Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012903 PC 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., on 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 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, Senior Planner Naaseh, Associate Planner Papp, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Aqenda 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 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: chanaina the occupancv of 400 multi-familv apartment units to owner- occupied condominiums located south of Hiahwav 79 South. north of Temecula Creek. east of Jedediah Smith Road. and west of Avenida De Missions. Emerv 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 TWO PARCELS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, BETWEEN JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE MISSIONS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 961- 010-006. 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 Plannina Application No. PA03-023 A Development Plan for a Substantial Conformance to Planninq Application 00-0213 for the Bel Villaaqio proiect that includes chanaes to the sauare footaaes and the elevations of buildinas L. M. N. and O. chanqinq the location of Buildinq 0, and chanqinq the exterior material for the trim above the windows for existina and future buildinas located Southwest corner of Marqarita Road and North Generai Kearnev Road (APN 921-09-71, 72, and 78), Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner R:PlanComm/minutes/012903 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 irnplemented 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 eiement 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:PJanComm/minutes/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 window 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 0, recommended R:PlanComm/minutes/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 Guerriero 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 reauest for a findina of Public Convenience or Necessitv and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a niahtclub to include a tvpe 48 Iiauor license. live music, dancinq, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted statement of operations in a 4.860 sauare foot existina buildina 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 provided 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 staff's 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 problems would most likely be encountered; for Commissioner Guerriero, noted that there 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 proximate to the restaurant area would be a more suitable location for a night club use. R:PlanComm/minutes/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 rnaterial; 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/minutes/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 catering 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 Processl 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 appiications, 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. RPlanComm/minutes/O 12903 10 ADJOURNMENT At 7:55 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned this meeting to the next reaular meetina to be held on Wednesday. February 5. 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ~w. Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Chairman ~ .... rr;61~ ~~~~ Director of Planning R:PlanComm/minutes/012903 11