows: 1. When a conditional use permit involves an existing building, the director of planning shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve or deny an application for a conditional use permit. Decisions of the director of planning may be appealed to the planning commission, pursuant to Section 17.030.090. 2. When a conditional use permit accompanies an application for a development plan for a new building that is less than 10,000 square feet, the director of planning shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for conditional use permit. Decisions of the director of planning may be appealed to the planning commission, pursuant to Chapter 17.03.090. 3. When a conditional use permit accompanies an application for a development plan for a new building that is 10,000 square feet or greater, or whenever the director of planning has determined that the matter should be forwarded to the planning commission. The planning commission shall have the authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for conditional use permit. Decisions of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council, pursuant to Section 17.03.090." B. Subsection J is hereby added to this Section to read as follows: "Modifications of a Conditional Use Permit. Requests to modify a conditional use permit shall be made in conformance with the provisions of Section 17.05.030." Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts Section 17.22.070 to read as follows: "17.22.070 APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAYS. The following planned development overlays, cannot be effectively incorporated into the municipal code, have been approved by the city and are designated on the official zoning map of the city: R:\DEVCODEA03-0109 Amendment\PDO PUD Ordinace.doc PDO-5 . Temecula Village PDO-6 Rancho Pueblo Future planned development overlays shall be numbered consecutively, whether incorporated into the municipal code or adopted as uncodified ordinances, and shown on the official zoning map of the city with the prefix "PDO"." Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby repeals Sections 17.22.140 through 17.22.156 of the municipal code, adopted by Ordinance 02-05, and readopts the Temecula Creek Village Planned Development Overlay as uncodified PDO-5 pursuant to the provisions of 17.22.070. Section 5. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby repeals Sections 17.22.160 through 17.22.178 of the municipal code, adopted by Ordinance 02-04, and readopts the Rancho Pueblo Planned Development Overlay as uncodified PDO-6 pursuant to the provisions of 17.22.070. Section 6. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts Section 17.06.045 to read as follows: "17.06.045 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the planned residential development is to allow for flexible development standards to protect open space areas or to address unique land use compatibility conditions. The intent of these provisions is to allow for the flexible lot sizes and site design standards on larger lots to protect biologic habitat and corridor areas and natural open spaces by concentrating development in less sensitive areas. All planned residential developments shall comply with the provisions of this section. B. Density. The total number of residential units may not exceed the density envisioned in the general plan. The maximum number of units shall be calculated by multiplying. the total acreage by the density targets identified in the General Plan. C. Uses. The land uses in a planned residential development project shalt comply with the requirements of Section 17.06.030, except that, if appropriately located, attached and multiple family residential units may be located in any residential zone. D. Development Standards. Compliance with the development standards identified in Section 17.06.040 is not required provided appropriate development criteria for detached and attached residential units, as needed, are established as part of each planned residential development. Notwithstanding this, the following criteria shall apply to all planned residential developments. 1. The height of detached residential units shall not exceed 35 feet and the height of attached residential units shall not exceed 40 feet. 2. Detached residential units should be separated by a distance of at least 6 feet for one-story units, by at least 10 feet for two-story units, and by at least 15 feet for structures that are taller than two-stories. R:\DEVCODE\03-0109 Amendment\PDO PUD Ordinace.doc 3. . Private yard areas shall be provided access that is at least 3 feet in width from either the front of the unit or from a rear access drive. This access shall be unobstructed by amhitectural projections, heating or cooling equipment, or any other permanent fixtures that would prevent its use as a pedestrian access. 4. Attached residential units in primarily detached residential areas shall be architecturally designed to avoid a massive or monolithic appearance. 5. Fully attached residential units without private yards shall be provided at least 200 square feet of private open space for each unit. 6. The protection of open space areas, both during and after construction, is required. Operational conditions shall be imposed on each project to ensure that preserved areas remain substantially undisturbed. The clearing, grubbing, or grading of open space areas not immediately adjacent to areas of construction is prohibited. This provision is not intended to prevent the placement of informal hiking and walking trails in open space areas. 7. The landscaping of open space areas shall not be required if the native plant communities are undisturbed. In areas where native vegetation has been substantially disturbed, native specie revegetation may be required. Notwithstanding this requirement, the supplemental enhancement of open space areas with local native tree species is encouraged and may be permitted. 8. Each planned residential development shall specify how the provisions of Section 17.06.050 will be implemented. Exact compliance with all the provisions of Section 17.06.050 shall not be required provided the intent of the regulations is met. E. Procedure for Approval. Planned residential developments shall use the application and approval procedures identified in Section 17.04.010. Planned residential developments shall be approved by the planning commission. Related ~and division applications shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Title 16 of the Temecula Municipal Code." Section 7. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Table 17.06.040 as described below. A. Add a Footnote Number 4 to the headings for Lot Area, Lot Dimensions, Setbacks, and ©ther Requirements. B. Add Footnote No. 4 to the endof Table 17.06.040 to read as follows: "4. Projects designed as planned residential developments are not subject to these provisions provided the criteria in Section 17.06.045 are followed." Section 8. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends the following portions of Chapter 17.28 of the Temecula Municipal Code. A. Amend Subsection 17.28.700.B to read as follows: "The maximum display time shall not exceed a total of fifteen (15) calendar days within any ninety (90) R:\DEVCODE\03-0109 Amendment\PDO PUD Ordinace.doc calendar day period. Except that during the month of the annual Baltoon and Wine Festival and during the month of December, a thirty (30) calendar day permit may be issued by the Director," B. Amend Subsection 17.28.700.1 to read as follows: "Ambient air balloons shall only be in the shape of a traditional "hot air balloon". Ambient air balloons in the shape of blimps or cartoon characters are not permitted. Exception: During the month of December ambient air balloons in the shape of traditional Christmas characters or symbols are allowed." Section 9. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Subsection 17.03.040. B.2 to read as follows: "The notice shall be mailed first class and postage pre-paid to the applicant and representative; to the property owner or the owner's agent; to all persons whose names and addresses appear on the latest available assessment roll of the county of Riverside as owners of property within a distance of six hundred (600) feet from the exterior boundaries of the site for which the application is filed (a minimum of thirty property owners); to anyone filing a written request for notification; and to such other persons whose property might, in the planning commission's judgment, be affected by the establishment of the use or zone requested." Section 10. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby amends Table 17,03.010of the Temecula Municipa~ Code to read as follows: General plan amendment Recommen- X~ dation~ Zoning amendment: Te~ changes Recommen- X1 dation1 Zoning amendment: Map changes Recommen- X1 dation~ Zoning amendment: Specific plan, Recommen- X~ includes specific plan amendments dation~ Conditional use permit-existing X1,2 building Conditional use permit with a X~,2,3 X~,3 development plan Development ptan (10,000 square X~ feet or greater) Development plan ({ess than X1 10,000 square feet) R:\DEVCODE~03-0109 Amendment\PDO PUD Ordinace.doc Major and Minor Modifications X2 Administrative development plan X2 Home occupation permit X2 Large family day care home facility X~ Minor exceptions X2 Planned Residential Development X~ Sign permits X2 Sign programs, including sign X2 program modifications Temporary use permits X2 Variance X~ Footnotes: 1. Requires consideration at a noticed public hearing. 2 For matters that are considered to have special significance or impact, the director of planning may refer such items to the planning commission for consideration. 3. Conditional use permits without development plans are approvable by the director of planning. Conditional use permits with development plans are approvable by hearing body required for the development plan. Section 11. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 12. Environmental Compliance. The City Council hereby finds that this amendment to the Temecula Municipal Code represents a series of minor changes mostly regulating the implementation of the zoning procedures and requirements that have no potential individually or cumulatively to impact the environment. As a result, the adoption of this ordinance is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 13. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 14. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 15. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City R:\DEVCODE\03-0109 Amendment\PDO PUD Ordinace,doc Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. R:\DEVCODE~03-0109 Amendment\PDO PUD Ordinace.doc PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this --th day of ,2003. Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 03- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __th day of ,2003 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of ,2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\DEVCODE\03-0109 Amendmenl\PDO PUD Ordinace.doc