HomeMy WebLinkAbout012104 PC Agenda
. .". In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact the office .of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444.
Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility 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
JANUARY 21, 2004 -6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2004-001
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
Commissioner Mathewson
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 not 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 Q!ÌQ[ 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.
Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
.
1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 21, 2004
R :\PLANCOM MlAgendas\2004\O 1-21-Q4.doc
2 Director's Hearinq Case UDdate
RECOMMENDATION:
.
2.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for December 2003
3 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Minutes of December 3, 2003
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Elect new Chairperson
Continued from December 17, 2003
4 Planninq ADDlication No. PA03-0733 Marqarita Medical Plaza Sian Proqram a request to
aDDrove a revised Sian Proqram to allow second stOry siqnaqe and revise the Drovisions of
the aDDroved Sian Proqram located on the southeast corner of Marqarita Road and North
General Kearney Road. Saied Naaseh
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 January 7, 2004
5 Planninq ADDlication No. PA03-0347 submitted by Griffin Communities. a Product Review
for 100 detached sinqle familv residences within Planninq Area 4A of the RoriDaUqh Ranch
SDecific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot SDrinqs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Staqe Road iAPN: 957-340-001\. Dan Lonq. Associate Planner
6 Plannino ADDlication No. PAO3-0176 a DeveloDment Plan to construct. ODerate and
establish a 17.505 square foot commercial two-stOry buildinq on 1.15 acres located at 41720
Winchester Road. Rick Rush. Associate Planner
7 Plannino ADDlication No. PAO3-0525 a Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish 1.655
square foot wine tastinq and retail establishment in an existinq commercial buildinq located
at 27493 Ynez Road. Dan Lonq. Associate Planner
.
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\O1-21-04.doc
2
.
.
.
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: February 4, 2004
Council Chambers
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\O1-21-04.doc
3
.
ITEM #2
.
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
DATE:
January 21,2004
SUBJECT:
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for December 2003
PA03-0490
A Product Review for 130 detached single-
family residential homes with four different
floor plans and three architectural designs
in the Avondale Tract VTM 26828 located
on the northeast corner of Seraphina Road
and Rita Way
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate
a church in an existing building
PA03-0388
December 18, 2003
PA03-0518
A Tentative Parcel Map for condominium
purposes to establish a total of twenty-four
(24) light industrial condominium units on
two existing lost totaling 8.91 acres within
the Remington Business Center
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
P,IPLAN NINGID IRHEARIMEM 0120031 J 2-2003 .doc
Richmond
American
Homes of
California
Safe Harbor
Christian
Fellowship
KREC III,
LLC
Approved
Approved
.
.
.
P,\PLANNIN GID IRHEARIMEM 0\2003\ 12-2003. doc
ATTACHMENT NO.1
ACTION AGENDAS
.
.
.
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 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:
Project No:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
PA03-0490
Avondale
Richmond American Homes of California, Inc.
Northwest corner of Seraphina Road and Rita Way
A Product Review for 130 detached single-family residential homes
with four different floor plans and three architectural designs in the
Avondale Tract VTM 26828 located on the northwest corner of
Seraphina Road and Rita Way.
Determination of Consistency with a project for which a Negative
Declaration was previously adopted.
Rick Rush
Approval
APPROVED
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
P,\PLANNINGIDIRHEARlAgendasl2003\12-04-O3 ACTION AGENDA.doc
1
AGENDA
.
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 11,20031:30 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:
Environmental Action:
PA03-0388
Safe Harbor Fellowship
Safe Harbor Christian Fellowship, Keith Maxcy
42372 Rio Nedo (APN: 909-253-018)
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a church in an existing
building
Categorically Exempt from CECA under Section 15301 (existing
facilities)
Dan Long
Approval
APPROVED
.
Project No:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
.
P,\PLANNINGIDIRHEARlAgendas\20031 12-1 J -03 ACTION AGENDA.doc
J
.
.
.
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 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 vour name and address.
Item No. 1:
Project Number:
Project Title:
Applicant:
Location:
PA03-0518
Remington Tentative Parcel Map
KREC III, LLC
Located on the south side of Remington Avenue approximately 900
feet west of Diaz Road.
A Tentative Parcel Map for condominium purposes to establish a
total of twenty-four (24) light industrial condominium units on two
existing lots totaling 8.91 acres within the Remington Business
Center.
Exempt
909-370-012 & 909-370-016
Stuart Fisk
Approval
APPROVED
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
APN:
Project Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
P:\PLANNINGIDIRHEARlAgendasl2003\J2-18-03 ACTION AGENDA.doc
1
.
ITEM #3
.
.
.
.
.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 3, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on
Wednesday December 3, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Guerriero led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Co-chairman Telesio
Absent
Chairman Chiniaeff
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of December 3, 2003
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No.1. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent.
New Items
2 Plannina ADDlication No. PA03-0565 A DeveloDment Aareement between the City of
Temecula and North Plaza LLC for Service Commercially desiqnated DroDerty located south
of the existinq auto mall. The proiect will ensure the future exDansion of the auto mall and
Drovide the City with the riqht-of-wav for the extension of Rancho Way
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-062
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND NORTH PLAZA, LLC REGARDING THE
AUTO MALL PROPERTIES, AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND NORTH PLAZA,
LLC REGARDING THE AUTO MALL PROPERTIES
(PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0565)
.
Principal Planner Hogan presented a brief report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. That the expansion of Temecula Auto Mall along Ynez Road will provide right-of-way for
the extension of Rancho Way;
. That the project is consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Element, Economic
Development and Circulation Elements directly;
. That the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to approve a
Negative Declaration on the project.
.
Assistant City Manager O'Grady stated that the proposal is an important element for the
Economic Development efforts; that with approval of the Development Agreement, the
subsequent sale and development of a new automobile dealership may proceed.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. There being no speakers, the public hearing was
closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner
Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent.
3 PlanninQ ADDlication No. PA03-0434 Product Review of a 67-lot sinQle-family residential
subdivision (Lake Front Cottaqes. Phase 2 of the Harveston SDecific Plan Planninq Area 3)
located in Tract 30669-2. south of Harveston Lake. east of LOOD Road and west of Paseo
Park Trail
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
.
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
2
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-063
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0434 PRODUCT REVIEW OF A 67-LOT SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (LAKE FRONT
COTTAGES, PHASE 2 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN
PLANNING AREA 3)
Associate Planner Powers presented a report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. That staff discovered per the Harveston Specific Plan (SP) Section 10.5.3 which is
building elevations under corner plotting, it stated that plans that were plotted on corner
lots will have the flexibility to reposition the entry and garage to the exterior side yard.
. That Phase One (1) did not provide any corner plotting and that the five product reviews
before the Commission in Phase Two (2), also do not provide for any corner plotting;
therefore, per the Specific Plan (SP), the applicant will have to provide this;
. That the project proposes six (6) architectural styles and three (3) floor plans to choose
from;
. That per staff report, page two under Lot Area, it should state that the minimum lot area
for Lake Front Cottages shall not be less than 2,000 square feet and that the average lot
size shall not be less than 2,500 square feet.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bill Storm, representing Lennar Homes, stated that corner plotting is not a practical solution
at this time; that corner plotting could be an option for Phase three (3); and that corner plotting is
not a requirement in the Specific Plan (SP).
Mr. Don White, 2850 Redhill Avenue, architect for the cottages noted that he is available for any
questions.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's recommendation. Commissioner
Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exceDtion of
Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent.
4 PlanninQ ADDlication No. PA03-0432. PA03-0433. PA03-0435. and PA03-0436 Four Droduct
reviews within the Harveston SDecific Plan [(Tracts 30668. 30668-1. 30669-1 (Sarasota):
30667.30667-2 (Chatham): 30667-1. 30667-3 (St. Auoustine): 30668-2. & 30669-2 (Auburn
Ln.)] qenerallv located south of Harveston Lake. north of LOOD Rd. and east of LOOD Road
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\MinulesPC\2003\ 120303
3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0432 PRODUCT REVIEW OF A 109-LOT SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (SARASOTA, PHASE 2
OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 2)
.
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0433 PRODUCT REVIEW OF A 78-LOT SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (CHATHAM, PHASE 2
OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 1)
4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0435 PRODUCT REVIEW OF A 93-LOT SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (ST. AUGUSTINE,
PHASE 2 OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING
AREA 1)
.
4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0436 PRODUCT REVIEW OF A 119-LOT SINGLE-
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION (AUBURN LN. PHASE 2
OF THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING AREA 2)
Associate Planner Powers presented a report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. Sarasota: Product review of 109-lot single-family residential subdivision. Consists of
three (3) architectural styles for three (3) floor plans. The product review offers one (1)
and two (2) story floor plans and also offers Cottage, Craftsman, and Spanish Colonial.
That the original three (3) -car garages is now a 2-car garage.
.
R:\MinuJesPC\2003\ 120303
4
.
.
.
Chatham: Product review of 78-lot single-family residential subdivision. Consists of five
(5) architectural styles for three (3) floor plans. The product review offers one and two-
story residences and also offers American Farmhouse, Colonial, Cottage, East Coast
Traditional, and Spanish Colonial architectural styles. The original three (3) -car garage
for plan two (2) is now a two (2)-car garage.
St. AuClustine: Product review offers a 93-lot single-family two-story residential
subdivision. Consists of four (4) architectural styles for three (3) floor plans. This product
review offers American Farmhouse, Cape Cod, Italianate, and Spanish Colonial
architectural styles. The original three (3) car garage is now a two (2) car garage.
. Auburn Lane: Product review offers a 119-lot two-story residential subdivision.
Consists of three (3) architectural for three (3) floor plans. This product review offers
Cottage, Craftsman, and Spanish Colonial architectural styles.
0 That the applicant has been consistent with the Harveston Specific Plan (SP);
however, staff is requesting that additional architectural features be incorporated into
some of the architectural styles;
0 Sarasota - staff requested additional enhancements on Craftsman and Spanish
Colonial;
0 Chatham and St. AuClustine - staff requested additional enhancements on Spanish
Colonial.
0 Auburn Lane - staff requested additional enhancements on all three (3)
architectural styles, Cottage, Craftsman, and Spanish Colonial.
Note: For St. Augustine and Auburn Lane, the applicant resubmitted its application with
changes, it was before the hearing date for the December 3, 2003, Planning Commission
meeting; that an agreement was made with the applicant, dated November 4, 2003, that the
applicant will need to make minute changes; that a letter with the new changes will need to be
addressed
Garaqe Placement:
. The Harveston Specific Plan (SP) encouraged product review to be "architectural
forward".
Massina:
. That the product review offers structures where the second-story is recessed to break up
the mass of overall structure; this product review offers a step-back second story.
Associate Planner Powers distributed to the Commission a break down of styles, per the
request of Commissioner Mathewson.
Commissioners Guerriero and Mathewson are of the opinion that the setback variations need to
be addressed.
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
5
Commissioner Olhasso is of the opinion that having Steve Albert help with the architectural
features of this project would be ideal.
.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Greg Bucilla, 2062 Boulevard Center Drive, architect
for the Sarasota (including the following styles: Cottage, Craftsman, and Spanish Colonial)
presented an overview of the architectural features (as per agenda material), commenting as
follows:
Cottaqe
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in staff report);
. Architect relayed willingness to address staff's recommendations.
Commission input
Commissioner Mathewson recommended enhancing design elements on front two
gables in order to enlarge the detail at the second gable.
Craftsman
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
.
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in the staff report);
. Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations.
Commission input
Commissioner Mathewson recommended adding gable dormer windows; wrap siding
around left and right elevations; entry porches with heavy square columns or posts on
stone piers;
Commissioner Olhasso recommended enhancing window treatment.
Spanish Colonial
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in the staff report);
. Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations;
Commission input
Commissioner Olhasso recommended adding a Spanish tower element;
.
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
6
.
.
.
Commissioner Mathewson recommended including more arched windows and more use
of wrought iron;
By way of PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Don White, 2850 Redhill Avenue, architect for the
Chatham (including the following styles: American Farmhouse, Colonial, Cottage, East Coast
Traditional, and Spanish Colonial) presented an overview of the architectural features (as per
agenda material), commenting as follows:
American Farmhouse:
.
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
As per staff report.
Commission input:
No Commission input.
Colonial:
.
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in the staff report);
Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations.
Commission input:
.
No Commission input.
Cottaqe:
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in the staff report);
.
Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations.
Commission input:
Commissioner Mathewson recommended a "swooping roof.
East Coast Traditional:
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in the staff report);
Architect relayed willingness to address staff's recommendation.
Commission input:
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
7
No Commission input.
.
Spanish Colonial:
Reviewed the architectural features as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in the staff report);
Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations.
Commission input:
Commissioner Mathewson recommended using a finer finish on the stucco.
By way of PowerPoint, Mr. Kevin Crook, 20261 Acacia Street #110, architect for the St.
Augustine (including the following styles: American Farmhouse, Cape Code, Italianate, and
Spanish Colonial), presented an overview of the architectural features (as per agenda material),
commenting as follows:
American Farmhouse:
Reviewed the architectural characteristic as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in the staff report);
Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations, also relaying that a
wood product will be used for railing versus the initial recommendation of wrought iron or
wood.
.
Commission input:
Commissioner Mathewson recommended enhancing elevations and adding closed
shutters to rear of tandem garage;
Commissioner Olhasso recommended adding a pot-shelf below first floor front window.
Cape Cod:
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in staff report);
Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations, also relaying that a
wood product will be used for railing versus the initial recommendation of wrought iron or
wood.
Commission input:
Commissioner Mathewson recommended adding additional shingle siding.
.
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
8
.
.
.
Italianate:
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
As per staff report.
Commission input:
Commissioner Guerriero recommended revising garage door handle.
Spanish Colonial:
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
.
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in staff report);
Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations;
Commission input:
Commissioner Mathewson recommended adding a full arch to the front center window
over garage.
By way of PowerPoint, Mr. Albern Yolo, 2031 Orchard Drive, architect for the Auburn Lane
(including the following styles: Cottage, Craftsman, and Spanish Colonial), presented an
overview of the architectural features (as per agenda material), commenting as follows:
CottaQe:
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in staff report);
Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations.
Commissioner inDut:
Commissioner Mathewson suggested revising sloping roofline above garage to become
a "swooping" or curved roof.
Craftsman:
Reviewed the architectural characteristics as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in staff report);
Architect relayed willingness to address staff's recommendation.
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
9
Commissioner input:
.
Commissioner Olhasso suggested adding shed roof above the three-window pattern at
second-story.
Spanish Colonial
Reviewed the architectural characteristic as per staff report;
Staff recommended additional architectural features (as reflected in staff report);
. Architect relayed a willingness to address staff's recommendations.
Commission input:
Commissioner Mathewson would prefer to have arched windows versus rectangular
windows.
Commissioner Guerriero concurs with staff that more wrought iron is needed;
Commissioner Mathewson would like to see some variety in the stucco finish.
Mr. Bill Storm noted that in all the proposals Condition of Approval No. 19 would not be
appropriate due to the fact that the homes are not in an over flight zone.
Ms. Mary Rosenberg, representing Lennar, requested to have the "pop outs" removed from the
cottages.
.
For Mr. Storm Commissioner Guerriero relayed having this item continued to December 17,
2003.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Storm noted that he would bring in photographs of zero lot-
line product.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to have Item No.4 continued to December 17,
2003. Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who was absent.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
Commissioner Guerriero noted that the black plastic located on Solana and
Margarita is not working very well; that it is falling apart and is not esthetically
pleasing.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Storm noted that screening of street
equipment enclosures, stop signs etc. is currently being considered that an art
feature of some type is being considered for the turn-about; and that all
clustered-mail boxes will be screened.
For Co-Chairman Telesio, Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the voting
system will be for City Council members only.
.
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
10
.
.
.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske noted that the fountain at Black Angus will be operational by
December 12, 2003; that Code Enforcement Officer Cole advised theater managers of the
Promenade that the Monument sign on Winchester Road is for display of movies, not for
displaying items sale; that Code Enforcement was out to talk to the managers of the "Got
Furniture Store" regarding trash enclosures which shoúld be screened. Ms. Ubnoske asked
Code Enforcement to investigate all the theaters in town.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:25 p.m., Co-Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reqular
meetinq to be held on Wednesday. December 17. 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
Dennis W. Chiniaeff
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPC\2003\ 120303
11
.
ITEM #4
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner ~
January 21, 2004
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PAO03-0733, Promenade Medical Center Revised Sign Program
The aforementioned item was continued from the January 7,2004 Planning Commission Meeting
because of lack of a quorum.
Attachment
1.
January 7,2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 2
R,ISignsl2oo2102.oo95 Margarita Medical Sign ProgramlMemo to PC continuance 1-21-04.doc
1
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
JANUARY 7, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R:\Signsl2oo2\02-0095 Margarita Medical Sign ProgramlMemo to PC continuance 1-21-04.doc
2
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner
DATE:
January 7, 2004
Promenade Medical Center, PA03-0733, Revised Sign Program
SUBJECT:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Medical Real Estate Development, LLC
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and North General
Kearney Road
PROPOSAL:
A request to approve a revised Sign Program to allow
second story signage and revise the provisions of the
approved Sign Program.
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2003, the Planning Commission provided direction to staff and the applicant
to prepare a revised sign program that allows tasteful second story signage in exchange for
removing and improving all first story signage on all of the medical buildings on the site. The
Planning Commission appointed Chairman Chiniaeff to assist staff and the applicant in this
matter. On December 18, 2003, the applicant, staff and Chairman Chiniaeff came to an
agreement on the details of the signs along Margarita Road. In addition, the applicant agreed to
talk to the doctors whose signage will be removed and replaced with new signage.
On December 29, 2003, the applicant informed staff that he has received agreement from all the
doctors to remove all first story signage for the entire site and replace them with new signs. The
proposed signs, submitted to staff on December 30, 2003, will be directly mounted on the
building as opposed to the existing signage, which is mounted on exposed raceways. This
mounting method will greatly enhance the aesthetics of the signs and the buildings. All signs
along Margarita will be black individual channel letters with halo lighting with a maximum letter
height of 14". These signs will be a smaller version of the D&D signs in the Overland Corporate
Center.
ANALYSIS
The proposed signs are consistent with the direction staff received from the Commission on
December 17, 2003 with the exception of the size of one of the second story signs for Advanced
Orthopedic Surgery Center. This sign is proposed at 26.3 square feet and the Development
Code only permits 18 square feet for this suite. Therefore, staff is recommending the applicant
revise this sign to be approximately 18 square feet as the suite has approximately 36' of
R:\Slgns\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\PC Staff Reporl1-7-o4.doc
1
frontage. The revised sign program will be submitted to staff and the Planning Commission at
the hearing that will include the following provisions:
. The tower signs will be deleted,
Different types of signs will be permitted along the Margarita and parking lot frontages,
. The permitted signs will be a maximum of % square feet for every one lineal foot of
building frontage for all second story signs with a maximum of 50 square feet per sign,
. The permitted signs will be a maximum of 1 square feet for everyone lineal foot of
building frontage for all first story signs with a maximum of 50 square feet per sign,
Exposed raceways will not be utilized.
The Development Code permits approval of a Sign Program for a project if the Sign Program
complies with all the regulations of the Development Code, except that flexibility is allowed with
regard to sign area, number, location, and height. However, the Development Code also
requires that to the extent the Sign Program standards differ from the Development Code, the
Sign Program also should propose to enhance the development to more fully accomplish the
objectives of the Sign standards in the Development Code. In staff's opinion, the removal and
replacement of the existing signage with halo lighted signs will greatly enhance the existing
building and justifies the proposed second story signage.
FINDINGS (17.28.080.B)
1.
The proposed signs enhance the development by removing the existing signage and
replacing them with more astatically pleasing signage, and are in harmony with, and
visually related to:
a. All of the signs included in the sign program as several common design elements
such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type, or sign shape have
been incorporated into the Sign Program;
The buildings and/or the developments they identify by utilizing materials, colors,
or design motifs included in the building being identified as the sign compliment
the design of the building; and,
Surrounding development by not adversely affecting surrounding land uses or
obscuring adjacent approved signs as the surrounding area facing the illuminated
signs is commercially zoned.
b.
c.
2.
The sign program accommodates future revisions which may be required due to
changes in building tenants as the standards in the Sign Program apply to all future
tenants; and,
3.
The proposed sign program satisfies the intent of this Chapter, in that the sign program
complies with all the regulations of this Chapter, except that flexibility is allowed with
regard to sign area, number, location, and height. Further, to the extent the sign
program does not comply with the requirements of this Chapter as to sign area, number,
location, and height, the proposed sign program enhances the development and more
fully accomplishes the objectives of this Chapter as The proposed sign program
preserves and improves the appearance of the City as viewed from Margarita Road as is
proposing signage that compliments and enhances the building.
R:\Signs\2002\O2.QO95 Margarita Medical Sign ProgramlPC Staff Report 1-7.Q4.doc
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0733, TO REVISE AN APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM
FOR THE PROMENADE MEDICAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH
GENERLA KEARNEY ROAD ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NUMBER 921-090-087.
Attachments:
1.
PC Resolution 2004-- - Blue Page 4
Proposed Signs - Blue Page 10
2.
3.
December 17, 2003 Staff Report - Blue Page 11
R:\Slgns\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign ProgramlPC Staff Report 1-7-o4.doc
3
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1
PC RESOLUTION 2004- -
R:\Signs\2002\O2-0095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\PC Staff Report 1-7-D4.doc
4
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0733 TO REVISE AN APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM
FOR THE PROMENADE MEDICAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND NORTH
GENERAL KEARNEY ROAD ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NUMBER 921-090-087.
WHEREAS, Medical Real Estate Development, LLC, filed Planning Application No.
PA03-0733 Sign Program Revision "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 December 17, 2003 and January 7,2004 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.
by reference.
The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.28.080.B of the Temecula Municipal
Code:
A. The proposed signs enhance the development by removing the existing signage
and replacing them with more aesthetically pleasing signage, and are in harmony with, and
visually related to:
1. All of the signs included in the sign program as several common design
elements such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, sign type, or sign shape have been
incorporated into the Sign Program;
2. The buildings and/or the developments they identify by utilizing materials,
colors, or design motifs included in the building being identified as the sign compliment the
design of the building; and,
3. Surrounding development by not adversely affecting surrounding land
uses or obscuring adjacent approved signs as the surrounding area facing the illuminated signs
is commercially zoned;
R:\Signs\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\PC Staff Report 1.7-04.doc
5
B. The sign program accommodates future revisions which may be required due to
changes in building tenants as the standards in the Sign Program apply to all future tenants;
and,
.
1. The proposed sign program satisfies the intent of this Chapter, in that the
sign program complies with all the regulations of this Chapter, except that flexibility is allowed
with regard to sign area, number, location, and height. Further, to the extent the sign program
does not comply with the requirements of this Chapter as to sign area, number, location, and
height, the proposed sign program enhances the development and more fully accomplishes the
objectives of this Chapter as The proposed sign program preserves and improves the
appearance of the City as viewed from Margarita Road as is proposing signage that
compliments and enhances the building.
Section 3. Environmental ComDliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. 03-0733 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15332 (Accessory Structures, Class 11) as the proposal is a sign program that permits
on-premises signs.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. 03-0733 a revised sign program for the
Promenade Medical Center located on the southeast corner of Margarita Road and North
General Kearney Road, known as Assessors Parcel No. 921-090-087. The Conditions of
Approval are contained in Exhibit A.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 7'" day of January 2004.
.
ATTEST:
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
.
R:\Signs\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign ProgramlPC Staff Report 1.7-o4.doc
6
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7'" day of January 2004, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
R:\Slgns\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\PC Staff Report 1-7.04.doc
7
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
PA03-0323 Sign Program Revisions
Project Description:
To revise an approved comprehensive sign
program for the Promenade Medical Center.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
921-090-087
Approval Date:
January 7, 2004
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department 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 Planning Department 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 applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the 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. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any
agency, or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify
both the applicant and the landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
3.
The sign program shall include the following provisions: Delete the tower signs, Allow for
different types of sign along the Margarita and parking lot frontages, Set a maximum 16
square feet for every one lineal foot of building frontage for all second story signs with a
maximum of 50 square feet per sign, Set a maximum 1 square feet for every one lineal
foot of building frontage for all first story signs with a maximum of 50 square feet per
sign, Delete using the exposed raceways.
R:\Signs\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign ProgramlPC Staff Report 1-7-o4.doc
B
4.
The Advanced Orthopedic Surgery Center tenant sign shall be reduced to 18 square
feet.
5.
Prior to issuance of building permits for any sign, three copies a revised sign program
shall be submitted and approved by staff to incorporate all the Conditions of Approval
and the direction provided by the Planning Commission.
6.
Prior to issuance of building permits for any sign, the applicant shall pay the City
$190.00 for processing the Sign Program application.
R:\Signs\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign ProgramlPC Staff Report 1-7-o4.doc
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSED SIGNS
R:\Signs\2002\02-Q095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\PC Staff Reporl1.7-Q4.doc
10
~ 14'-4" .[
.
.
]2"2" CHOICE PHVSICAL TH£RAPV
,~---------_--___!2" 4" I
LAWLOR CHIROPRACTIC
]2'-2'"
,~~,
--,_om"",...
i--------- -.--- 22'.6" I
ADUAnC£D ORTHOPAEDIC SURG£RV CEnTeR
-----~-"--"---l
enDODOnTICS
"""'0"° """'-lATION O"",
"'VE"'C"'NNELlETTERW",""M""'UAN"O'MER ". ,'.0'
~'::; i~:';;;,:::~:~~;; ::~='~;";:::~ , ""'"'" <>.0 wo No .~d
""'AA""~d"NmW."'."'" "o,'.d",AAm.',"ooo
DR. £DWARD C. mARSHALL ORAL SURGeOn
---l
STeu£n m B£AL DDS
10' - 9"
..---.....---.-.--
.......,""'O""""W"om"'.Nn~"'_."'."""~"""'",'N"~
=:::"""."""'"O"."
.""~"."..~,,",'Gro,,,,'
'~"""",m~"'G..""""".~"
""'"""""W"~""~~Tho"""""""""""."""""300
"""'~"""'CO""".""",~"",""'",'",."'ro",,,'"
.,"""..'."~No"""3",',~,"'~"""""'.
:=:\;:;;~:'::':O::;~':":::."""'MO""""""""
LmER COpy AS FOLLOWS, ONE SET PER TENANT:
NEW REVERSE LIT SHEET METAL CHANNEL LETTER DISPLAYS SCALE 3/B" = 1'-0'
MANUFACTURE ANO INSTALL NEW SETS OF INTERNALLY ILLUMINATEO PLEX FACE CHANNEL LETTERS
EXISTING LETTERS AND RACEWAYS TO BE REMOVED
FOAM DECOR MOTIFS ON BUILDINGS TO BE REMOVEO BY OTHERS
FACES ANO RETURNS: 14' HIGH 22 GAUGE SHEET METAL LETTER fACES AND 5" DEEP RETURNS PAINTED BLACK
BACKS: CLEAR BACK fOR HALO LIGHTING, LmERS PEGGED OUT fROM WALL
ILLUMINATION: 6500 WHITE NEON AND 30 MA TRANSFORMERS AS REOUIREO fOR PROPER IllUMINATION
ORTHODOnTIST
Client signature
,"0 'C",N 0 ,"c U~">O"C P",""<Ú~"óT",,">.">Y>"N> IT""Y ", 'C ..,.,"'cc, "'"",LC" .'"', 'V,,",", ,"«IT" Cd","', . "'-L ""-'"""Y mcr~c",- "~'" "",n," " "- ""-O""'" .yor'"
WE STE/R ~;:'~T~"~
MEMBER OF
MEMB~ 0"- U&fl;;.J;l
CESA 'V'IiJ
--.--- -.......
.R"""r nnE, PROMENADE MEDICAL BUILDING
ADDRESS, TEMECULA CALIFORNIA
WESTERN SIGN SYSTEMS 1020 LINDA VISTA DR, SAN MARCOS CA. 92069
PHONE. 760 .736.6070 FAX.760.736.6073 E.MAIL,w"""'9.@ool.,om
PRESENTE"" INCHA LOCKHART
DRAWN," S. SNOW I . ""SlDN
CUBTOMa. APPROVAL
DATE,12/22/03
SHEET; 4" 11
~
03291
a
~
'.
1
.
.
,.
¡
r
".
,'-
,.
"
f
i
z;
I!] =
(ß~
(~')
\~
I-
m
w
~
.
.
~
~
¡¡ g~ffi
~~~~S
~ ¡¡¡ ~ ~c;
~ g~£O
~
~ a
" ~
~
.
~
~ 1:3~
.~ :: ~~
r ~ "'~
I:: ""ffi
. ~ .
~ ß ~ ~
.:0 § i ~
" ~ 0
:~
~~
.~ ~.~
.~ ;j Ë
.~ Ui3 =.
. 'E
.~ ~'&
.'~ ;i
¡~ :i
¡¡i ~~
I'~ ...:E
H~" ~~
'.~:!: z::'
!~ 9 ::¡",:
,~ ¡¡¡.. s ~
¡i S¡¡¡:~
:." õ~:;::i
:~ ~ ð E ~
~~ ~::5 1;¡o
:.~~~Z~
'r, 0:<: ð-ò
-~ ~~ ~~
:~ ~ (,¡ ~~
~ ã ~ m~
:~ I:' " ;: ¡¡:
."'~ ~il
n¡
ij
~ 1;'~1
í ~Irnl
~ ifl ~,U!
:~ ~I[J!
Z'
I!I~
-:
UI~
.
Z
IX
IIÌ~
I-
m
w
3
" ~ I;¡
¡; ..;¡ "
~ g g ~
.~ d:;;~:
~ J'" ¡;¡ ~~
<: -~.
.~ .¡¡ ""~
0 ~ æ~~
. ~ ~ ~
" nu
~ ~ 0
3
5
~ :i ~
¡ :<;~
~ ~£
~ % [;,
~ ~~
" a!~
~ ~~
~ ~.;.
~ ~ ¡§~
. Õ Zo
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ "'ó
~ ~;:¡ UJ~
~ ¡¡¡- ~~
,,~ ....
~ ~"E~
~ ~~2:;:
~ ¡¡gj~~
~;;¡ ii~
:¡ '" ..I!!::;
~ !,j ¡¡¡ UJz
~ ~H~
g
~ ~~i
~ ~..¡
g '" c::::I ~
~ ~1c(1
~ ¡¡¡w,
~ ~wl
~ "'UI
:Ii
:Ii
'"
~
'"
...
i.
j..
:Ii
r.'
'"
~
:Ii
~
~
t .
~ g - w
~ ~ -;; ~c;;
;; ~. ~~~
~ ~~"o
~ "" 2;;;:
~
~
3
~
~
~
.
~
.
z;
I!I:
-.
[ß~
Z
It
W
I-
m
w
~
.
.. .
~ ~ it")
¡¡¡ o~~
¡;, '"~s
èj iJi'
0
I
~
;:¡ ~
¡;¡ :::~
ä~1
~ "'~
Q . n
Iii
~ :s
~~
~:j,
~d
8;
~~
,,-
z~
~
~
,
;t
'"
~
~
~
'"
w
5
:¡j
:¡.
~
:¡j
~I"
~~
¡¡¡~
~~
ffi~
~~
~ß
!:!~
~¡<
~¡;
::!&1
¿
fi
"
".
f'
,!-:
('
J'
~
"
ä
oj
<::
g
t .
~ ;¡: ;:~...
~ ¡::: ~ ~g:
~ ~~~g
~ B.
~
~
:;
"
"
~ 5!
i!J
r ~o.
I ~:;
.j !!;:: ~
. ¡¡¡ <,
. ~ ~ u
~n
~
.
!
~
i::
"
Õ
õ
S
~
i
~
0
"'E
:;:8
8"
~t
~~
~ ot~
~ ~~
3 !;!'"
~ '" iŠM
g § ~~
~ ¡¡¡..S~
~ ~~;~
~ ¡¡:¡~ ~~
~ ~~ ~o
~ ~~~~
. 0% ",..
~ ::~ãi~
~ i! ii~
~ ~ s E~
~ ~ B~
~
~ ~Ii
":¡: .
I ~ i
¡ ~~!
~ ~IAU
~ "UI
.
z~
I!I~
-.
Iß~
tiì)
II!
III
I-
m
III
.
~
.
.
s g
=\';~~
¡¡¡ .-
r; ~~S
èi ¡¡¡ ~
!
;:¡ ~
~~>
9~~
~~!
~ "'~
Q 0
~ i ~
H"
~.l
.. ~
~~
u@>
:1:
:E-
~ ¡¡
~
I
J
1-
"I
-I
I
.
,
,
,
.'
I
,
.
.j."-
f
,
,
\
, ,. f
~ !
.
.
... u
0 .
=\';~~
~ ~~š
¿¡ ¡¡¡.
0
~
~
;¡¡ ~
g::J~
¡~š
~ ..~
~ ~ ~
~ i ~
~~
~ c
~ E
~.!
:H
8 ;
::¡î
:Eã
z'
~
~
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 3
DECEMBER 17, 2003 PC STAFF REPORT
R:\Slgns\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\PC Staff Report 1-7.Q4.doc
11
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commin~
Debbie Ubnoske,~irector of Planning
DATE:
SUBJECT:
December 17, 2003
Promenade Medical, Wall Mounted Signs
BACKGROUND
On June 18, 2002, staff approved a Sign Program for the Promenade Medical buildings located
on the southeast corner of the Margarita and North General Kearny Road (Attachment 1).
These office buildings are within a commercial zoning district; however, the Development Code
requires application of office zoning district standards for office buildings in commercial zoning
districts. This sign program provided standards for three types of signs including entry
monumentation, building identification, and tenant identification signs.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting to amend the Sign Program to allow the placement of four tenant
identification signs on the second story wall surface, below the eaves for two different tenants
(Attachment 2). Two signs are proposed along the Margarita Road frontage and two other signs
are proposed along the parking lot frontage (Attachment 3 and 4). In addition, the applicant is
proposing to amend the Sign Program to delete the Building Identification signs on the two
towers and is proposing to add a second sign type for parking lot frontage tenant identification
signs.
Usually, the Director would approve this type of proposal; however, the Director has made the
decision to request the Planning Commission to make the final determination.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Buildino Identification Sions
The approved Sign Program allows three building identification signs. One sign is already built
along the parking lot on the archway that connects the two buildings on the corner of Margarita
and North General Kearney Road. Two additional building identification signs were approved
but not installed on the towers for the 2 story building on the elevation facing Margarita Road.
R:\Signs\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\Memo F-1.doc
Tenant Identification Siqns
The approved Sign Program includes different standards for signs facing the street and signs
facing the parking lot. The signs facing a street can have a maximum letter height of 14" and an
area not to exceed one square feet for every one lineal foot of building frontage. The signs
facing the parking lot can have a maximum letter height of 8" and an area not to exceed 5% of
the surface area of the building. The Sign Program further states that all tenant identification
signs need to be coordinated to be identical in color, style, size, illumination, and font. Neither
the text nor the exhibits of the approved Sign Program make references to second story signs.
Currently, tenant identification signs are only installed for the first story tenants.
ANALYSIS
The Development Code permits approval of a Sign Program for a project, if the Sign Program
complies with all the regulations of the Development Code, except that flexibility is allowed with
regard to sign area, number, location, and height. However, the Development Code also
requires that to the extent the Sign Program standards differ from the Development Code, the
Sign Program also should propose to enhance the development to more fully accomplish the
objectives of the Sign standards in the Development Code.
The Development Code only permits tenant identification signs for office buildings if the main
entrance to each suite is from the exterior of the building as opposed to a lobby or courtyard
design. This section of the Development Code is not very clear, however, staff is interpreting
that the Development Code does not permit signage on the second story office buildings since
second story suites cannot obviously have access from the exterior of the building. Since the
approved Sign Program did not specifically permit second story signs, staff is not supporting
adding second story signs through an amended Sign Program.
If the commission desires to add second story signs through an amendment to the Sign
Program, staff would recommend a completely different approach to the signage for the entire
2-story building. The Development Code allows additional signage over what is allowed by the
Development Code through approval of a Sign Program. The Development Code also requires
that if this additional signage is allowed through the approval of Sign Program, the signs should
enhance the development. In staff's opinion, in order to enhance the existing building while
adding new signage to the second story is to remove the three existing first story signage.
Instead, the first and second story signs should be non-illuminated and smaller signs similar to
those existing along the parking lot frontage. Otherwise, the second story signs proposed as
part of in this amendment will cause a clutter of signage on the building elevations. This clutter
is clearly not the intent of the Development Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the Planning Commission:
1.
Approve the two signs along the parking lot frontage;
2.
Deny the two signs along the Margarita Frontage as they do not meet the standards and
the intent of Sign Program specified in the Development Code and aesthetically are
enhancing the architecture of the building;
Approve first and second story signs similar to the signs along the parking lot frontage
and remove the three existing first story signs on the 2-story building;
R:\Slgns\2002\O2-QO95 Margarita Medical Sign Program\Memo F-1.doc
3.
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.
Approve adding a second sign type for the tenant identification signs for the elevations
along the parking lot and deleting the two tower Building identification signs. Staff
further recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to finalize the Sign
Program to be consistent with the Planning Commission's final recommendations; and
5.
Direct staff to approve a Sign Program consistent with the Planning Commissions
direction on the above.
Attachments:
1. Approved Sign Program - Blue Page 4
2. Proposed Sign Program - Blue Page 5
3. Proposed Signs - Blue Page 6
4. Area Calculations for the Proposed Signs - Blue Page 7
R:\Slgns\2002\O2-GO95 Margarita Medical Sign Program\Memo F-1.doc
3
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 1
APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM
R:\Slgns\2002\02-0095 Margarita MedIcal Sign Program\Memo F-1.doc
4
.
PAO2-DC'Ö-
PROMENADE MEDICAL PLAZA
SIGN PROGRAM
Submitted by:
Margarita Medical Condo Development, LLC
Owner
.
f
APPROVED
.
SUBJECT TO BUILDING DEPT. APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT.
PROjECT MEETS ZONING STANDARDS
PERMITS ARE REQUIRED
SIGNAT~~ DAT~
.
.
.
SIGN PROGRAM
FOR
PROMENADE MEDICAL PLAZA
(1)
ENTRY MONUMENTATION
"PROMENADE MEDICAL PLAZA" shall be constructed of individual
dimensional formed plastic letters with a beveled fuce and shall be 6" in height; the site
address of"41238 MARGARITARD" shall be the same style letters of4" height. Font
shall be "architectural". The monument shal1 be illuminated by three ground lights shining
on the monument. Individual tenant nanleS shall ~Qt be placed on the monument. Please
see Exhibit "A".
(2)
BillLDING IDENTIFICATION
"PROMENADE MEDICAL PLAZA" shall be attached to the parking lot side
archway that connects building "A" and building "B" and shall be constructed of individnal
dimensional formed plastic letters with a beveled fuce and shall be 10" in height. Please see
Exlnòit "B".
(3)
TENANT IDENTIFICATION
(a) The surfuce area of tenant identification signage shall not exceed one
square foot for every one lineal foot of building ITontage which directly faces the street.
Maximum letter height shall not exceed fourteen indles (14") unless approved by the City
during the Development Plan Review process.
(b) The surfuce area ofthe tenant identification signage shall not exceed-ñve-J -J-= I
pIJI-eellt (5%) of the surface area of the parking lot side ofthe building. Maximum letter
height shall not exceed eight inches (8") unless approved by the City during the
Development Plan Review process.
(c) All tenant on-site fascia signage shall be coordinated to be identical in
color, style, size, illumination and font.
(d) The lettering for tenant signage shall conform to the following
specifications:
(1) . Letters shall be 14"/8" (where applicable) in height; 5" returns
painted to J.tJ.atch X-17 Misty La Habra stucco color.
(2) Faces to be 3/16' Plexiglass with 314", DaylNight acrylic Black trùn
cap. Interior illumination by neon tubing using U.L. approved protective housing
throughout or using "Electro-bits" U.L. approved insulators, internal clear Red neon.
(3) Installation: mounted to a nine inch (9") lñgh, five inch (5") wide
wireway that runs the length of the letters. The bottom of the letters shall extend down to
the bottom of the arclñtectural foam trim element that is a part of the building feature. A
remote transformer will be installed behind the wall. Please see Exhibits "C", "D" and
"E".
( e) Tenant Window Identification. Store identity, graplñcs, typography and/or
company logo may be silkscreened or etched on the tenant's window. The maximum
square foot graplñc area allowed per window shall not exceed four (4) square feet;
provided, however, that in-store neon type signage shaI1 not exceed eight (8) square feet
in size.
(t)
Hanging Signs. Hanging signs shall not be allowed.
(g) Banners and Pennants. Banners shall not be pernùtted except as a
temporary substitute of permanent signage, not to exceed 90 days, subject to City
approval. Pennants are not allowed. Criteria for the temporary signage shall not exceed
the criteria for permanent signage.
(4)
GENERAL SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(a) All building-mounted signs shall meet or exceed all applicable city, state
and federal codes.
(b) All signs containing electrical compOnents shall confonn to the Unifonn
Lighting Code. .
. (c) No on-site sign shall be affixed on, above or over the roof of any building,
and no on-site sign shall be affixed to the wall of a building so that it projects above the
parapet of the building. For the purposes of this section, a mansard style roof shall be
cous~e~apara~. .
.
..4:
,.
0' <..~
. ~i.ç, ~
~o ~
*-<¡$
ci3
\/
.
.
.
I
~
-~ I
~j
..
~
) v~
0'"
,'"<""v";--t'I
Ù..;-- ~,"<,Q
\'" 1-~~ "'~
-:\",¡.¡
,\\
.
.
. . . .'
fllI
.e
...
e
McÄrd1e Associates Architects
bÌ:idtødl1n '1'1œurIn8 .1n#ñDrt
S8JB EdIson Púice SuJte 201. .
Carlsba(/.t;al{forrrla 92008 761J-431-777S
NEW ELECTRICAL RACEWAY
C¡'¡ANNEL LETTER -
EXISTING. FOAM TRIM
.
~
.
I
I
I
MARGARITA MEDICAL - 61GNAGE 6CI-IEME
6/GNBAND DETAIL
~
2/~"/oe
fill
McATdle Associates ATchiJects
Aré1dt.dllre °l'tJmnlitr ° bItuIon
5838 Bdlson Plat:. Srdt. 201.
Carlsba~ Califomia 92008 760-431-7775
,.'
~" 6Uf" =ACE MOUNTED ELECT~ICAL
RACEWAY. PAINTED TO MATCH
STUCCO COLO~ WI .
14" H1614 ALUMINUM CHANNEL LETTERS.
....
d.'
.
-
MARGARITA MÉDICAL -. SIGNAGE SCt-IEME
SIGN6AND SECTION
.
II
~ 'c:. ".), ""k '<> ""'\
~"'G>-o V
<'\1;°""'0 .
"2, ,,~~,
.
%
.
-zl.,,/"z.
8u
.'
.. ,,'
.
.rIlI" McArtl1e Associates Architects
". ' ArÓiJitrctun . P1œud1Jg . bIItrlon
58$8 Edi&øn P1Dct: Sulte 201
'.oCR Car13bad, carrfomta 92008 760-451-7775
~
,
,¡.:;:
....-s;;;
-
........
--'i:
7r-l:::-,..
r
~<--
~-
êj
'"17
_7/
1:
r"l
I ~
~~
171
liT!
~~. ~'--~'".",.',:">;,':"','," ~..' '~'-'.
' . , '. .
'- ': ::,::::. ..'- .
~--n ~- - ~.:. " ~- , ~
;.;i / ~
,;'.,.,.".,......." ~/
- / - ---". . . . .... -- -,.<
H+H-1H
i
ffft-lli
fFB
t-HITI
tfffRtR
ffF-1
4*
ft\"
.
MARGARITA MEDICAL - 51GNAGE 5C4EME
TYPICAL TENANT 5/GN6AND
I/~
z.!zr,/C'J2.
e'd
SaSL-Yev-O9L
ayp.JIPW P3
~
::\l
.
.
;\
~
.
dyO:SO ZO ZZ ¡;"W
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM
R:\Signs\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\Memo F-1.doc
5
.
PROMENADE MEDICAL PLAZA
SIGN PROGRAM
.
Submitted by:
Margarita Medical Condo Development, LLC
and
Promenade Medical Condo Development, LLC
Owners
.
.
.
.
SIGN PROGRAM
FOR
PROMENADE MEDICAL PLAZA
(1)
ENTRY MONUMENTATION
"PROMENADE MEDICAL PLAZA" shall be constructed of individual dimensional
fonned plastic letters with a beveled face and shall be 6" in height; the site address of"41238
MARGARITA RD" shall be the same style letters of 4" height. Font shall be "architectural".
The monument shall be illuminated by three ground lights shining on the monument. Individual
tenant names shall not be placed on the monument. Please see Exhibit "A".
(2)
BUILDING IDENTIFICATION
"PROMENADE MEDICAL PLAZA" shall be attached to the parking lot side archway
that connects building "A" and building "B" and shall be constructed of individual dimensional
fonned plastic letters with a beveled face and shall be 10" in height. Please see Exhibit "B".
(3)
TENANT IDENTIFICATION
(a)
The surface area of tenant identification signage shall not exceed one square foot
for every one lineal foot of building frontage which directly faces the street.
Maximum letter height shall not exceed fourteen inches (14") unless approved by
the City during the Development Plan Review process.
(b)
The surface area of the tenant identification signage shall not exceed five percent
(5%) of the surface area of the parking lot side of the building. Maximum letter
height shall not exceed eight inches (8") unless approved by the City during the
Development Plan Review process.
(c)
All tenant on-site Margarita street side fascia signage shall be coordinated to be
identical in color, style, size, illumination and font, and all parking lot fascia
signage shall be identical in color, style, size, non-illumination and font.
(d)
The lettering for tenant Margarita street side signage shall confonn to the
following specifications:
(I)
Letters shall be 14" in height; 5" returns painted to match
X-17 Misty La Habra stucco color.
(2)
Faces to be 3/16' Plexiglas with %", DaylNight acrylic
Black trim cap. Interior illumination by neon tubing using
(e)
(t)
(g)
(h)
(4)
u.L. approved protective housing throughout or using
"Electro-bits" u.L. approved insulators, internal clear Red
neon.
.
(3)
Installation: mounted to a nine inch (9") high, five inch
(5") wide wireway that runs the length of the letters. The
bottom of the letters shall extend down to the bottom of the
architectural foam trim element that is a part of the building
feature. A remote transformer will be installed behind the
wall. Please see Exhibits "C", "D" and "E".
The letter for tenant parking lot side signage shall be 8" in height, individual
dimensional formed plastic letters with a beveled face, black, with an
"architectural" font.
Tenant Window Identification. Store identity, graphics, typography and lor
company logo may be silk-screened or etched on the tenant's window. The
maximum square foot graphic area allowed per window shall not exceed four (4)
square feet; provided, however, that in-store neon type signage shall not exceed
with (8) square feet in size.
Hanging Signs. Hanging signs shall not be allowed.
Banners and Pennants. Banners shall not be permitted except as a temporary
substiMe of permanent signage, not to exceed 90 days, subject to City approval.
Pennants are not allowed. Criteria for the temporary signage shall not exceed the
criteria for permanent signage.
.
GENERAL SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(a)
All building-mounted signs shall meet or exceed all applicable city, state
and federal codes.
(b)
All signs containing electrical components shall conform to the Uniform
Lighting Code. .
(c)
No on-site sign shall be affIXed on, above or over the roof of any building
and no on-site sign shall be affixed to the wall of a building so that it
projects above the parapet of the building. For the purposes of this
section, a mansard style roof shall be considered a parapet.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 3
PROPOSED SIGNS
R:\Signs\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\Memo F.1.doc
6
.
'r]--
I ß
I I
¡--r'-
I I
I '
.
.
Td
I W
I
I "
"I N
;:> ~
1~: :,In -
~l____-
e
,,~ri
~¡e'!1~
~ni
~~~!!'-
. ~~o
~!~~
'- i
~
~
~
~
t .
\; M..."
~ ~ ~ ~~
~",:~M
. ~ ~ "°
~ ;:¡ ¡¡¡ ¡¡
~
~
í
~N
~ .
i:1C:
~ :;;
<I ~ "
~ "" <
t 9 ~
d ..::;:~
~ ~ ~~
~ ~.,¡~
;j ~ ~ ~
. æ ~ u
¡ 8':5
"
"
"
~ .. e
:;: 8
o~
;; ~¡
i :t: :;.
" f~
<!!; :d
~ ~ ~~
~."§; ~~
"=: ::;"'1
~i:~
! ¡¡r~~~
~ ~~..
~ ;1!s 1ø~
~ ;¡:~ z~
i ~~~~
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ffi E~
~ n~~
! ill
~ ~ ~
~
"
"
~
~
"
i!.
~ 'et!
~lrlJ!
1tIIU¡
>II~I
z;
I!I:
-.
!ß~
--~
¡r
¡j
I-
m
hi
~
II ,~
g¡ II,
II 'I !
r
,I 0' ¡ 0
!'! !! ¡ ¡
,II ¡ ¡ Î
!i I
.,
e
"~l
I ¡ !§ i
! " II !
'I
I,
"
¡
,
e
6
~
~
a::
w
ê;
:5~
",0
~~
=>-
!!;¡:¡
~~
R~
~~
ŒW
'" !5~
~ ~~
~ zz
'" 0'"
ê ~~
Z """
it ~g
~ ~~
'" &Z
t¡¡ ~£
W ...z
:¡;!¡¡¡ ¡:¡~
~¡g ~~
t¡¡;1i g8
¡¡¡~h:
¡g¡g~::?
"'. """z
~::~~
;';ii!<3ffi~
~~H~
g
"
~p
~. j 8
!j~' ;
~~ I :¡
i§ i ii ~
0.' f!- jj
~~; i!1i j
~~ I !~~¡;
'0' .-"gO jj
0.. H.:, 1i
.~" ~,,~H.
~;¡ ~ ."iir&~d
ð' < ;¡.,.~".-
g~ § i;i.h~H
.. ~ .0"'2'.
o~ 1 ...~,.~-
¡. - WdiH
,,~ ~,i" -'iH!
~~.h ¡¡]in!
h l... o<ëH.,
~
'"
~
'"
~
z
Z
=>
B
~
g;!
9
¡¡¡
'"
~
0
...
!z
it
c
::¡
~
'"
...
W
W
'"
'"
~
~
'"
N
'"
...
3:
"'
iE
~
~
u
¡¡:
Œ
~
;;:
~
a::
0
~
~ ~.,. ¡en
~ ~ ~~~
~ '"
~ ~
~
¡¡
g
~N
;; I
~a:
G
"
: ~ "
§ "" <
~ >
g~~
" ...~.
~ ~~:
~ it "'~
:J ~ it ~
, æ ~,
~ ~ ~ u
"
~
~
~
~
ð ~
~~
~~
h
~.~
~'"
~:;1 o! ~
:;; ~ o='
.. ~~
~ ~ >w
~ ~ <š:::
~ ~ "~
i ~~m~
! ~~~3
~ ;¡¡~ ~c
~ ~~ z ~
~ ~~m~
~ Lffi~
~ ~ ~ 1;;1
~ ~ ~ ~¡
5
~ 1';11
~ ~ .
~ ~ ~
g I
~
~
"
~
~I~¡
~m¡
hJi
~U!
z;
I!I:
-.
m:
-j
w'
I-
m
!II
~
.
.
.
~
z
ã:
:)
l-
t.)
:f
:)
z
cC
:E
w
a:
0
u..
w
CCI
C
W
u:
ã:
w
:>
w
CCI
0
I-
eI)
Z
0
t;5
Z
w
:E
E
-I
-I
cC
~~
§!!! "'.
¡¡;!j!~
::Jm
""""
~
NEW NON.ILLUMINATED LmER SCALE 112" = 1'.0"
MANUFACTURE AND INSTALL NEW NON.ILLUMINATED FLAT CUT OUT LETTERS.
LETTERS: USE GEMINI 6" "ARCHITECTURA~ FONT STYLE, BEVEL FACE,
FORMED PLASTIC LEmRS FOAM FILLEO FOR SILICONE FOR ATTACHMENT
PAINT: PAINT ALL LmERS BLACK
œ
-----_1!~:!.Q~~-- , '----'---1
ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY CENTER
lADY ANCED
ø
, S'-6'
r---'-----'--------- ,
ENDODONTICS
-rr
¡
GEMINI FORMEO~, !
LEmRs<-rì
\1
flUSH MOUNT WITH----. J,. \
~"row~ ],
m"O""N""-...,"oNo,TA,,
"",,",o"MEDL£IT"" ,."...
, ,
""""""",u...,.."I'!<, '""""',""'~,'¥""..-'. ,""""""""-' .",.,.,.., "~-,, c"- "...,;o;;.,:,",.,v,;J'~".",.',"""":"""M",,,.>",;ci~~~\~~;",""'~""""/!¡~;!i"'¡~""t"""""
Client signature
¡
W E8T!8)~!TC:"~
T"'> ""->,,, 0 ;eO mL">'" pO""'Or< " ."",oN ><" >Y>"" " ,'Y ", " ",po","", " .V""" '° P"" .V'T""' "O"'" "";,,, . "'-L ="",Y mc="'- " >"'CO""" " " PR,Vro> DY ""'R> '
MEMaEROF
~§ê8 ~
_uo."'"
PROJECT TIDE. PROMINADE MEDICAL BUILDING. UPSTAIRS PRESENTED a" INCHA LOCKHART
O'DR'SS. TEMECULA CALIFOR DRowNB" R. HAINES
WESTERN SIGN SYSTEMS INDA VISTA DR, SAN MARCOS CA. 92069 CUSTOM.. A...OVAL
'HONE. 76' .736.6070 FAX- 76 .6073 E.MAIl,w"',",¡g,,@ool.com
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT 4
AREA CALULATIONS
FOR THE
PROPOSED SIGNS
R:\Signs\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\Memo F-1.doc
7
.
.
.
Proposed Signs Square Footage Lineal Feet of Square foot of Square footage
of the Sign the Building Signage of the Signage
Frontage Permitted by permitted by
the Sign the
Program Development
Code
Endodontics
(Street 9.67 21' 11" 22 11
Frontage)
Endodontics
(Parking Lot 3 28' 4" 15 14
Frontaae)
Advanced
Orthopedic
Surgery Center 26.29 36' 36 18
(Street
Frontaae)
Advanced
Orthopedic
Surgery Center 8.9 40' 9" 22 20
(Street
Frontage)
R:\Slgns\2002\O2-o095 Margarita Medical Sign Program\Memo F-1.doc
8
.
ITEM #5
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
Dan Long, Associate Planner P &
FROM:
DATE:
January 21, 2004
SUBJECT:
PAO3-0347 , Product Review Roripaugh Ranch, Griffin Communities
The aforementioned item was continued from the January 7, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
because of lack of a quorum.
Attachment
1.
January 7,2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 2
R,\Home Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPlGriffin Communities Tr29661-4, PAOJ-0347\Memo to PC continuance 1-21-04,doc
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
JANUARY 7, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R,\Home Product ReviewlRoripangh Ranch SPlGriffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-03471Memo tn PC continuance J-2J-04,doc
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commissioners
Dan Long, Associate Planner
DATE:
January 7,2004
SUBJECT:
Item continued from November 19, 2003 Planning Commission Hearing (PA03-
0347) Griffin Communities, Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan PA 4A
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve with Conditions.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project on November 19, 2003 and approved
a motion to continue the project for one month, however, the plans were not complete in time for
the December 17, 2003 Planning Commission hearing. At the November 19, 2003 Planning
Commission hearing, a sub-committee (Olhasso and Mathewson) was formed to discuss
revisions for the project.
The subcommittee met with staff and the applicant on December 3, 2003 and discussed some
major concepts that needed to be addressed. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and has
determined that the revised plans have addressed most of the concerns of the Planning
Commission. However, staff does have some additional recommendations as summarized
below, which have been included in the conditions of approval. The recommended
enhancements are a result of comments from the Planning Commission hearing of November
19, 2003 and of the sub-committee. A Resolution of Approval has been attached for your
consideration. The staff report packet and minutes from the previous meeting (November 19,
2003) are also attached for your reference.
The following is a list of changes prepared by the applicant:
PLAN ONE
1.
Elevation A - Mediterranean:
a.
Ceramic tile accents added at garage walls
Standard courtyard walls with wrought iron gate shown on elevations
b.
2.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a. Redesigned the roof configuration to produce horizontal roof form more
appropriate for Ranch style. Top of roof height now measured at 18'-6" as
compared to 16'-6" for elevations A and C.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04,doc
1
3.
PLAN TWO
1.
f.
2.
c.
b.
Dormer element added to front elevation.
Additional siding provided on garage, front projection and on dormer.
c.
d.
Standard courtyard walls with wrought iron gate shown on elevations.
Additional siding provided on side elevation gables and projection, wrap-around
and rear elevation.
Removed river rock base at garage, at front projection window and wrap around
(replaced with siding).
Removed Dutch gable from all elevations, replaced with standard side gable
e.
f.
g.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a. Standard courtyard walls on elevations with wrought iron gate shown.
b. Shutter removed from front elevation and front window changed to 5050 slider.
c. Arbor with overhead trellis added at courtyard entry.
d. Gable vents added to front elevation.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a. Redesigned the roof configuration to produce horizontal roof form more
appropriate for Ranch style. Top of roof height now measured at 25'-10" as
compared to 24'-4" for elevations C and D.
Dormer element added to front elevation.
Double post porch support and stone veneer base eliminated and replaced with
single post support and railing at front porch.
Recessed window at front elevation eliminated and brought out to front of wall
surface to resemble Ranch style.
Additional horizontal siding added on front and side elevations.
Porch railing added at side yards.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a.
Signature Craftsman style windows added on front elevation.
Window with shutters replaced with wider slider windows.
Window grouping at laundry room revised to two square
elements at "signature" window.
windows matching
b.
Elevation D - Monterey:
a. Front porch element redesign to include a two-story tower element with arched
entry and window elements. Also includes 16" recessed windows at 2nd story
tower element.
b.
Roof orientation above garage turned to shed away from second floor balcony to
produce bolder massing forms.
3.
R:\Producl ReviewlRoripau9h Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04,doc
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
c.
d.
e.
PLAN THREE
Base of popped out element at second floor of left elevation changed to "Scallop"
design to enhance Monterey style.
Roofing revised to show "S" tile roof.
Left elevation 2nd story window changed to arched window.
a.
Elevation A - Mediterranean:
Ceramic tile accents added at garage and porch walls.
1.
a.
Elevation B - Ranch:
2.
b.
c.
3.
PLAN FOUR
1.
d.
Redesigned the roof configuration to produce horizontal roof form more
appropriate for Ranch style. Top of roof height now measured at 25'-8" as
compared to 24'-6" for elevations A and C.
Recessed window at front eliminated and brought out to front wall surface to
resemble Ranch style elements.
Two windows above entry replaced with a single window.
Additional horizontal siding added on all elevations.
Double post porch support and stone veneer base eliminated and replaced with
single post support and railing.
Hipped and Dutch gables replaced with side gable at front and side elevations.
Exposed outriggers eliminated.
e.
f.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a. Main window above garage replaced with "signature" Craftsman style window.
b. Window with shutters on second story of front elevation eliminated and replaced
with wider windows without shutters.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a.
Redesigned the roof configuration to produce horizontal roof form more
appropriate for Ranch style. Top of roof height now measured at 27'-4" as
compared to 24'-6" for elevation C and 25'-0" for elevation D.
Double post porch support and stone veneer base eliminated and replaced with
single post support and railing at front porch.
Additional siding added on all elevations.
Dormer element added at front elevation.
Recessed window at front elevation eliminated and brought out to front of wall
surface to resemble Ranch style.
Horizontal siding and porch railing added at side elevation.
Dutch gables and outriggers replaced with side gables and siding.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
R:\Producl Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04.doc
3
2.
3.
Analysis:
Elevation C - Craftsman:
.
a.
Main window above garage replaced with "signature" Craftsman style window.
Shutters have been eliminated on front elevations.
Window grouping at right side of front elevation replaced with smaller square
windows matching "signature" windows.
b.
c.
Elevation D - Monterey:
a. Main roof forms redesigned to provide for second story balcony at entry. Roof
forms also simplified. Balcony on front elevation relocated to left side and
replaced with tower element with gable and two arched windows.
Bedroom windows above garage changed to two smaller single windows.
Roofing revised to "S" tile roof.
Base of popped out element on second story on left elevation changed to
"scallop" design to enhance architecture style.
b.
c.
d.
Staff has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined that the product review does not
fully conform with the Design Guidelines of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. In reviewing the
proposed project, staff has determined that the project does not provide adequate articulation
on all four sides as required in the Specific Plan (Section 4.10.3.5). In addition, it is staff's
opinion that the Monterey style homes should extend the front balcony the full length of the front
elevation in order to met the intent of the Design Guidelines. However, staff feels that if the
following conditions of approval are implemented into the necessary plans, the project would be
consistent with the Design Guidelines.
PLAN ONE
1.
2.
3.
.
Elevation A - Mediterranean:
a.
Remove shutters and enlarge the arched window on front elevation.
Add arched windows on the sides and rear elevations and remove shutters.
b.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a.
Wrap siding around the beginning of fence on left elevation.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a.
Revise venting to differ from the Ranch style.
Provide shingle siding on side yard projections.
Revise front window to a pediment style window.
Revise rear elevation window to a pediment style window.
Revise garage door style by providing a wood appearance
windows
and eliminating
b.
c.
d.
e.
.
R:\Producl ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4. PAO3-0347\PC SA memo 1-7-04,doc
4
.
.
.
PLAN TWO
1.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a. Wrap siding around to beginning of fence on right elevation.
2.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a. Wrap the band around to the side from the porch to the garage.
b. Revise venting to differ from the Ranch style.
c. Revise rear elevation window(s) to a pediment style window to match front.
d. Revise garage door style by providing a wood appearance and eliminating
windows
3.
Elevation D - Monterey:
a. Extend front balcony to the edge of the residence above garage.
b. Eliminate all shutters and provide additional arched windows on each elevation to
match the front elevation.
c.
Revise vents to reflect a Monterey style and differ from other styles.
Provide decorative windowsills on side and rear elevations.
d.
PLAN THREE
1.
Elevation A - Mediterranean:
a.
Provide additional arched windows on each elevation.
Add decorative windowsills for all arched windows.
b.
2.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a. Add decorative windowsill to rear elevation window on second story and on left
elevation window above double-doors.
3.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a. Add pediment style windows on left elevation window above double doors and on
second story of rear elevation.
Revise shutters to reflect Craftsman style to differ from Ranch style.
Revise garage door style by providing a wood appearance and eliminating
windows
b.
c.
PLAN FOUR
1.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a.
Provide decorative windowsills on rear and side elevations.
2.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a.
Revise the rear window on the second elevation to a pediment style window.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04.doc
5
b.
Provide matching stone veneer at the garage and wrap around side to beginning
of fence.
Revise garage door style by providing a wood appearance and eliminating
windows
.
c.
3.
Elevation D - Monterey:
a. Extend the balcony on the second story of the front elevation on the opposite
side of the tower element to extend to the edge of the residence.
Eliminate all shutters and provide additional arched windows on each elevation to
match the front elevation along with decorative windowsills
b.
Summary:
As mentioned previously, staff has added conditions of approval to ensure these changes are
made, which would bring each product into conformance with the intent of the Design
Guidelines of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission
approve the project with the attached conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7
2.
PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
.
3.
Summary Matrix, dated December 17, 2003 - Blue Page 9
4.
Lighting - Blue Page 10
5.
November 19, 2003 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 11
6.
November 19, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes - Blue Page 12
.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03.0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04.doc
6
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04,doc
7
.
I"
GRIFFIN
COMM""""
'" M, "..."... ",.., n."
c"",,;,~;:~'::,,~;,"'"
.
.
GRIFFIN
COMMUNITIES
CASA DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Temecula, California
Tract #29661-4 Planning Area 4A
A ~.'!:~X.irR°Y!:',.',~.;
V ~'¡::"..F"'¡.:1'::~
noy 2002"" "...."" '.. 200'
Kel' Notes:
Elevation A - Mediterranean
CD C"""""F"'TII...."
ø Lo.Pro",C~-'S'T"...."
@ CD s"'~,"",s-
~ ø ""'F",.hS_".F~Trim
6) 0 w"'¡,."",
0 W"'¡F~I.
CD CW_S....Vm-
0 F"""""..S_..-
£ ø W"'¡Pm'ATrim
í8) @ D_mi~ Sh...-
@ Sh"""',Sld_.
@ ."""""'S"-.
@W"'¡""'loo""
@ W"'¡""m-
@ D_ri~Ch_,Sh",..
@ W"",b""',IWI".
@ Dooomiwm,Vm'
~ @ M"'Sodloo,'---
í4) WI~_..IWi'-'
@ """"'W"'¡C.I-
@ F..b_'
@ """""bW."""""Drili
@ D."mi"SlllS"'"
@ 01..."""".""""."",,,
@ Eo",""""'T."
II) @ ~"i'd.'iJi~."'"UPD-
@ TiI,"""'"
~I
.... -",~...-
~---
-
Plan 1
Elevation B - Ranch
--",-...-
~-...-
--
Plan 1
Elevation C - Craftsman
...._",~...-
~_...-
~~
Conceptual
Elevations
Plan
CAS A
DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
TemeCUI"alltornla
Tract '* 2966-4 BnDinll Area 4A
A.I
A ¡g:~.Y.!fR°Y!;'",.,.
V .""'\?:'::~
Jl:TOY 2 Dooom"" IS, %00'
GRTFFIN
0,,0,'"'-"," N , , , . ,
". ~;,~I:::." A";.~:':;:.;""
,. '"
.
Courtyard #3
at comer lot condition
GRIFFIN
COMM""""
, " R co...,. ... ".... n...
C...u. c."""" "'"
"."....,,"
~
--- ----- -- - ____n___-
C_~II--""
""""" ,//>'
'""",:;~:,//
/ "",
/~"""
, "
11,// ""'"
.
ll.c
", >'
"""., /'
"", /'
" ,
'></
/' ,.",
//;""~""
/' ',.,
- -------- __nn- __n-
11--...-...
c:¡.'J
First Floor Area:
1972s.f.
Conceptual Floor Plan 1 . 1972
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUOH RANCH
Temecula. California
Tract II> 2966-4 Plannlnjl AreaAA
s. f.
,.AI8IO...
~I
.
Ootional Bdrm 3
&; Offi.!<e
A.2
0 ~:r.~X.JfRo~..'r..,
F~.:'.~..F"'¡k'::::::5
Jt1'OY 200"'" .......bor IS, 2...
Q
~
DiD!D&
~...
4T"n
Section
-.::~.
"A" Roof Plan
"
¡;;
~I
!..
¡;,
Coo." a""'" 0pL
Right EI~~~,~
Rear Elevation
~,--"~
CONCEPTU AL, ELEV A TlON S PLAN I - "A"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUOH RANCH
Temecul~alifornla
Tract 1/ Z966.418P'íanninS Area <fA
A-3
A ! :J.~X.9ROY¡;>,.'~~
V ,m:. """¡¡.',",-':X:::
"",y .. -:':-'::..
GRIFFIN
CO""""""
""."..-'...'....."...
Con.. ".."m
, ",.
.
"B" Roof Plan
.
~
Rear Elevation
-.,,'q
.
.
!.o
'^
!.o
'^
Right E~~!!.~~
CONC EPTU AL ELEVATION S PLAN 1 - "B"
CAS A DIAMANTE
A-4
0 ! :I~.Y.SfRO~..',..,
L~~..F"'¡l:'=::~
G RI FFIN
OOM"""""
",. "...,...., ".... "..,
, O',""';,~;:':::";;:"U
AT
RORIPAUGH
RANCH
Tcmccula. California
Tract *' 2966-4 Plannina Area 4A
It1OY 2002-4" """""'" IS, 200'
<>
(>
.:~.
"C" Roof Plan
.
¡;,
Rear Elevation
~,...~
.
¡;"
Right E~~.!?~
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN 1 - "C"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
TemecUI.callfornla
Tract '* 2966 lannln& Area 4A
GRIFFIN
e""""",,,,,
". ~;,~':...~.~:.;;:,;""
'."'"
A-S
0 !5:r.~X.!fROY¡;>,.',..~
._..F"'¡~':::;;:5
ItTOY" -- IS, 2,.,
.
Front Elevation "A"
Front Elevation "B"
Front Elevation "C"
.
.
Left Elevation "A"
ENHANCED ELEVATIONS AT CORNER LOT - PLAN I
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
A-6
A !j:!~X.!fR°Y!:'I~r..,
V L~!~.F"'¡.:':':::~
GRTF FTN
0°"""""'"
"""co...,...."""","
c"",.o,"""""'"
(""0""'"
Temecula, California
Tract .¡¡. 2966-4 Plannln. Area 4A
rroY '00"'" -... IS, '00>
Conceptual Elevations Plan
CASA DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Tom.cul.callfornla
Tract * 2966 lannin. Area 4A
Plan 2
Elevation C - Craftsman
--,,~~~
~---
--
GRIFFIN
"'"""""'"
'" ~;,~I:._.~:':;:.~I'"
1.1»0
Plan 2
Elevation B - Ranch
--,,~--
~---
--
Plan 2
Elevation D - Monterey
--,,~-~
~---
-
2
15"
Key Notes:
Is"
CD C""""~.TlI,""1
CD """'I."""",.""TlioRool
CD S,",'I,;""=
0 S'""""'S"""".'.m1Öm
ø WoodTrlm
@ Wood'","
ø """""".m,V_-
CD ""'"' "'" s- B-
Q) Wood"'dTrlm
@ _m'~Sh"""
@ S""'S~I,SI"',
@ "".....lSldl"
@ Wood """ook-
@ Wood""N./noN
@ """"'~Ch"""""""""
@W"""../ro""""
@ _mi~TiI,V_,
@ t:::'~,,"!,w<¡::,s.:,Doo'
@ '",,",Wood C.""""
@'~"'!f
@ '"""..;'hW~"'/ro,GriU
@ ""'-ri~SiIIS"'!f
@ 1ll~"""B";¡d!"^"",,
@ """"...., Toil
@ S"ri"NIM_'..UtipDoo..
@ ~::.';~'
A.7
0 !Q'.~.Y.!fR°Y!:',.'~".
."".."..F"'I1:1=:5
COY 2 -- IS, 2'"
.
GRIFF IN
, 0 " " " " , , , . ,
"'". "..."... ",... n...
""'¡";,~;:~::¡";;."'"
.
3S'.Q"
,-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
c-
"', "
""'"", /,/
", /
, '"
".,.>~/
,/ "',
/"/,"~~~R.i.:'"",,
Second Floor Area: First Floor Area:
1199 '.f. 1032 '.f.
Conceptual Floor Plan 2.2231 s.f.
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUOH RANCH
Temecula, California
Tract '* 2966-4 Planuln. Area 4A
2562
-....... ~I
....... ..
s. f.
.
~I
A.S
A ~J.~x.gROf,I.I;',.,~.~
V ~-:;:,~.F"'¡l:'=::s
IC1OY 200""" """"'""" 2005
GRIFFIN
'OMMO",""
""co..t""""'"
'""'_:~~;:""
.D.IIIm...i
:;;:.:,
...""
Onto Bdrm 4 . 133- s.!..
~
.....
:::~
.a.w.n
OP,t._Suøe:cFamiIv . 141 s.f.
Conceptual
CAS A
Floor
Plan
2
DIAMANTE
Options
Section
~
ODt. Bd..l"m....5.__" 198 s.f.
AT RORI~UOH RANCH
Temecul California
Tract * 2966 Janning Area 4A
A.9
A ~:1~:r,.~~Yf!~~.:':
V_~""'t:.==
ItTOY. ................"
.
.
.
".,&
AI""
<>-
.
&::
,-I
a:.1
.
~I
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
.
&::!
GRIFFIN
OOMM"""'"
'" K eI"," ,.., "..., "...
e...... e."""""",
".."".""
CONCEPTU AL ELEV A TIONS PLAN 2 - "B"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Temecula. California
Tract '* 2966-4 Plannlns Area 4A
A-tO
0 ~~'y.gRO~I.'r.'.
~L(::".F"'¡l:'=::;;§1
ItTOY 2-..,. .......... I~ 20"
.....
"'....
~~.
'I
~
--..
Left Elevation
1..1
¡;.
"C" Roof Plan
,
~I
,
~
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
GRIFFIN
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN 2 - "C"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
TemecuIA.--allfornla
Tract * 2966.81anning Area 4A
A-ll
0 1fJ.~~.,!f~~~!~:¡"i
,,"":i::.:.=
"TOY'. """"',., U, 200'
'O""UN"'"
"'N""a""""'"
,.,.....,.-;;"""
.
.
.
1.1
Ii.
.
.
¡;;,
...-...
Left Elevation
.
1.1
Ii.
.
¡;;
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN 2 - "D"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
GRIFFf'N
",""".."",
'" .., co......,. hoo" IO..,
""", """"" "'"
"."no.""
Tamacula. California
Tract '* 2966-4 Planning Araa 4A
A-J2
A ! ::r.~Y.I?R°Y!".,.'~~
V ~ji."..F"'¡!i=';~
"TOY 200,.." t>ooom'" IS, 2002
Plan 3
Elevation B - Ranch
--~-~-
~---
--
Conceptual
CASA
AT
Plan 3
Elevation A - Medrterranean
--~-~-
...---
Plan 3
Elevation C - Craftsman
--~-~-
...---
Elevations
Plan
3
GRIFFIN
co..""",,,
"'~~'~':'-'\:':::.~""
'W"'"
DIAMANTE
RORIPAUGH RANCH
TemeculAralirornia
Tract '* 2966--1annina Aroa 4A
Key Notes;
"Is"
CD C_'~"","'r
ø """"",c.'...'S'TIIoRoof
CD S"",""""-
ø ""'",i"S"""~"'mTrim
0 WoodTrim
ø Wood""'.
ø C.I_S_V-
@ ,....""'"",....
0 Wood PM' Trim
@ D--""""'m
@ S""'~S.,.S'dl".
@ H.,;,..>IS,"'-
@ Wood""""""
@ Wood"""'-
@ D__'neb'....,S""",,,
@ W~""""'m..
@ n"""n"'.v..,
@ ~:i=i.v=D."
@ .,,""Woodc."'~
@p"""
@ """.",hW_"",.OrlIl
@"""""nSillShoJr
@ 1II~".""."IdI.."""""
@""""""'Toil
@ ¡"f.'i".1'.~.""IIUP""'-
@TII'^"",'
A.13
A ~;f.~*~~Yl:mì
V.""'\;'==-=
IOTOY . Dooom"., IS, ...3
.
¡-
l
Second Floor Area:
1182 s.f.
Þ~n:
m~
GRIFFIN
, 0 " " " , , , , , ,
'" . "...1. An. ".... "...
""'¡';.~j:\'::,'!;:""
.
c
DB
c-;;t;rt;;;"~~I---~~--
Partial Plan
at Corner Lot
First Floor Area:
1253 s.f.
Conceptual Floor Plan 3 2435 s.f.
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
2591
Temecula. Call Cornia
Tract '* 2966-4 Planninll Area 4A
.
.QI!1,
.I!.dtm..2
"'", '"
", /
',."", , //
,><,
" "
"/~=a.f.;",,
,,:/ '""
------------ ---- -- ---
s. f.
~
-~ .
L"
A.I.
0 !tT.~X.!fR°Y!:'."..,
~-(i".,!"""¡l:'=::S
It1'OY '00204" -... ... ,...
IT] II
j
ìl
!8 ~I ~
'0 .. ~
~~~
... ...
0
..
¡:
0
;.~
Of-l=
U
.zz
.., ...,.c -< .::<
~ '" a"
¡: ""':1
III ~ = ~<
... -¡r
ø.. < 0-:1
~~:i
0 Q ø.._",
- ....~:::
J., II: 0'"
0'"
¡ -<OSI!
'õ ..;1 ~ as ,1'0 II: 0 ~
..:I .. ~ :s..n ¡..
..r~ ~ ... < ¡...
0'" ø, -<
~u
¡:
0
U
~! ~~f~ :~a ':;~ i
~¡¡J ~ '" ~
.on
... ...
..18:::: ' 0
il
.!~ ..;1 ~
(0 .,
~ .. !
¡¡¡~~
"¡'"
0
Zi~:
...... :=
~ :~3
~.
;;;;.
CJ ~~
.
.
~
0
~
¡ am IT '" r
==II "'..,
<>-
"0-
~
%~
"A" Roof Plan
=-1
¡;,
.
i;;
.1-
GRIFFIN
c " " " " N , , , , ,
,.. N, eI..." ,.. "..., "..,
c""i;,~;:~'::ig:""
Rear Elevation
=-1
¡;,
.
~I
.
Left Elevation
~¡
.'
i;;:
-----------"---"--- ---------llTIL--- - ---~- -------.~--
C ONCEPTU AL ELE V A TrONS PLAN 3 - "A"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Temecula. California
Tract '* 2966-4 Planninll Area 4A
Right Elevation
A-16
A !$:r.~'y.gR°Yr.,."~"
V l::.L~.F"'¡]:':::~
ItTOY 200"""" o-mbe IS, 2003
<>
{>
~...
"'.....
"B" Roof Plan
.,
¡;;¡
Rear Elevation
1¡"\"T9,1
--H------ I~+++-II ii88i! I
------I¡"¡"¡'+~I ---------~-------
¡~'¡'.,K.-\'~j -- -"---
-.-....../
Right Elevation
GRIFFIN
C ONCEPTUA L ELEV A TrONS PLAN 3 - "B"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
TCD1CCUl8callfornla
Tract .¡; 2966. lanDIng Area 4A
A-17
0 1fJ',~~..iE~Y\:!:'i'i
--="":.:i'=-=
"roy '. ",.""...... '00>
e,,""""""
". ~~'~;:'.':" A";.~:':;:.~""
I ""
.
.
.
.0.
-<>-
~
(>
0
"....
........
"cn Roof Plan
~I
'"'I
~
-_.---------)rT!T~ --------~--------I-;---
1~..~.J¡
-.-....../
'"'I
~
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
CONCEPTU AL ELEV A TraNS PLAN 3 - "c"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Tcmccula. California
Tract '* 2966-4 Plannlna Area 04A
A-IS
0 !j:;r,~'y'gRoy¡;'.."...
~¡,:~..F"'¡.:':'=::S
GRIFFIN
CO"""""'"
,.. ~;,~'~.;:r;Nh;¡::;:'~""
ItTOY 2-..,. -...... 2003
ENHANCED ELEVATIONS AT CORNER LOTS - PLAN 3
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
TemOCUI.caJlfOrnla
Tract '* 2966 lannlna Area 4A
1.1
'^
.
~
~!
.
~I
GRrn'IN
",..""""
'" ~;,~,:.oo,. ":;.~:':;:.~""
.""
1.1
'^
A-19
A ~:r.wx.JfR°Y!:',.,....,
v..",,:~..F"'¡1:'=:.:~
ETOY -... IS, 2... ,
.
Plan 4
Elevation C - Craftsman
-_ro~~~
~---
.
Plan 4
Elevation B - Ranch
-_ro~~~
~.---
-
Plan 4
Elevation D - Monterey
-_ro~-~
..---
--
GRIFFIN
COMM"""'"
"'". <1m" An ....., n..,
e...... e.",...,. m"
,.."",.""
Conceptual Elevations Plan 4
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Temecula. California
Tract * 2966-4 Planninl Area 4A
.
15
Key Notes:
(!) "--"""10""
CD ....""".c"""","""..."
G),""'"""",-
CD ,"""",..,_~'_Trim
0w,",-
ø w,",,"",
ø e"","",_.Vmn
CD ,...,Oort,_.-
0 W'""œ'.Trim
@ -.ri" ,.,,-
@S_So/l,S"'"
@ H""~IS""',
@ W,",OortI"""'"
@ w'""""'""-
@ "-ri"Ch""",S",,",
@ W"""'.""""""
@ """"","IoVro,
@ ~:'J;tm':!',J,"::::.-
@ .......w'""""'"
@"""""
@ """"'..OWm.",.."onn
@ D_ri" SIns"",
@ Ill_""".""""""'"
@",,_"""To'
@ ~'f.'I'\j'~o"IIU,....
@""""'"
A.20
A !5:r.~'y.gRO~..'....,
V L~;A..F"'¡!:'=:~
ItTOY 200"'" """"""'... 2""
i_.j
i ¡
~
Second Floor Area:
1461 s.f.
GRIFF! 1'1
'OM",""'"
"',.co....,....."..,
'm.. ..,...",
, ",.
Conceptual Floor
CAS A
ß!Wl
;
. ,
.. ;
.. ;
, ,
.. ;
.. ;
.. ;
.. ;
..¡
¡,
4~~
; ..
,I \,
i \.
First Floor Area:
1227 s.f.
Plan 4 . 2688 ~~
DIAMANTE
2 8 7 I
AT RORIP.UGH RANCH
Tomocul California
Tract * 2966. lannln J Area 4A ,
..
..
..
~\~i.
/'\
s. f.
1ø1
-~
-....
A.2l
A !j::r.~x.gROY¡;>,..~..,
V.""':!:'ä~
ItTOY 2 -.., ... 2'"
.
.Mu.IH
:i~
Ontional Retreat
.
.1&!.t
~L-
r=
0
\',
" ~))
Kit.:>fXi i
Onto SuDer Family Room
HIIll
.!JJIIJw!
Section
Ontional Bdrm 5
Conceptual Floor Plan 4 . Options
CAS A DIAMANTE
GlITFF IN
COMM","'"
'" ~~,~'~'::\'::W:,.¡¡::::.:""
AT
RORIPAUGH
RANCH
Temecula, California
Tract * 2966.4 Planning Area 4A
.
A.22
0 J!::r.~x.gR°Y!:"i,~"
~.ii:.~""::1:'ä~
JC'OY 200"'" -...... 2003
0-
0-
.r~
"B" Roof Plan
-.--
Rear Elevation
...-.-
Right Elevation
CONCEPTU AL ELE V A TrONS PLAN 4 - "B"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
TemeCUle.allfornla
Tract ." 2966 lannins Area 4A
A-23
0 ~.!!fx.RR°Y!"..."..,
.;¡:"¡"':"""¡~':=:~
"TOY Dooom- ... 2...
GR n-p I N
'O""""","
'" ~~'~':'.':" A"~.~:';::.:""
, ""
.
.
.
..""
"..'"
"C" Roof Plan
-.-.
Rear Elevation
Right Elevation
.-.- """,,,...,.~
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN 4 - "C"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Temecula. California
Tract.. 2!166.4 Plannlna Area 4A
A-24
A ~;r,~'y' ¡;R°Y!:'I.',~.'
V ~~:. """i!t"::::5
GRIFFIN
COMM"."'"
".. co..... ,... ,....d "..,
C.,....C."""""',,
<"""'.""
aTOY 200204,. -... 1J, 2....
~I
~
II
1..1
¡;,
II
"0" Roof Plan
Left Elevation
.
¡;,
.
¡;"
~
-.-.
Rear Elevation
COMM""""
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN 4 - "0"
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Temecultalltornla
Tract * 2966 laDDIng Aroa 4A
A-2S
A ~.T.~Y.!fR°y'p'..,~~
V --F"'¡1:1::i~
ICI'OY 2- -_.~ 2-
GRIFFIN
. " !'"'~':'-'~:':;:.~""
'-""
.
.
.
Elevation "A"
Rear Elevation
Elevation "B"
Rear Elevation
Elevation "C"
Rear Elevation
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN 1
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Tem.cula. California
Tract '* 2966-4 Plannlna Area 4A
A-26
GRTFFIN
00""""""
'" ,. "...,. AU, h..., ",..
o....t;.~;:\,::,.!;:"n
A !£!:$i.'y.§R°YE,.'r.~
V L:.r.1L F"':1:1=:::::::i
ItTOY 200"'" -"" IS, 2003
GRIFFIN
.<...2..M....M....<L.O"'"
"'~"".' .., 'n... "..,
em.. ,... no"
( ",.
Elevation "B"
Elevation "C"
Elevation "D"
Rear Elevation
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN 2
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIP~GH RANCH
Te~ecul allfornla
TraCt *' 2966 lannlna Aroa 4A
A-27
0 ! :J.~.Y.!fR°IÆ..'r..,
If""'¡.:':'::::':~
IITOY 2 -.... IS, 2003
.
.
.
Elevation "A"
Elevation "B"
Rear Elevation
Elevation "C"
Rear Elevation
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN 3
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
GR1F FIN
<OMM"""'"
'" ~,,~':::i'.,~;:;,~:':;:.;""
"",.".""
Temecula, California
Tract '* 2966-4 Plannlna: Area 4A
A-28
0 ~T.g'y.~OI,J!;',.','..,
Im,- "'.m............~
.-:..-- 0:::=:;.'=
rroy,..,.." -- ... 2003
Elevation "B"
Rear Elevation
.......,
Rear Elevation
Elevation "C"
-l.....,
Rear Elevation
Elevation "D"
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS PLAN4
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Temecu lAc al I fornla
Tract '* 2966W'Plannina Area 4A
A-29
,.... ~;r.~1':~~~~:~:
Va-":""I.!:':i:î:.=
ltTOy" """"...... ,..,
GRIFFIN
COMM""""
". " "'iïilW';'" >Om. n..,
c.,.....:,.~;."'n
.
Typiçal Window Trim & Grid Patterns
"A" Mediterranean
"B" Ranch
"C" Craftsman
"D" Monterey
G R I F"F I N
'OMM""""
'" N, co...,. A". "on' n..,
""'..""""""'"
,.."",.""
.
Front Entrv Door Tvo.
--_..._~.
--._--~w~,
!;'himneys & Deeorative Shro.<Is
ID
DO
DO
n
;l
lliill
ñ
ml
DO
DO
ñ
10
DO
DO
rJ
ELEV A TION THEMES
CAS A DIAMANTE
AT RORIPAUGH RANCH
Temecula. California
Tract '* 2966-4 Plannlnll Area 4A
.
GamEe Do,",
A.30
0 ~T,~x.9R°Y!:"I,'.~
~.!L(:'~...F"'¡~'=:~
noy 2"""" -- IS, 2002
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION 2004--
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04.doc
8
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0347 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4A
OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED
SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 957-340-001 TRACT MAP 29661-4.
WHEREAS, Griffin Communities, filed Planning Application No.PA03-0347, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0347 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03.0347
on November 19, 2003 and on January 7,2004 at duly noticed public hearings 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 approved Planning Application No. PA03-0347;
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. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA03-0347 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
A. 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 proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential
development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\Resolution w CofA-1-7-04.doc
1
The overall design of the single-family homes, 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.
.
Section 3. Environmental ComDliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0347 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
certified and there are not substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0347 for a Product Review for detached
single family residences within Planning Area 4A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located
south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Assessor's Parcel No. 957-340-001, Tract Map 29661-4. The Conditions of Approval are
contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 7'h day of January 2004.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
.
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss-
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7'h day of January 2004, by the
fu~~~ .
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:IProduct ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SPlGriffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\Resolution w CofA-1-7-04.doc
2
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PAO3-0347\Resolution w CofA-1-7-04.doc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0347 (Product Review)
Project Description:
A Product Review for detached single family residences
within Planning Area 4A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west
of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Assessor's Parcel No. 957-340-001, Tract Map 29661-4.
Assessor Parcel No.:
957-340-001
DIF Category:
Per Development Agreement
Approval Date:
January 7, 2004
Expiration Date:
January 7, 2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department 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 Planning Department 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, protect 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 monetary 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 01 the deposit
R:\Producl Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4. PA03-0347\Resolulion w CofA-1-7-04.doc
4
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
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 harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any
of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required
deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the
applicant.
.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including
elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained
on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these changes.
The colors and materials (including lighting) for this project shall substantially conform to
the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any
deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of
Planning.
This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other
regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions
consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building
and other necessary permits and approvals for the project.
.
The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior
dimension of 20' x 20', This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance
of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of
garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any
similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage
floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall.
Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment
Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and
Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department.
Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site.
Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards.
In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited
to 24' maximum.
All Mediterranean, Monterey, Craftsman and Ranch styles shall utilize a smooth to light
texture stucco finish (20/30 aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the
Planning Director.
The following revisions to the necessary elevations shall be revised as follows:
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPlGriffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PAO3-0347\Resolution w CofA-I-7-04,doc
5
.
.
.
A.
PLAN ONE
Elevation A - Mediterranean:
a.
Remove shutters and enlarge the arched window on front elevation.
Add arched windows on the sides and rear elevations and remove
shutters.
b.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a.
Wrap siding around the beginning of fence on left elevation.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a. Revise venting to differ from the Ranch style.
b. Provide shingle siding on side yard projections.
c. Revise front window to a pediment style window.
d. Revise rear elevation window to a pediment style window.
e. Revise garage door style by providing a wood appearance and
eliminating windows.
B.
PLAN TWO
Elevation B - Ranch:
a.
Wrap siding around to beginning of fence on right elevation.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a.
Wrap the band around to the side from the porch to the garage.
Revise venting to differ from the Ranch style.
Revise rear elevation window(s) to a pediment style window to match
front.
Revise garage door style by providing a wood appearance and
eliminating windows.
b.
c.
d.
Elevation D - Monterey:
a. Extend front balcony to the edge of the residence above garage.
b. Eliminate all shutters and provide additional arched windows on each
elevation to match the front elevation.
c.
Revise vents to reflect a Monterey style and differ from other styles.
Provide decorative windowsills on side and rear elevations.
d.
C.
. PLAN THREE
Elevation A - Mediterranean:
a.
Provide additional arched windows on each elevation.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\Resolution w CofA-1-7-04.doc
6
D.
b.
Add decorative windowsills for all arched windows.
.
Elevation B - Ranch:
a.
Add decorative windowsill to rear elevation window on second story and
on left elevation window above double-doors.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a.
Add pediment style windows on left elevation window above double doors
and on second story of rear elevation.
Revise shutters to reflect Craftsman style to differ from Ranch style.
Revise garage door style by providing a wood appearance and
eliminating windows
b.
c.
PLAN FOUR
Elevation B - Ranch:
a.
Provide decorative windowsills on rear and side elevations.
Elevation C - Craftsman:
a.
Revise the rear window on the second elevation to a pediment style
window.
Provide matching stone veneer at the garage and wrap around side to
beginning of fence.
Revise garage door style by providing a wood appearance and
eliminating windows
.
b.
c.
Elevation D - Monterey:
a. Extend the balcony on the second story of the front elevation on the
opposite side of the tower element to extend to the edge of the residence.
Eliminate all shutters and provide additional arched windows on each
elevation to match the front elevation along with decorative windowsills
b.
Corner lot side yards shall have at least two street trees per the Specific Plan.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
13.
The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
14.
15.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored
version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department for
16.
.
R\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4. PAO3-0347\ResoluJion w CofA-1-7-04.doc
7
.
.
.
17.
their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable
on the photographic prints.
A street tree master plan indicating what tree species will be planted on each street shall
be submitted. The plan should graphically show the locations of all trees. One tree
species per street shall be provided.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
The applicant shall comply with standards conditions and requirements set forth in the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval
for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661 (PA01-0253, B-Map), and
Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to
attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements.
The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for
final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the specific plan, Riverside County Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall
comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install
hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights
must be downward facing).
The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the
location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval
of the Postmaster and Planning Director.
Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4A, the
construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping,
landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card
Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved
Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model
Home complex permit.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of
one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan
shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the
landscaping. 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.
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan,
structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved.
The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double
paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional
aircraft over flights.
The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not limited to
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\Resotulion w CofA-1-7-04.doc
8
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid
waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department.
.
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 Temecula Municipal Code.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to
commencement of any construction or inspections.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
and structural calculations submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
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.
Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan
review.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-
21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site
within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
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
.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
35.
36.
37.
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.
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 Planning Department 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 applicant shall release the bond upon request.
If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
.
R\Product ReviewlRoripau9h Ranch SPlGriffin Communities Tr 29661-4. PA03-0347\Resolution w CofA-1-7-Q4,doc
9
.
.
.
38.
Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be
completed for inspection priòr to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model
home complex structures).
39.
The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided
with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e.
buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and
Community Services Departments.
40.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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 Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Name Printed
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communilies Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\Resolution w CofA-1-7-04.doc
10
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
SUMMARY MATRIX, DATED DECEMBER 17M 2003
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04.doc
9
.
.
.
Tract # 29661-4
"CASA DIAMANTE" at
Roripaugh Ranch
Summary Table Sheet
íõ)Œ@ŒDWŒ~
tffi DEC 1 7 2003 ~
By
Lot #
Plan Type
Lot Square Hardscape Hardscape Hardscape
Footprint Footage Coverage Square Coverage Option
Size Footage
Tract # 29661-4
"CASA DIAMANTE" at
Roripaugh Ranch
Summary Table Sheet
Lot #
Lot Square Hardscape Hardscape Hardscape
Footprint Footage Coverage Square Coverage Option
Size Footage
Plan Type
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tract # 29661-4
"CASA DIAMANTE" at
Roripaugh Ranch
Summary Table Sheet
LoU
Plan Type
Lot Square Hardscape Hardscape Hardscape
Footprint Footage Coverage Square Coverage Option
Size Footage
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
LIGHTING
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04,doc
10
.
A ELEVATION
"MEDITERRANEAN"
~ ELEVATION
"RANCH"
"CASA DIAMANTE"
TYPICAL EXTERIOR
LIGHTING
.
D ELEVATION
"MONTEREY"
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.5
.
NOVEMBER 19,2003 PLANNING COMMISION STAFF REPORT
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04,doc
11
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
November 19, 2003
Prepared by:
Title: , Associate Planner
Dan Long
File Number
Application Type:
Product Review
PA03-0347
Project Description:
Planning Application No. PA03-0347, submitted by Griffin
Communities, is a product review for 100 detached single family
residences within Planning Area 4A of the Roripaugh Ranch
Specific Plan, located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and
west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road (APN: 957-
340-001 ).
Plan 1, single story 1,972 square feet (22 units):
-Mediterranean (9 units) .
-Craftsman (7 units)
-Ranch (6 units)
Plan 2, two story 2,231 - 2,562 square feet (28 units):
-Craftsman (7 units)
-Ranch (9 units)
-Monterey (12 units)
Plan 3, two story 2,435 - 2,591 square feet (21 units)
-Mediterranean (8 units)
-Craftsman (7 units)
-Ranch (5 units)
Recommendation:
Plan 4, two story, 2,688 - 2,871 square feet (29 units)
-Craftsman (9 units)
-Ranch (7 units)
-Monterey (13 units)
~ Approve with Conditions
D Deny
D Continue for Redesign
D Continue to:
D Recommend Approval with Conditions
D Recommend Denial
RlPrnductReviewIRoripangh Ranch SP\Griffin Connnuniries T, 29661-4, PA03-03471NEW STAFFREPORT-IA,doc
I
CEQA:
0 Categorically Exempt
(Class)
15162
.
0 Negative Declaration
0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
OEIR
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY:
Applicant:
Jim Teegarden, Griffin Communities
Completion Date:
June 24, 2003
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
January 28, 2004
General Plan Designation:
Low Medium Residential (LM)
Zoning Designation:
Low Medium Residential (LM) SP-11, Roripauh Ranch
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
Single family Residential (Riverside County)
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
.
South:
East:
Vacant
West:
Vacant
Lot Area:
5,000 sq. ft. minimum (6,590 average lot size)
Total Floor Area/Ratio
N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage
N/A
Parking Required/Provided
2 covered enclosed spaces (20' x 20')
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
01.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
01.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
however, the following issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction to staff.
.
R,\Prodnct ReviewIRoripa"gh Ranch SPlGriffin Communities T, 2966 I -4\NEW STAFF REPORT- t A.doc
2
.
.
.
ANALYSIS
Architectural Review: The project proposes four (4) floor plans and four (4) architectural styles
that are consistent with the Residential Architectural Guidelines found in the Roripaugh Ranch
Specific Plan Section 4.10 and meets the purpose of the Guidelines.
The applicant has chosen the option of Design Group E (pg. 4-97) from the specific plan, which
allows the use of one style from the design groups A-D. The applicant has chosen to use two
architectural styles (Craftsman and Ranch) on all four floor plans; while using a third architectural
style (Mediterranean) on two floor plans (plans 1 and 3) and a fourth architectural style
(Monterey) on the remaining two floor plans (plans 2 and 4). This concept is consistent with the
design guidelines of the specific plan and allows for additional variety within the planning area.
The various materials and features proposed include the following for each architectural style:
.
Mediterranean: Sand finish stucco and trim, furred-out stucco base, Mediterranean style
shutters and chimney shape and shroud, wrought iron grill, decorative window-sills,
concrete "S" tile roof, eave detail at gable ends, Mediterranean entry and garage door,
Mediterranean style trim and grids at windows, arched colonnade at porches, and deep
recessed windows and doors.
. Ranch: Wood trim and siding, cultured stream stone veneer accents, wood post and
beam porch supports, wood outlookers at gable ends, Ranch style shutters, chimney cap
and shroud, wood pot-shelves, shake style concrete flat tile roof, Ranch style entry and
garage door, and Ranch style trim and grids at windows.
. Craftsman: Shake style wood siding and wood trim, cultured stacked/ledge stone veneer
accents, wood knee braces, slate style concrete flat tile roof, Craftsman style shutters,
entry door and garage door, Craftsman style trim and grids at windows, dominant gable
element, and battered column detail.
.
Monterey: Sand finish stucco and trim, furred-out stucco base, shake style concrete flat
roof, wrought iron railing at decks and porches, exposed rafter tails, decorative tile vents,
Monterey style entry door and garage door, Monterey style chimney and decorative
shroud, Monterey style trim and grids at windows, wood post, beam and corbel detail at
decks and Monterey style shutters.
The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan requires articulation on all sides of the homes ("Four-sided
Architecture"). Each side of each product provides specific features of the proposed architecture
style. The applicant has provided specific details, which are unique to each style proposed on
each elevation, including door and window types, window and door trim, garage door design
including windows, materials such as siding, stone, shingles, roof type and shape, shutters and
the overall silhouette. The applicant has proposed at least one of each plan to include a varied
silhouette in order to provide a varied look from each side. The applicant has included various
one-story elements into the two story products by incorporating steps in the plane, gables, first-
floor projections and second story setbacks. In addition, the applicant avoided the "canyon-
effecf' by incorporating these elements and carefully plotting of each plan (setbacks and mixing
of each plan).
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPlGriffin Communities Tr 29661 -4\NEW STAFF REPORT- I A.doc
3
The applicant has provided main entries that standout as the clear focal point of the front
elevation with the use of covered entries, courtyards, double doors, and by bringing the living
space forward as opposed to garage dominated frontages. The applicant has complied with the
50% architectural forward concept. Plan 1 and 2 propose architectural forward products and
there are a total of 50 plan 1 and 2 products proposed through out planning area 4A.
The applicant has proposed plan 1 and 3 for all corner lots, with the exception of lot 27, which is
a plan 4. The applicant has proposed a "special" side elevation for lot 27, which includes a ranch
style with a stone projection to add interest from the street. A typical corner elevation for plan 1
and 3 has been proposed. Plan 1 includes a low wall extending from the front courtyard and
wrapping around to the side, which provides for an enlarged outdoor courtyard. Plan 3 also
includes a low wall, however it is a freestanding wall that includes a decorative wood trellis on
top of the wall. Each wall and trellis includes features unique to the architectural style. The side
elevation for plan 3 maintains a courtyard with double doors into the courtyard area and a
stepped back second story to reduce the mass along the street side. Also, the fences on the
corner lots have been pulled back towards the rear of the residences, which exposes the side
elevation, further enhancing the street scene and stressing a second front elevation.
Of the two architectural forward products, plan 1 includes a shallow recessed garage setback 8
feet from the front facade and plan 2 includes a mid to deep recessed garage setback 14'-8.
from the front facade. In addition to the recessed garages, the applicant has proposed, tandem
garages and split door (plan 4) garages to meet the intent of Section 10.4.3 Architectural
Forward Standards.
Product Placement: The proposed product placement meets the Residential Architectural
Guidelines of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in that the applicant has incorporated the
architectural enhancements on all four elevations. The careful plotting (setbacks) and single
story elements on two-story products will avoid the canyon effect, which is required in the
specific plan. Also, there is no style or plans located side by side more than 3 in a row.
Single Story: The specific plan states "The requirement for one-story products shall be
determined by the market or as determined by staff as long as some single story products are
required in the single family detached areas." The applicant has provided one single story
product (floor plan 1), which makes up 22 of the 1 00 residences.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
01.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has
been deemed to be categoricallY exempt from further enYironmental reyiew. (Class,
name, type)
[8]1.
The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously
approved (Negative Declaration) (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental
Review (CEQA Section 15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
01.
An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption
of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
R:lProdnct ReviewIRoripangh Ranch SP\Griffin Commnnities Tr 2%6 I -4INEW STAFF REPORT- IAdoc
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
CONCLUSIO N/R ECOMMEN DATION:
Based on the analysis summarized in this report, staff has determined that the findings required
for approval can be made with the attached recommended Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan
(Code 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 proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of residential development
proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, 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 single-family homes, 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution of Approval with Conditions of Approval Attached - Blue Page 6
Summary Matrix - Blue Page 7
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 8
Lighting - Blue Page 9
Architectural Description - Blue Page 10
Roripaugh Ranch Design Guidelines (excerpt) - Blue Page 11
R:\Prodnct ReviewIRoripangh Ranch Si'lGriffin Connnunities Tr 2%61-4\NEW STAFF REPORT- I A.doc
5
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003--
R,\Product Review\Roripangh Ranch SI'\Griffin Communities Tr 2966 I -4\NEW STAFF REPORT - IA.doc
6
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0347 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4A
OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED
SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 957-340-001 TRACT MAP 29661-4.
WHEREAS, Griffin Communities, filed Planning Application No.PA03-0347, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0347 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA03-0347
on November 19, 2003 at duly noticed public hearings 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 approved Planning Application No. PA03-0347;
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. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PAO3-0347 hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
A. 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 proposed single-family homes are permitted in the Low Medium Density land use
designation standards contained in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and the City's
Development Code. The project is also consistent with the Low Medium land use
designation contained in the General Plan. The site is properly planned and zoned, and
as conditioned, is physically suitable for the type and density of the residential
development proposed. The project, as conditioned, is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, including the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Wide Design Guidelines, and fire and
building codes.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
R:\Product ReviewlRoripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w ColA.doc
1
The overall design of the single-family homes, 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.
.
Section 3. Environmental ComDlIance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0347 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for
that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0347 for a Product Review for detached
single family residences within Planning Area 4A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan located
south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west of the future extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Assessor's Parcel No. 957-340-001, Tract Map 29661-4. The Conditions of Approval are
contained in Exhibit A.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 19th day of November 2003.
.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
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 19th day of November, 2003, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\ResoluJion w ColAdoc
, 2
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661.4\Resolution w ColAdoc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0347
(Product Review)
Project Description:
A Product Review for detached single family residences
within planning area 4A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific
Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and west
of the. future extension of Butterfield Stage Road,
Assessor's Parcel No. 957-340-001, Tract Map 29661-4.
Assessor Parcel No.:
957-340-001
Approval Date:
November 19, 2003
Expiration Date:
November 19, 2005
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department 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 211 08(b) and California Code of Regulations
Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered
to the Planning Department 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, protect 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 monetary 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
R:\Producl Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w ColA.doc
4
9.
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 harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any
of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required
deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the
applicant.
.
3.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits, including
elevations, floor plans, landscaping plans, hardscape plans, and plotting plan, contained
on file with the Planning Department or as amended by these changes.
4.
5.
The colors and materials (including lighting) for this project shall substantially conform to
the approved colors and materials contained on file with the Planning Department. Any
deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of
Planning.
This approval is for product review only and shall in no way limit the city or other
regulatory or service agencies from applying additional requirements and/or conditions
consistent with applicable policies and standards upon the review of grading, building
and other necessary permits and approvals for the project.
.
6.
7.
The Development Code requires double garages to maintain a minimum clear interior
dimension of 20' x 20'. This shall be clearly indicated on the plans prior to the issuance
of building permits for the project. Interior dimensions are measured from the inside of
garage wall to the opposite wall, steps, landing, equipment pedestals, bollards or any
similar type feature. When the top of the stem wall is more than 8" above the garage
floor, the required dimension is measured from the inside edge of the stem wall.
Applicant shall obtain the proper permits before construction, including Encroachment
Permit from the Public Works Department for any work done in the City right-of-way, and
Building Permit from the Building and Safety Department.
8.
Fire Hydrants shall be installed prior to the start of any construction at the site,
10.
Driveway widths shall comply with the driveway width requirements per City Standards.
In order to allow for adequate street parking, the driveway widths at curbs will be limited
to 24' maximum.
11.
All Mediterranean, Monterey, Craftsman and Ranch styles shall utilize a smooth to light
texture stucco finish (20/30 aggregate or smoother) as determined acceptable by the
Planning Director.
.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w ColA.doc
5
.
.
.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall submit a Grading Plan, subject to the review and approval of the
Planning Department.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
13.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X
10" glossy photographic color prints of the Color and Materials Boards and of the colored
version of the approved colored architectural elevations to the Planning Department 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
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
14.
15.
The applicant shall comply with standards conditions and requirements set forth in the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Mitigation Monitoring Program, conditions of approval
for Tract Map 29353 (PA01-0230, A-Map), Tract Map 29661 (PA01-0253, B-Map), and
Ordinance No. 02-14, the Development Agreement between the City of Temecula and
Ashby USA, LLC for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, including, but not limited to
attachment "5", which requires various on and off-site improvements.
The applicant shall submit street lighting and signage plans to the Planning Director for
final approval. Street lighting shall comply with the specific plan, Riverside County Mt.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and the mitigation-monitoring program. Said lighting shall
comply with the standards as set forth in the Mitigated Monitoring Program and install
hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights
must be downward facing).
The applicant shall submit mailbox elevations and a plot plan clearly indicating the
location of each mailbox area. Mailbox type and location shall be subject to the approval
of the Postmaster and Planning Director.
Prior to issuance of any residential building permit within Planning Area 4A, the
construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos (including hardscaping,
landscaping, fencing, lights and gates), Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card
Key Entry, fuel modification zones shall be submitted and approved
Prior to construction of the Model Home complex, the applicant shall apply for a Model
Home complex permit.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of
one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan
shall be filed with the Planning Department for one year from the completion of the
landscaping. 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.
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w ColA.doc
6
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
21.
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans, plotting plan,
structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved.
.
22.
The developer shall demonstrate to the Planning Director that all homes will have double
paned windows with at least a 25 STC rating installed to reduce noise from occasional
aircraft over flights.
The developer shall provide proof that construction debris, including but not limited to
lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper and metal is recycled through the City's solid
waste hauler, subject to the approval of the Community Services Department.
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 Temecula Municipal Code.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to
commencement of any construction or inspections.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
and structural calculations submitted for plan review.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule for plan review.
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.
.
Obtain street addresses from the Building Official prior to submittal of plans for plan
review.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by City of Temecula Ordinance No. 94-
21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside county Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site
within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence.
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
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
32.
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.
.
R:\Producl Review\Rortpaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w ColA.doc
7
.
.
.
37.
33.
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 Planning Department 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 applicant shall release the bond upon request.
If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
34.
35.
Front yard and slope landscaping, hardscaping and fencing within individual lots shall be
completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model
home complex structures).
36.
The developer shall submit proof that all local refuse generators have been provided
with written information about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e.
buyback centers, curbside availability), subject to the approval of the Public Works and
Community Services Departments.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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 Planning Commission approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
R:\Product Review\Rorìpaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4\Resolution w ColA.doc
8
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
SUMMARY MATRIX
R:lP1-odnct Review\Roripangh Ranch SPlGriffin Commnnities Tr 29661-4\NEW STAFF REPORT-IA,doc
7
. Tract # 29661-4 "CASA DIAMANTE" at
Roripaugh Ranch
Summary Table Sheet
Lot Square Hardscape Hardscape Hardscape
LoU Plan Type Footprint Footage Coverage Square Coverage Option
Size Footage
~
2 3AR 2,435 5,475 44% 436 8%
4 1AR 2,540 5,695 45% 521 9% 2
6 4DR 2,688 5,475 49% 535 10% 3
8 18R 2,540 5,694 45% 504 9%
10 3AR 2,435 5,475 44% 448 8% 2
12 48 2,688 6,214 43% 555 9% 3
. 14 3AR 2,435 5,878 41% 440 7%
16 38 2,435 7,253 34% 431 6% 3
18 1AR 2,540 5,785 44% 487 8% 2
20 2C 2,231 5,785 39% 606 10%
22 18R 2,540 5,589 45% 487 9% 3
24 2D 2,231 5,590 40% 606 11% 2
26 1CR 2,540 6,959 36% 572 8%
28 38 2,435 8,313 29% 448 5% 2
30 1BR 2,540 6,183 41% 572 9% 3
35
32 3B 2,435 6,183 39% 448 7%
34 1AR 2,540 6,183 41% 576 9% 2
36 48 2,688 6,708 40% 495 7% 3
. 38 1C 2,540 8,037 32% 606 8%
.
Tract # 29661-4 "CASA DIAMANTE" at
Roripaugh Ranch
Summary Table Sheet
Lot Square Hardscape Hardscape Hardscape
Lot # Plan Type Footprint Footage Coverage Square
Size Footage Coverage Option
40 2C 2,231 6,132 36% 657 11% 3
42 1C 2,540 6,132 41% 589 10% 2
44 3A 2,435 6,132 40% 431 7%
46 1A 2,540 6,021 42% 572 10% 3
48 4D 2,688 6,990 38% 515 7% 2
50 38 2,435 9,766 25% 414 4% 3
52 2B 2,231 8,819 25% 640 7% .
54 4D 2,688 7,057 38% 555 8% 3
56 2D 2,231 7,057 32% 691 10% 2
58 2D 2,231 7,057 32% 674 10% 3
60 28 2,231 7,057 32% 691 10% 2
62 18R 2,540 8,427 30% 623 7% 3
64 2DR 2,231 6,149 36% 657 11% 2
..
66 2CR 2,231 5,356 42% 606 11% 2
b.- h 1!i1ä! :M§§- Ii"""'. ¡!11- !O!'lo"-... "",1-
68 1AR 2,540 5,356 47% 487 9% 2
u -" U' _.2I6ls11 ~6 =g,. .""",'Ii] ","",1i};è} ¡!!1111---
70 3AR 2,435 5,356 45% 431 8% 2
72 3AR 2,435 6,330 38% 414 7% 3
74 1C 2,540 7,944 32% 572 7% 2
- ~t._-- -~~ -1ti8I!- 6iít~1æ ,3:8- -1!;!!,"- !í"~<iJli11 _.~ .
76 3C 2,435 5,830 42% 480 8% 1
~1~~~1'-"~9BJ- 68\'{.-6íJQ}- __1~-
. "CASA DIAMANTE" at
Tract # 29661-4
Roripaugh Ranch
Summary Table Sheet
Lot Square Hardscape Hardscape Hardscape
Lot # Plan Type Footprint Footage Coverage Square Coverage Option
Size Footage
78 1A 2,540 5,843 43% 521 9% 3
80 4D 2,688 8,617 31% 579 7% 2
82 3C 2,435 7,874 31% 550 7%
85 2A 2,231 5,088 44% 657 13% 3
87 4CR 2,688 6,634 41% 575 9% 3
89 4DR 2,688 6,907 39% 535 8%
91 2DR 2,231 6,703 33% 657 10% 3
. 93 1AR 2,540 6,696 38% 504 8% 2
95 4DR 2,688 6,955 39% 535 8%
97 2D 2,231 7,123 31% 606 9% 3
99 2BR 2,231 7,620 29% 691 9% 2
101 3AR 2,435 8,094 30% 448 6% 3
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R,\Product Review\Roripaugh RaDch SPlGriffin Communities Tr 29661-4\NEW STAFF REPORT-lA-doc
8
~ ~
I Ii ~
mol ,,5 8 ..
>: I"!I~ e¡¡¡~'f:ï1
ð ~¡¡I ffi I!j ~ ~
::1 ~ð~ w ð~ 0 T
g; f~gi tJ hi ;;¡ í
« B=§¡! ffi ui ~ ~
r--------
I
I
,-
,
,
,
,
,
-_--___--rJ
o======¡]
r---
r_m___f
I
'"
go
8 ~
~ ~
~ ¡¡;
¡ <
p
~ Ii
ß ~
~ti
028
& ; ~
III ~
~I ~'IUP ~
VI Eo< "1
jflJI i
II!
I~
.
P
i I
n
~ ~
¡¡; .
q
h
. ~
~ ~ ~
...pHi
i5 ß ~ ~
¡¡:s~~
og~.
z
-<
....
..
'"
z
0
...
..
0
..
..
-<
u
'"
Q
'"
-<
p::
.
~
;~ dshl
~~ n!!!1
q ~ nHh
hii ~
pm ~ ;
dlgl g~
~U!,~~iH¡~5
i5~E~ ~F'..~g
&n~ 8~ ~g
"<:t ~~
, ,to>
- <I
\0
\0
0\
c-.:e
p:::
E-<
~
U
Z
«
p:::
~J
::> ..
« ~
~J
O,¡¡
P:::<!i
.
mHH!: 1! h!llit
. I IIII,IIII! IlllllIt
I I II Ii
I!I !Ihpi /1mB
111¡hind! ¡'WI!
i D0 °(fIè@O f ¡III
m II 1!! !; .,
I .,
! IIII I
~ III III! III
l i
I !IIII'll ï
IllIifi! ull
i H 0@ 0 [J0
III !W!e
!ill!
. illlilU!!! "'--
. ~ I! . --
I dlll¡ liI-!
UIlIHUI!I
1,+ 0@<I08[ riJ
1'1 ! I
II' !'
¡I! ! ;1
11,1,=1
1,1 hil
I !I ¡! III
,I i ! I iii
II ¡ Ii Ii I III
(Ð@..
P 'd I
II~ 1001
I ¡hl' ill...
i il!I,1 !¡ill!11
PI'II' I ¡I,
¡ M Ii ! ,idlr
II ¡ .
m.. .! ! 11 !;
! id ¡I
i II iii III ¡
¡ ! I I i 1-
hId I ¡III! I
I H - [ [J
i¡l!i
~ ¡'I,ll !
g !1I
m 111 d
i I I; i h
. II BIll!
d!II!!1
dill¡'!!!
ip .1 II!
~I~ O. ,II
.' ~ I
..:
~
II:
u
Z
<t:
..:
gII: 1
ð" t:
~::> ð
<t:.
t::1
..: j
o,¡¡
":8
'~"""!1'9"""
¡ -
WALL & FENCE LEGEND
.M,
~.~ ~
- -~_.- "'-U'.~.".
- -~_.- ,"-'...~,...
.. ~--- "'-".'U~
(j~,,;¡¡¡mw~~w'¡
"<{JZ.
.M,
.T""""""
=""""~
.M.
.'!.:I,
¡¡
,,/
GriffinComm"¡'¡", . CityofT,"""""
7-16-03
4>9-15-03
LANTEX
- ...- ..
'il~~ ==
-LW-l~ 3
WALL 8< FENCE LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN
RORIPAUGH RANCH TR 29661-4
.
.
.
.
...¡ ~
::1 "i
!
-------- --8
.
.
.
.
.
.
1JII;
).]Ii¡
I'.
>xJ i'lf ..
¡,¡!n ~
¡...~ ~!2 ~
Z 11 ~
j!J¡! I
!¡l
": ~~
:;; "~
\0
0\
Z N
-<
,., p::;
~ E-<
~ ~
",C)
'" Z
~ <
~ p::;
~ ~ i
~ 0 Ë
~;:Jð
"'<.
... tl.,;¡
"<! >-<1
,., p::; 0
~ 0 ~
:<P::; ð.
WALL & FENCE DETAILS
RORIPAUGH RANCH TR 29661-4
PRIVACY FENCING AT FRONT OF HOMES .,. 0
~
,....-....-----"......'"
----"'............
""__"~
11,
~ _I [
~~A.:;.~~.:e - WOOD .u. CD
~A,;;.~~,:,e SWPE TRANSITION "'A CD
LANTEX
----
~'F::::~~=
Griffin Commnm", - CityofTom"",¡'
7-16-0'
""'15-0'
- tW.' ~ ,
.
~~':~:.~~PI!.ASTERS OTA CD
.
.
.
.
.
GRIFFIN COMMUNITIES
Casa Diamante
EXTERIOR COLOR SCHEDULE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 10, 2003
Tattersall Brown
8243M
Tattersall Brown
8243M
Smokebush
8626N
NA
Amber Waves
8724M
Amber Waves
Wilderness Green
NA
4 4502 1/2X-12 7270W 001 001 8626N Saginaw
1B Slate Chablis Filtered Light White White Wilderness Green River Rock
2B 5 4634 X-40 8161W 001 001 8556A Sonoma
3B Slate Dove Grey Sulphur Springs White White Peking Blue River Rock
4B 6 4602 1/2X-40 8511W 001 001 8526A American
Slate Dove Grey Snowcloud White White Dark Colossus River Rock
raftsma I 7 I 5529 1/2X-16 8635D 8634M 001 8636N
Shake Silver Grey Mansard Stone Dusty Miller White Old Proch
8 I 5678 X-73 8704D 87650 001 8586A
Shake Eggshell Stratford Brown Beaver Creek White Metropolis
9 I 8803 1/2X-17 87050 82350 001 8706N
Shake Misty Barn Rafter Brush Box White Saddlebury
NOTE: See color keyed elevations for areas to be painted such as trim, accent stucco, front doors, and shutters.
EAGLE ROOFING/LA HABRA STUCCO/FRAZEE PAINTS/ELDORADO STONE
. Install Shake roof on "0" elevations only.
1C
2C
3C
4C
Saratoga
Rustic Ledge
Saddle back
Rustic Ledge
Durango
Mountain Ledge
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
LIGHTING
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SPlGriffin Commnnities Tr 29661-4INEW STAfF REPORT-IA.doc
9
.
A ELEVATION
liMED ITERRANEAN Ii
!! ELEVATION
liRANCH"
"CASA DIAMANTE"
TYPICAL EXTERIOR
LIGHTING
.
D ELEVATION
"MONTEREY"
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.5
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
R:\Prodnct ReviewIRoripangh Ranch SP\Griffin Connnunities Tr 29661-4\NEW STAFF REPORT- IA.doc
10
.
KTGY GROUP, INC.
Architecture
Plannln9
17992 Mitchell South
Irvine. California 92614
949/8S1-2133 FAX 949/851.5156
The following is a description of elements that establIsh the various architectural styles/themes
requested by the City of Temecula to include in the Planning Application PAO3-0347 for
Roripaugh Ranch.
Mediterranean
. Sand Finish Stucco and Trim
. Furred Out Stucco Base
. Decorative Mediterranean Style Shutters
. Mediterranean Style Chimney shape with Decorative Shroud
. 2" Recess with Wrought Iron Grill detail at Gables
. Enhanced Decorative Sill detail
. Concrete'S' Tile Roof
. Enhanced Eave Detail at Gable Ends
. Mediterranean Style Garage Door with Glazing
. Mediterranean Style Entry Door
. Mediterranean Style Trim & Grids at Windows
. Pronounced Arched Colonnade at Porches' , ,
. Deep Recessed Windows & Doors
.
Ranch
. Wood Trim & Siding
. Cultured Stream Stone Veneer Accents
. Wood Post & Beam Porch Supports
. Wood Outlookers at Gables
. Ranch Style Decorative Shutters
. Ranch Style Chimney & Decorative Shroud
. Wood Potsbelf
. Shake Style Concrete Flat Tile Roof
. Ranch Style Garage Door with Glazing
. Ranch Style Entry Door
. Ranch Style Trim & Grids at Windows
.
Craftsman
. Shake Style Wood Siding & Wood Trim
. Cultured StackedlLedge Stone Veneer Accents
. Wood Knee-braces
. Slate Style Concrete Flat Tile Roof
. Craftsman Style Decorative Shutters
. Craftsman Style Entry Door
. Craftsman Style Garage Door with Glazing
.
. Craftsman Style Trim & Grids at Windows
. Dominant Gable Element
. ' Battered Column DetaiÌ
Monterey
. Shake Style Concrete Flat Roof
. Sand Finish Stucco & Trim
. Furred Out Stucco Base
. Wrought Iron Railing at Decks & Porches
. Exposed Rafter Tails
. Decorative Tile Vent Detail at Gables
. Monterey Style Entry Door
. Monterey Style Garage Door
. Monterey Style Chimney & Decorative Shroud
. Monterey Style Trim & Grids at Windows
. Wood Post, Beam & Corbel Detail at Decks
. Monterey Style Decorative Shutters
8
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.6
RORIPAUGH RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES (EXCERPT)
R:\Prodnct ReviewIRoripangh Ranch SPlGriffin Conununities Tr 29661 -4\NEW STAFF REPORT- lA-doc
II
8
(i
.
')
'8
ASHey USA, LLC
FIGURE 4-48
CALIFORNIA RANCH
Inspiration Photo:
Tho Koith com.""io1~C
N ;, T T 0 S CA" L ' E
~ I,
Design fe<ltures:
. Covered front porch
- Steeper roof pitches
- Flat tile or shingle roofing
- Multi-pane windows
- Wood/vinyl siding
. Dormer shapes facing street
H (nipa¡ li.:-} )' .
..I::: r
~I
~f
-- ~
Co
s... ž
J2~
:=1
CO ~,
O~
,
~
~
~
J
R;111cl¡
. '
FIGURE 4-52
ASHBYUSA,llC
l "\
, - )
': )
",
...
CRAFTSMAN
Inspiration Photo;
Design features:
-low pitched gable end roofs
- Slone veneer accents
- Expo$ed beélm and rafter tails
- Grouped wood columns
- Wood picket railings
- Multi-pane windows
- Trellis beam detailing
The Keith comps,,'eï"1'1<C
~'~ 'CA'~
R()!.j!)él I l/-!,} 1
R;l (1 (./ I
~
~~
t.)íÍ
i!
~
I
..:
~
~
B
~
I
.
.
I
.
Cj
c-'
ASHBY USA,llC
MEDITERRANEAN
FIGURE 4-56
.f
~f
CI
~
L-
Q).
:!:~
"'C~
Q)~
~I
~
~
~
~
¡;
J
Inspiration Photo:
The Ke;th com."';"I-r1<C
~ TO 'C",~
Design features:
. Arched Focal Points
- Stucco window surrounds
., Bullnose band details
- Barrel tile roofing
- Ceramic tile accents
- Trellis beam details
- Multi-pane windows
- Wrought iron details
H 0 I'il);¡ 11&;h
,~ Hauch
ASHB~ÚSA.:.lb:"'" "
FIGURE 4-58
MONTEREY
r-"
\. )
Inspiration Photo:
(- ':-,
\:~)
The Keith compen"'1-r"1<C
~ ,,° .CAL~
H ()J"jpa ll.L:11:'
U\" Ut.",.
,.
Design features:
- Arched focal point
- Deep recessed openings
- Multi-pane windows
- Exposed rafter tails
- Wood pickel railings
- Wrought iron detailing
- Spanish tile roof
It
~~
J:
~
~
I
..'
'"
i
~
t;
~
¡
I
.
.
.
'ê
(e
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.1 Introduction
These design guidelines will be utilized to direct the future physical development of Roripaugh
Ranch, an 804.7-acre, mixed-use development currently located in the City of Temecula and the
County of Riverside. In order to create a unique community structure, these community
guidelines provide a framework for sne planning, the architectural theme and landscaping relating
to the project. The purpose of these guidelines is to assure a high quality community character
and land use compatibility.
4.10.2 Purpose
It is the intent of these guidelines to provide direction on a project-wide level as well as a planning
area and site-specHic level. For example, the guidelines establish crneriaat the project level to
assure a unnied environment, while the planning area and site-specific level individual projects will
be required to comply with relevant design standards applicable to each use. Although each
project should relate to the overall community design theme, these guidelines are not intended to
limit innovative design. The use of these guidelines will serve to direct the overall design of
Roripaugh Ranch and assure a high quality community character, appearance and land use
compatibility. The City of Temecula city staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and other City
decision-making bodies will be providing direction when reviewing development projects wnhin
Roripaugh Ranch.
These guidelines will also serve as design crneria for use by planners, architects, landscape
archnects, engineers, builders and future property owners. They will provide a viable framework
and clear direction during the development process, without limiting innovative design. The resull
will be a community with a strong sense of identity, character and cohesiveness.
4.10.3 Resfdential Architectural Standards
4.10.3.1 Design Groups
The intent of these guidelines is to encourage architectural style diversity between the adjacent
residential planning areas. Each builder is required to contact the City Planning Department to
discuss and review any established facade styles in adjacent Planning Areas so as to assist in the
selection of subsequent styles.
Each Planning Area shall be composed of one of the following Exterior Facade Design Groups
(Groups A through E) consisting of different Architectural Styles. Within each Residential
'Planning Area Design Group selected, a minimum of two architectural styles and a maximum of
four styles shall be used. Each style as noted in this section shall have a minimum of four-color
variations for each Residential Planning Area. No more than four of the same architectural styles
may be placed next to one another.
Desian Group A (All Planning Areas)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Classical Revival (See Figure 4-49)
Spanish Revival (See Figure 4-60)
Prairie (See Figure 4-59)
CalHornia Ranch (See Figure 4-48)
Roripaugh,Ranch Specific Plan
- N'\31367.pOO\dod\SPSect44CCAdopted.doc
, 4-96
, March.,g0!J3. ,.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Desian Group B (All Planning Areas)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
.
Colonial (See Figure 4-50)
French Cottage (See Figure 4-54)
East Coast Traditional (See Figure 4-53)
Monterey (See Fi9ure 4-58)
Desion Group C (Planning Areas 10, 19, 20, 21, 33A and 33B only)
I.
II.
III.
Mediterranean (See Figure 4.56)
American Farmhouse (See Figure 4-47)
Contemporary Southwest (See Figure 4-51)
Desion Group D (Planning Areas 10, 19,20.21, 33A and 33B only)
I.
II.
III.
Italianate (See Figure 4-55)
Mission (See Figure 4-57)
Craftsman (See Figure 4-52)
Desion Group E (Acceptable for all Planning Areas)
One style from each of the above groups.
All merchant builders shall submit plans which identity unique aspects of each style to the City for
approval' that include text, exhibits and any other materials deemed necessary by the City
indicating how the proposed residences will conform with the architectural styles shown in the
exhibits 4.47-61 listed in Design Groups A through E, and all other design requirements of this
chapter.
4.10.3.2 Submittal and Review Requirements
.
The following materials shall be submitted for review and conformance to the Architectural
Guidelines and Specific Plan for the Roripaugh Ranch. The Planning Director may choose to
require additional materials for review.
Color elevations of all four sides at scale of )4" = 1'. Show materials and colors. Provide
dimensions of height and width of major elements. Indicate features that would bring
elevation design into compliance with the Architectural Design Guidelines and the specitic
requirements of the Design Groups (Figures 4-47 through 4-60).
Sections through each elevation at 14" = 1'. Indicate pitch of roof, extent of overhangs,
recess of doors and windows and position of trim, trellis and other major architectural
features in relation to the primary face of the residence.
Site Plan at 118' = 1'. Show, in color and with dimensions the areas and type of paving,
area and type of landscaping, fencing, site walls, and other site appurtenances. Indicate
how the paving and landscaping is consistent with the Architectural Guidelines and
specitic requirements of the Design Groups (Figures 4-47 through 4-60). Provide by
separate sheet, a matrix indicating the percentage of lot coverage, percentage of
impervious paved area and percentage of landscaping.
Provide a color and materials board of a minimal 18" x 18" size. Indicate all colors and
materials as shown on the color elevations. Provide one board with one reduced color
elevation to indicate conformance with the color variety required by the Architectural
Design Guidelines and specitic requirements of the Design Group (Figures 4-47 through
4-60).
.',
")
.
Roripaugh Rðnch Specific Plan
, N:\31367,OOO\dod\SPSect44CCAdopled.doc
, 4-97
Marèh;2003,
-.'
¡ì
(-~.,
.
tø
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Provide two color sets .of the above at the scales indicated including a duplicate set of the color
and materials board. In addition, provide six (6) sets of the above in reduced, 11" x 1 T black and
white format.
4.10.3.3 Architecture Forward and Garage Standards
The following standards shall apply to all residential Planning Areas, except as specified:
"Architectural Forward" concept shall be incorporated into 100% of the homes in Plannin9
Areas10, 19,20,21, and 33A. "Arch~ectural Forward" concept shall be inc.orporated int.o at
least 50%.of the h.omes in each.of Planning Areas 1A, 2, 3, 4A, 48,12,14,15,16,17,18,22,
23,24, and 31. This concept includes advancing the architecture .of the living space f.orward
on the lot while concurrently, the garage is held in place or further recessed. Residential
dwelling units shall be designed t.o allow the living portion .of the dwelling unit t.o be
"positioned" f.orward .on the lot sa that the architecture .of the garage will not d.ominate the
street scene.
A variety .of garage placement s.olutions shall be inc.orporated int.o the .overall design of the
homes. Minimum driveway length from the property line t.o the garage door shall be eighteen
feet (18') for front-entry garages in all Planning Areas and ten feet (10') from the property line
t.o the garage edge for side entry garages in the Land LM Districts. Garage s.olutions that
should be inc.orporated int.o the overall design are as fallows:
Shallow Recessed GaraQes (See Figure 4-62)
Setting the garage back a minimum .of eight feet (8') in relati.onship to the front .of
the house.
Mid t.o Deep Recessed GaraQes (See Figure 4-63)
Setting the garage back t.o the middle .or rear .of the lot.
Third Car Side L.oaded (See Figure 4-64)
Setting far garage with side-loaded entry. This plan can only occur .on larger l.ots.
Side Entry GaraQes (See Figure 4-65)
The use .of side entry garages on lots at least 52 feet wide in order t.o break the
continuous view.of garage doors along the street scene. .
Third Car Tandem (See Figure 4-66)
Setting far third car tandem garage.
SinQle Width Drivewavs (See Figure 4-67)
This setting pr.ovides a maximum driveway width .of twelve (12) feet far adjacent
two-car garage.
Porte Cochere (See Figure 4-68)
Setting pr.ovides for the incorporation of a porte cochere.
,Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan
.. N:\31367.000\dod\SPSecl44CCAdopted.doc
, , 4-98
March, 2003
'DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.5 Building Elevations
A key technique for creating a sense of variety within a project is to vary the heights and forms of
the detached homes as seen from the street as illustrated in Figure 4-70 by utilizing the following:
.
Within low and low Medium density Planning Areas, utilize both one- and two-story buildings.
To improve the visual relationship between adjacent buildings, it is desirable to introduce
intermediate transition between them. Use a one-story architectural element within the two-
story building to lessen its apparent height.
Create varying rooflines by maximizing offsets of roof planes.
.
Units located at street comers (see Figure 4-70), should be either single-story or have a
significant one-story mass located towards the exterior side yard.
Treatment of Mass
Avoid a canyon-like effect between buildings and allow greater li9ht penetration into what
otherwise might be dark side-yards. At interior side yards, it is required to create the
appearance of increased building separation by stepping the second story mass away from
the property line or any other substantial articulation.
Provide trims around windows. to break up the wall plane.
Avoid long uninterrupted exterior walls.
Vary the depth of plans to create variations in the building façade.
.
Two story homes shall be modified to be compatible with placement on comer lots. The
modification shall create two front elevations.
Surface detail, ornament and architectural elements such as cornices, color contrast, gables
applied moldings, arcades, colonnades, stairways and light fixtures that provide visual
interest, shadow, and contrast shall be used to enrich architectural character. Details shall be
integrated with the overall design concept.
Vary the height and roof levels of the building or residence so that it appears to be divided into
smaller massing elements. Architectural projections shall be used to achieve this goal.
Articulate building forms and elevations with varying rooflines, roof overhangs and
intermediate roof elements to create strong patterns of shade and shadow.
InterlockinQ Mass
Just as slepping the second story mass improves the side yard, it can be used to improve the
front yard scene. As an example, the second story should be set back in relationship to the
garage face or living space below it.
The designer should envision the building form as a series of interlockin9 masses rather than
a rectangular or "L" shaped box. Therefore achieving a more aesthetic design solution.
Rorioauoh Ranch Soociflc Plan
N:\31367. OOO\dod\S PSecl44CCAdopted.doc
4-124
March, 2003
.
.
.
, )
.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Articulation of Side and Rear Elevations
There is a tendency to have "build out" planes maximized on side and rear yards without
articulated treatment of those planes. This results in a two-story stucco effect with no vertical or
horizontal relief. Utilize the following techniques or other acceptable techniques to avoid this
effect:
Create a single-story plane at the rear by recessing the second story.
Utilize other similar arcMectural treatments and designs such as balconies or pop out
staircases to encourage relief on potential large architectural planes.
Side and rear elevations shall have articulation with modulated facades, window treatment,
second story projections and balconies.
Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ("Four.sided Architecture").
Front Elevations
Archilectural projections shall be utilized to emphasize entrances, balconies. and porches.
Fronts of houses shall utilize several archilectural features. Ground floor windows shall have
significant trim or relief. second floor overhangs or buiil in planters. Second story windows
shall have similar treatment to emphasize them.
All residences shall incorporate entry courtyards. covered entries or covered porches at the
entry into the design. (See Figure 4-71 and 4-72).
Details shall be concentrated around entrances. Materials used for the front entry shall be
distinctive.
Building elements that reflect the archilectural style should be incorporated into building
entries, windows. front porches. and living areas directly adjacent to the street.
Ornamental features including wrought iron and exterior light features shall be combined with
other features to create interest in the front of the house with architecturally compatible
elements.
RoriDauah Ranch Soocific Plan
N:\31367 .OOO\dod\SPSec\44CCAdopted. doc
4-125
March. 2003
DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.10.3.6 Architectural Elements
A successful project design achieves a proper visual balance and sense of cohesiveness. The
differences between the plans and elevation must be readily discemable and create variety, yet at
the same time elements, styles and materials should not contrast to such an extent as to resuft in
visual chaos. Architectural elements will playa significant role in the establishment of the
architectural style. These elements include architectural detailing, colors and materials, and other
site structures. The required Arch~ectural and design elements techniques are as follows:
.
Unit Entries (See Figures 4-71 and 4-72)
The entry serves several important architectural and psychological functions: ~ identifies and
frames the front doorway; it acts as an interlace between the public and private spaces; and it
acts as an introduction to the structure while creatin9 an initial impression.
The entry shall be designed and located so as to readily emphasize its prime functions.
Accent materials are encouraged to be used to further emphasize the entries.
If the front door location is not obvious or visible because of building configuration, the entry
shall direct and draw the observer in the desired path. The design of the entry area in
merchant-built housing shall be strong enough to mitigate the impact of the garage on the
facade.
Entry doors and doorways shall be proportional to the architectural style of the structure.
Covered entries, courtyards and porches shall be provided as entry elements.
Doors
Emphasis shall be placed on the design and type of entry door used. It functions as the major
introduction to the interior of the house and concem should be given on the image it creates.
.
Either single or double doors are appropriate.
The door shall be covered by an overhead element or recessed a minimum of 3 It into the wall
plane.
The entire door assembly shall be treated as a single design element including surrounding
frame, molding and glass sidelights.
Recessed doors may be used to convey the appearance of thick exterior doors.
'Wood may be used for the entry door. Wood grain texture and raised or recessed panels
contribute 10 the appeal of the door. Greater use is being made of metal entry doors but in
order to be acceptable, they shall possess the same residential "fee'" provided by the wood
grain and panels.
Doorways shall be typically rectangular or round-headed and fully recessed. Spiral columns,
arches, pilaster, stonework, decorative tiles, or other sculptural details shall be integrated into
the doorway design to enhance the visual importance of the entry door.
)
RoriDauah Ranch Sr>ecific Plan
N:\31367. OOO\dod\SPSect44CCAdopted. doc
4-127
March. 2003
.
8
8
'e
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The use of glass in the door and overall assembly is encouraged. It expresses a sense of
welcome and human scale. It can be incorporated into the door panels or expressed as
sin91e sidelights, double sidelights, transom glass or fan windows.
Flexibility is allowed concerning the color of the door. It may match or contrast the accent
trim, but should be differentiated from the wall color.
Windows
Typically, the location of windows is determined by the practical consideration of room layout,
possible furn~ure placement, view opportunities and concern for privacy. Greater design
emphasis should be directed to ensure that window placement and organization will pos~ively
contribute to the exterior architectural character. Windows greatly enhance the elevation
through their vertical or horizontal grouping and coordination w~h other design elements. This
relationship to one another and the walVroof plane creates a composition and sense of order.
All windows in a specific plan elevation shall be integrated into the architecture of the building.
This should not be interpreted that they are all the same shape. size or type but rather that a
hierarchy of windows exists that visually relates and complements one window to another.
Windows shall be recessed to convey the appearance of thick exterior walls. Non-recessed
windows shall be surrounded with articulated architectural elements such as wood trim,
stucco surrounds, shutters or recessed openin9s, shutters, pot shelves, ledgès, sills plantons,
and rails that compliment the architecture. '
Merchant-built housing occasionally fails to adequately address proper window design and
placement on rear and side elevations. This is usually due to prioritization, maintenance and
cost factors. Since side elevations and second story rear windows are frequently visible,
greater design effort and budget prioritization need to be given.
Garaae Doors (See Figure 4-73)
Utilizing garage types that compliment the arcMecture, door designs, and plotting techniques
will do much to lessen the repetitious garage doors marching down both sides of a residential
street. Variations include:
0
Employment of second-story feature windows above the garage.
0
Strong architectural entry elements.
0
Designs with a mix of 2 and 3 car garages, incorporating three single doors in some
three car garage plans not facing the street.
0
Allowance for a 10-foot setback between adjacent garages.
0
The use of tandem garages may also be incorporated into the building design.
0
Garage plans with a double door and a single door plan shall not be placed next to
each other.
If applicable, where lot width permits plans should include swing-in or side entry garages with
reduced front yard setbacks of ten (10) feet.
RoriDauoh Ranch Svecific Plan
N:\31367.000Idod\SPSect44CCAdopted,doc
4-128
March, 2003
'c. .
DESIGN GUIDELINES
The design of the garage door shall relate to the overall architectural design of the residence.
Colors shall be from the same paint palette.
Omamentation of garage doors shall be provided to add visual interest from the street scene.
The use of the sectional, wood or metal, rolling garage door is required since ~ maximizes the
availability of useable driveway length.
Several different panel designs shall be utilized for any project proposed by each merchant
builder. Metal doors shall only be used when they include either texture or raised panels of a
"residentiar nature. The use of window elements is encouraged.
The design of the door face shall result in a treatment which breaks up the expanse of the
door plane while being complimentary to the arcMectural elevation of the residence.
ArcMectural detail consisting of cornices, applied molding or trim or applied headers shall be
used. There shall be an 8" recess. (See Exhibit 4-73).
Rorloauoh Ranch Soocific Plan
N :\31367 . OOO\dod\S PSect44 CCAdopted. doc
4-129
March, 2003
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.6
NOVEMBER 19, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
R:\Product Review\Roripaugh Ranch SP\Griffin Communities Tr 29661-4, PA03-0347\PC SR memo 1-7-04.doc
12
.
.
.
.,:"'.":,".>"r:-"'""
, ,i I,':' :'::', ',f", ",'V." ,e.....,
..C""/:>:,, ,..,>IC'L":':"
",.".">
{.' "
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 19, 2003
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on
Wednesday November 19, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Olhasso led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman
Chiniaeff
ABSENT
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Aqenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 19, 2003
2 Minutes
~ --'--"-"---'-"--'~'------~-------
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of November 5, 2003
3 Director's Hearinq Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for October 2003
/:,::,.;:r,,:'~ "~:\MínutesPC\2003\111903,,
'I.
..
, ),..,.., ,
,<,,"""""'"'."
. ,',;",~,.'"" ",", :""",<"',""",,,,',,;",,',
, " ,', ., ,
',','
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation subject to the
changes of the condition deleting Condition No. 5b and 14 and amending No, 20g.
Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
.
5 Planninq ADDlication No, PA03-0347 submitted by Griffin Communities. is a Droduct review
for 100 detached sinqle family residences within Planninq Area 4A of the RoriDauqh Ranch
SDecific Plan located south of Murrieta Hot Sprinqs Road and west of the future extension of
Butterfield Staqe Road (APN: 957-340-001)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0347 A PRODUCT REVIEW FOR DETACHED
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4A
OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED
SOUTH OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 957-340-001 TRACT MAP 29661-4
Associate Planner Long, by way of Power Point, presented the report (as per agenda material),
noting the following:
. That the proposed project will include 99 units, not 100 (as per agenda material); that the
proposed resolution has been corrected;
.
That the proposed project will include four architectural styles, including Mediterranean,
Monterey, Ranch, and Craftsman;
That the applicant proposed various elements which staff has reviewed, and which are in
compliance with the Specific Plan Design Guidelines;
That one of the four floor plans will be a single-story project;
That the Design Guidelines require four-sided architecture;
. That the applicant has proposed various elements that staff has reviewed and that it will
be in compliance with the Specific Plan Design Guidelines;
That the focal point of the front elevations will be the front door;
That all the projects have either a covered entry or a front porch area;
That one of the requirements in the Specific Plan will be to avoid the canyon-like affect;
.
: R\l:AjnutesPC\2003\111903
.4
.
.
.
" 'h"
.,
. That 50% of the projects are required to provide architecture forward; that all proposed
projects meet this requirement;
. That all plots will include decorative hardscape;
. That the fencing plan has been reviewed and determined acceptable;
. That staff determined that the proposed project will be consistent with the Design
Guidelines of the Specific Plan and the General Plan; however, the following are minor
changes to the proposed conditions:
0 Condition of Approval No.14 - add language 2!: as amended by these
conditions;
0 Condition of Approval No. 19 - amended to read the applicant
shall apply for and receive approval of Model Home ComDlex
Dermit;
0 That the added Development Impact Fee (DIF) categories as
single-family residential conditions of approval.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Associate Planner Long relayed that the architectural features will
meet the intent of the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines for the Monterey architectural style.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Long noted that of the four floor proposed plans, staff
required one roofline of each plan to have some variation from the others.
Commissioner Olhasso relayed that the Craftsman and the Ranch style homes were
disappointing compared to the Design Guidelines and, therefore, was of the opinion that this
proposed project is not where it should be at this time.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jim Teergarden, 110 N. Lincoln Street, of Griffin Communities, relayed that many months
and man hours have been devoted to this project and that the applicant has made every change
requested by staff.
Mr. Charles Addington, 17992 Mitchell South, representing KTGY Group Architecture and
Planning, relayed the followin9:
0 That the floor plans have a different silhouette; that the silhouettes of Plan No. one is
different from Plan No. two which create a variation from the street.
Advising that she could no approve the proposed project at this time, Commissioner Olhasso
relayed that she would be willing to work through some suggestions with the Commission if the
applicant were willing to spend the time.
Echoing Commissioner Olhasso's comments, Commissioner Guerriero expressed confusion
with regard to the Monterey style home presentation viewing it as a California stucco box.
.. F1:)M,\~utesPC\2003\ 111903
.,.;5
In response, Mr. Addington stated that the proposed Monterey style would be historically
accurate and that this particular style does not have a lot of arched elements; that the proposed
style would be more accurate then the depiction in the City's Guidelines.
.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Addington noted that for the Mediterranean style, a Spanish
Colonial theme style was chosen; that this style has a lot of arched elements, arched
colonnades, rounded windows, shaped shutters, barrel tile roof, and wrought iron grill details
which would be consistent with the Spanish Colonial.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that from his view, there are only two architectural styles.
Mr. Addington stated that the proposed project depicts four distinct styles as defined by the
Specific Plan; that only three styles were required; but that a fourth style was added for variety.
Commissioner Olhasso noted that neither the Craftsman style nor the Ranch style on Plan No.
one would be acceptable.
Relaying his disappointment with the Commission's comments, Mr. Teegarden advised the
applicant and his representatives have made every concession requested and was of the
opinion that this project would be acceptable to the Commission.
Mr. Addington echoed that the applicant was of the opinion to have met the objectives of staff
with this project.
In light of the confusion with regard to the styles, Commissioner Guerriero expressed concern
with the direction given to the applicant.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed that there are significant differences between the design
guidelines and what was presented.
.
Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that other examples of a Monterey style homes be presented to
the Commission.
In the interest of being specific for the architect, Commissioner Olhasso suggested working on
the garage doors and that the Plan three homes need a new shape.
Commissioner Telesio expressed concern with the wrap-around of the homes and is of the
opinion that there needs to be more specific detail on the other three sides of the homes.
Chairman Chiniaeff suggested forming a sub-committee.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Kevin Everett, representing Ashby USA, stated that the applicant has worked with staff for
several months and the concerns of the Commission must be resolved this evening.
Mr. Rob Rodine, 110 Lincoln Avenue, representing Griffin Communities stated that he is
concerned with the Commission's comments noting that the architects have spent a tremendous
amount of time working to stay within the guidelines; that this product is for the consumer and
that they have spent thousands of dollars on focus studies and research with regard to what the
consumer's needs are.
.
R:\M;~utesPC\2003\ 111903
6
.
.
.
Commissioner Mathewson noted that it is the Commission's duty to ensure that the design
guidelines that were adopted for this type of project are being followed.
Mr. Tom McAliester, 39430 Liefer Road, noted that the run-of onto his property from the
developers is a problem.
For Mr. McAliester, Chairman Chiniaeff noted that he contact the Engineering Department.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Chiniaeff stated that he agrees with the comments on both sides and is of the opinion
that a sub-committee would be helpful.
Director of Planning Ubnoske concurs with Chairman Chiniaeff in forming a sub-committee for
the proposed item.
Commissioner Mathewson and Commissioner Olhasso volunteered to be on the sub-committee.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to continue this item for another month.
Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
6 Plannino ADDlication No. PA02-0522 an Amendment of the Temecula Reqional Center
SDecific Plan to establish requlations qoverninq temDorarv uses in Darkinq lots of the
Promenade Mall (40820 Winchester Road) located at the Promenade Mall
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-061
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A TEXT
AMENDMENT OF THE TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDING SECTION III.C.1 TO ESTABLISH
TEMPORARY USE REGULATIONS FOR THE LAND AREA
ENCOMPASSED BY THE PROMENADE MALL AND
SURROUNDING PARKING LOTS INTERIOR OF THE LOOP
ROAD LOCATED AT 40820 WINCHESTER ROAD
Director of Planning Ubnoske presented a brief staff report (as per agenda material), noting the
following:
. That the proposed Specific Plan amendment will permit Car auto shows and sales, RV
shows and sales, and Water craft and Boat shows and sales;
. That the current Development Code allows on a particular piece of property, no more
than two of these events a year; that within this Regional Center Specific Plan, the
language has been changed to allow up to 12 events, with the provision that there will
not be more than two a month;
R:\MjnutesPC\2003\111903
. 7,
.
ITEM #6
.
.
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Rick Rush, Associate Planner j2.g
January 21, 2004
Planning Application No. PA03-0176 (Winchester Pavilion)
The aforementioned item was continued from the January 7, 2004 Planning Commission
Meeting because of lack of a quorum.
Attachment
1. January 7, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 2
R:\D P\2003\O3-o176 Winchester Pavilion\Commission Memo.doc
1
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
JANUARY 7, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R:\D P\2003\03-o176 Winchester Pavilion\Commlssion Memo.doc
2
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting:
January 7,2004
Prepared by:
Rick Rush
Title:
Associate Planner
File Number
PA03-O176
Application Type:
Development Plan
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish a 17,505
square foot commercial two-story building on 1.15 acres located
at 41720 Winchester Road.
Recommendation:
[8J Approve with Conditions
0 Deny
0 Continue for Redesign
0 Continue to:
0 Recommend Approval with Conditions
0 Recommend Denial
CEQA:
(Check One)
[8J Categorically Exempt
(Class)
15332 (In-Fill)
0 Negative Declaration
0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
OEIR
R:\D Pl2oo3\03-0J76 Winchester Pavilion\ST AFF REPORT.doc
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY:
.
Applicant:
Binaca Properties, Paul Gupta
Completion Date:
November 14, 2003
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
May 14, 2004
General Plan Designation:
Service Commercial
Zoning Designation:
Service Commercial
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Retail/Office
Lot Area:
1 .15 Acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio
.34
.
Landscape Area/Coverage
.21
Parking Required/Provided
59 spaces required and 64 spaces provided (1 :300
Office/Retail)
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
[8J 1.
[8J 2.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
The attached "Project Review Worksheet" (Attachment A) has been completed and
staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City-
wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code.
ANALYSIS
The proposed Development Plan for a 17,505 square foot commercial building has been
determined by staff to be consistent with the General Plan and Development Code. Staff can
make the required findings necessary to approve a two-story commercial building located in the
service commercial zoning district and supports the requested increase in the floor area ratio.
The floor area ratio for the project is .34, which exceeds the target .30 for the service commercial
zoning district. The Development Code offers incentives to increase the floor area ratio to 1.0, if
the applicant can meet at least one of the following criteria (Section 17.08.050):
.
R,\D 1'\2003\03-0176 Winoh"te< Pav;¡io,,\STAFFREPORTdoc
.
.
.
1.
The project includes use(s), which provide outstanding and exceptional benefits to the
city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and economic needs of the community.
2.
The project provides exceptional architectural and landscaping design amenities, which
reflect an attractive image and character to the city.
3.
The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city, beyond those
required mitigation impact measures.
Staff has determined that the proposed building architecture provides exceptional architecture
and meets the second criteria as stated above. The proposed building design exceeds the
architectural standards of the Development Code and the architectural policies of the City-Wide
Design Guidelines. The following is a list of desirable building elements as stated in the Design
Guidelines that have been incorporated into the proposed building:
Significant wall articulation
Arcade
Courtyards
Multi-planed pitched roofs
Roof overhangs
Recessed windows
Stepped back second story
Substantial building base
Vertical building elements that frame storefront
The proposed landscaping exceeds the 20% minimum requirement of the Development Code
and complements the architectural design theme. The entire building is surrounded by
landscaping except for the areas designated as loading areas for the building.
The proposed site planning and circulation is consistent with the commercial development
performance standards in the Development Code. The proposed site plan has eliminated any
conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic by locating the pedestrian access parallel with
the vehicular access and by providing sidewalks along the building elevations that lead to all of
the building entrances. The required loading spaces have been located along the south
elevation of the building and will not be visible from the public right of way. The drive aisles
provided are a minimum twenty-four feet wide and provide complete access to the site for Fire
Department vehicles.
Staff has conditioned the applicant to provide a comprehensive sign program for review and
approval by the Planning Director prior to building occupancy (COA# 25). However, staff is
requesting Planning Commission direction in regards to the type of signage to be permitted for
the subsequent sign program. It is the opinion of staff that illuminated signage should not be
permitted at the second story. If illuminated signage were permitted at the second story, staff
would recommend utilizing halo lighting.
R:ID 1'\2003103-0176 Winchester PavilionlSTAFF REPORTdoc
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has
been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class
15332, In-Fill)
CONCLUSION/R ECOMM EN D A TIO N:
[8 1.
Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City's Design
Guidelines, and conforms to all of the applicable development regulations. Staff recommends
approval of the Development Plan with the attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
1.
2.
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 is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for Service
Commercial (SC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards for Service Commercial (SC) zoning district in the City of
Temecula Development Code. A commercial building and uses are typical land uses
found in the Service Commercial land use designation within the General Plan. The
Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that proposed buildings be compatible
with existing buildings. The proposed commercial use is compatible with the surrounding
commercial buildings currently located adjacent to the proposed site.
.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The architecture proposed for the office building exceeds the architectural requirements
as stated in the Design Guidelines and the Commercial Performance Standards of the
Development Code. The proposed building architecture and building materials have
been found to be compatible with the adjacent buildings. The varying building shapes
and offsets provided serve to break up the massing of the building. The project has been
reviewed against the Community Design Element goals and policies found in the General
Plan and have been found to exceed the goals and policies. The proposed architecture
enhances the visual character along Winchester Road and will be a welcome addition to
the existing buildings.
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:\D Pl2003103-OJ76 Winchester PaviiionlSTAFF REPORT-doc
.
.
.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7
Project Review Worksheets - Blue Page 8
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 9
R,ID 1'\2003103-0176 Winchester PavilinnlSTAFF REPORT.doc
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
R:ID Pl2003\03-0176 Winchester Pavilion\STAFF REPORTdoc
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA03-0176, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A
17,505 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL
BUILDING ON 1.15 VACANT ACRES, GENERALLY
LOCATED ON WINCHESTER ROAD AND WEST OF
JEFFERSON AVENUE KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL NO. 909-270-017
WHEREAS, Paul Gupta, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0176
(Development Plan 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 January 7, 2004, 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 Sections Section 17.05.010F of the
Temecula Municipal Code:
.
A. 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 is consistent with the General Plan land use policies for Service
Commercial (SC) development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as
the development standards for Service Commercial (SC) zoning district in the
City of Temecula Development Code. A commercial building and uses are typical
land uses found in the Service Commercial land use designation within the
General Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that
proposed buildings be compatible with existing buildings. The proposed
commercial use is compatible with the surrounding commercial buildings
currently located adjacent to the proposed site.
R:ID Pl2oo3\03-0176 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA,doc
I
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general welfare.
The architecture proposed for the office building exceeds the architectural
requirements as stated in the Design Guidelines and the Commercial
Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed building
architecture and building materials have been found to be compatible with the
adjacent buildings. The varying building shapes and offsets provided serve to
break up the massing of the building. The project has been reviewed against the
Community Design Element goals and policies found in the General Plan and
have been found to exceed the goals and policies. The proposed architecture
enhances the visual character along Winchester Road and will be a welcome
addition to the existing buildings.
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.
.
Section 3. Environmental ComDliance. The project will have no significant
environmental impacts and has been found to be categorically exempt, Pursuant to
Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Project) of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission
hereby conditionally approves the Application, a Development Plan to construct, operate
and establish a 17,505 square foot tow-story commercial building on 1.15 acres located
at 41720 Winchester Road set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be
deemed necessary.
.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this yth day of January 2004.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
.
R,\D P\2003103-Q176 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA,doc
2
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of
January 2004, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:ID Pl2003\03-0176 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:ID Pl2003\03-0176 Winchester PavilionlSTAFF REPORT-doc
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No.:
PA03-0176 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
A Development Plan to construct,
operate and establish a 17,505 square
foot two-story commercial building on
1.15 acres located at 41720 Winchester
Road.
DIF Category:
Retail Commercial/Office
Assessor's Parcel No.:
909-270-017
Approval Date:
January 7,2004
Expiration Date:
January 7,2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department 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 required under Public Resources Code Section 211 08(b)
and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48)
hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Planning Department 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 applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby
agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal
Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards,
judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance
of and the 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. The City shall be deemed
for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or
any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants,
contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the
applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the
action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be
in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
R,ID Pl2003103-0I76 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA,doc
5
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Restaurant used are not permitted for this building unless the Planning Director
finds that sufficient on-site parking based on the requirements of the
Development Code, have been provided.
.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this development plan.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which
is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial
utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved
Exhibits D (Site Plan), E (Grading Plan), F (Building Elevation), G (Floor Plan), H
(Landscape Plan), and I (Color and Material Board) contained on file with the
Planning Department.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the
landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director 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.
All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by
being placed below the surrounding parapet wall.
.
All downspouts shall be internalized.
10.
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted
directly below and with Exhibit "I" (Color and Material Board), contained on file
with the Planning Department.
Field Color
Accent Color
Paint Accent Color
Paint Accent Color 2
Paint Accent Color 3
Railings and Mullions
Stone
Store Front Windows
La Habra Stucco X-53 Pure Ivory
La Habra Stucco X-34 San Simeon
Dunn Edwards Paint SP-2670 Marble Canyon
Dunn Edwards Paint SP-514 Bone Chian
Dunn Edwards Paint SP-165 Burnt Crimson
PPG Duanar Coating #UC54434
EI Dorado Stone, Mountain Blend
Green Tinted
11.
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of
all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and
guidelines.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the
Planning Department for their files.
.
R,ID Pl2003103-0176 Winches!" PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA,doc
6
.
.
.
13.
14.
15.
16.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department 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 "F", the colored
architectural elevations to the Planning Department for their files. All labels on
the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the
photographic prints.
The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department,
which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar
Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way
as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees.
A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
20.
17.
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
18.
An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally
mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Department.
19.
A separate building permit shall be required for all signage.
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-
inch apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller
using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The
address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the
edge of the building closest to the street.
21.
A detail of the proposed patio furniture shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Department.
22.
The proposed planting types, size and method for irrigation to be installed on the
second floor terraces shall be called out on the construction landscape plans.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform
substantially with the approved Exhibit "H", or as amended by these 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:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Ternecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
23.
R:ID Pl2003\03-01 76 Wincheste' PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA-doc
7
b.
d.
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code
(Water Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with
approved plan).
A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which
details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure
proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of
the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to
the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry
out the detailed program.
.
c.
e.
Prior to Release of Final Electric
24.
25.
The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and
submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the
Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy
permit.
The applicant shall submit a comprehensive sign program for review and
approval by the Planning Director. All signage shall comply with the approved
sign program.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
.
General Requirements
26.
27.
28.
29.
A Grading Permit for 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.
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.
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.
The Developer shall construct public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the
Department of Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: sidewalks,
drive approach,
Storm drain facilities
b.
c.
Sewer and domestic water systems
.
R,\D Pl2003\03-0176 Winche"" Pavitinn\PC RESOLUTION AND COA,doc
8
.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
.
.
A Grading 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 private property.
The Developer shall post security 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.
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.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the
site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking
and liquefaction.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff
expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all
existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge
this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream
properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and
mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities,
including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make
required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
35.
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.
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
e. Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
36.
37.
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,ID Pl2003\03-0176 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA-doc
9
40.
38.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
.
39.
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.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable
to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either
cashier's check or money order, prior 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
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Improvement plans and/or 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.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No.
207A.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street
frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
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.
b.
c.
.
d.
e.
f.
All access rights, easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted and
reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works City Engineer and
approved by City Attorney and City Engineer for dedication to the City where
sidewalks meander through private property.
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.
The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the
adjacent property.
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.
.
R,\D Pl2003\03-0176 Wincheste, Pavilio,,\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
JO
46.
.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with,
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing
Chapter 15.08.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
47. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
48.
49.
50.
b.
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
c.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
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.
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.
.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
51.
52.
53.
.
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.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel
or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-
1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of
delivering 2500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed
sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 4350 GPM with a 2 hour
duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval 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
III-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per
CFC Appendix III-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 450
feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from
any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant.
3 fire hydrants shall be required. 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 III-B)
R:ID Pl2oo3\03.0J76 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
II
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
54.
As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in
excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains
capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on
site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2)
.
55.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius
on any cul-de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Subdivision
Ord 16.03.020)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire
protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall
have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until
permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall
be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
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 Ibs. GVW with
a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC see 902)
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)
.
The gradient for fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed fifteen (15)
percent. (CFC 902.2.2.6 Ord. 99-14)
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one
hundred and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a
turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of
access, via all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention
Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the
water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. Plans shall be signed by a registered 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 Fire 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)
.
R,\D Pl2003\03-0176 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA-doc
12
.
.
.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
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)
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 give a minimum of six (6) inch high letters andlor
numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single-family residences and multi-
family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor numbers, as
approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory
display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium,
townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated
diagrammatic layout of the complex, which indicates the name of the complex, all
streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the
complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and
be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
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)
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)
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)
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or
gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the
Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC
902.4)
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.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy,
buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of
Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection
Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require
structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection
RID Pl2003\O3-0176 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA,doc
J3
73.
74.
and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire
sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage
arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire
Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (CFC Article 81)
.
Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled
combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life
safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific
commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke
vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access
roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the
provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire
Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the
developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or
aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable
liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department
and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas
adjacent to the wild land-vegetation interface. (CFC Appendix II-A)
.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from
vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves,
noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones.
(CFC Appendix II-A)
Prior to building permit issuance, a full technical report may be required to be
submitted and to the Fire Prevention Bureau. This report shall address, but not
be limited to, all fire and life safety measures per 1998 CFC, 1998 CBC, NFPA -
13,24,72 and 231-C.
Prior to building permit issuance a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each
as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention
Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for
approval.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process
and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire
Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau
for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC
105)
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the
Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report
on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored on site increase or should
.
R,ID P\2003\03.0176 Winchester PaviJionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA,doc
14
.
.
.
changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in
existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Conditions
81.
82.
83.
All landscaping, fencing and on-site lighting shall be maintained by the property
owner or private maintenance association.
The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as
well as, regular solid waste containers. CR&R will need to review the proposed
design.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
84.
85.
The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the
City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
If additional streetlights are to be installed as a result of this project then prior to
issuance of building permits or the installation of the street lights, which ever
occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit
the approved Edison streetlight improvement plans and pay the appropriate
energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance
program.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
86.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition
of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California
Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California
Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
87.
The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside
County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the
adoption of this ordinance on March 31, 2003, this project will be subject to
payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be
subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
88.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing
compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street
lights 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.
RID Pl2003\03-0176 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA-doc
15
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
89.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be
submitted to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or
exemption from School Mitigation Fees.
.
90.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan
review.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access
regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of
the 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on
plans prior to permit issuance.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for
persons with disabilities.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start
of the building construction.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
Show all building setbacks.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that
indicates the hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the 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.
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
.
R,\D Pl2oo3\O3-0176 Wincheste' PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA.dnc
16
.
.
.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
103.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 30, 2003, from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
104.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 7, 2003, from
Rancho Water.
105.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated April 14, 2003, from
County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health.
106.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated February 8, 2003, from
the Department of Transportation.
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
Applicant's Name Printed
RID Pl2003103-01 76 Winchester PavilionlPC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
17
.
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
WARREN'D,èWThLIAMS: ".l
General M~riá~~r:6b1~fEj¡gineer
83523,1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
July 30, 2003
CityofTemecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: Rolfe Preisendanz
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re:
PA03-0176
, '" ,
The District does not usually review land divisions/land use cases or provide state Division of Real Estate
letters/flood hazard reports for projects that are located within incorporated Cities. Exceptions are made for cases
with items of specific interest to the District includin9 District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood
control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system,
and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development miti9ation fees). The District has notreviewed the proposed
project in detail and the following comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement
of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issues.
PA03-0176 is a proposal to design, construct and operate a commercial building on a 1.15 acre site located at
41720 Winchester Road in the City of T emecula.
. The entire site is located within the unshaded Zone X boundary as delineated on Panel No. 0607420005B of the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program. administered by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta CreekfTemecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for
which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid for by cashier's check or money order
written to the Flood Control District prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should be
at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
The following information of a general nature is provided herewith for your use:
, This project may need to obtai,n an applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimim¡tion System (NPDES) permit
,'coverage from the StateWäter Resources Control Board or the California Regiònal Water OualityContro!
Board (RWQCB) - San Diego Region. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final'approval should not be
given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If the mapped flood plain is impacted by the project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section
1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 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 Certification may be
required from the RWQCB - San Diego Region prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Teresa Tung at 909.955.4050.
.
Very truly yours,
3Ieve. ';/ÆeØtdcJ
STEPHEN C. THOMAS
Senior Civil Engineer
'" .
...,.:
@
Rancho
Water
B~ro orDiro<torn
JeffreyL.Mfnkler
"'~id..,
John E. Hoagland
Sr, Vi" Pre,id..,
Stophen J, Corona
Ralph H. Dany
Ben R. Drake
Lfsa D. He==
C~ha F. K"
Offirern,
John F. H~fgar
CenereIM~ag"
Phmip L. Forbes
D¡ro<tororFiMn<~
T~"rer
E.P. "Boh' Lem"M
Dr~tororE"gf"rering
E~eth C. Dealy
Drr_roro..retfo",
'Main"""""
Perry R. Lo"..
Co"troll~
Linda M. Freg~
D.'riet Seeretary/Admin¡,'retive
Se""~ Mona",
C. Mfehael Cowe"
Bert Bert & Krieger LLP
Cene..1 Co,,~1
April 7,2003
Rolfe Preisendanz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
lip!?
9 -'0-
(uUj
SUBJECT:
WATER A V AILABILITY - APN 909-270-017
PARCEL NO. 22 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19582-1
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0176
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire.protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
This project has the potential to become a commercial condominium site with
individual building owners and a homeowners' association maintaining the
common property, and private water and fire protection facilities. As a
condition of the project, RCWD requires that the City include a Reciprocal
Easement and Maintenance Agreement for these on-site private water facilities.
In addition to this agreement, RCWD will require individual water meters for
each building if a condominium conversion takes place.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
A~rJ~
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
03\SB:mcOI4\FO12-T6\FCF
.
C:
Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Bud Jones. Senior Engineering Technicinn
.2i;.Wi",~e;~rH~d . Po,' CjTIœ ~'~9::;';~h;~:~:~:"~:¡v,::¡: ~~~;"':;ti. (9œ):2;~'6900' FAX {9Q9)2;66860
~
.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. HEALTh sERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
April 14,2003
APR 1 6 2003
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589-9033
Attention: Rolfe Preisendanz
,.._,-------,,-----
RE;
Plot Plan No. PA03-0176
Dear Mr. Preisendanz;
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No- PA03-O176, to construct and
operate a 15,156 square foot commercial building and we have no objections. Sanitary sewer and water
services are available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY BIDLDING PLAN CHECK APPROVAL for Environmental Health clearance, the
following items are required;
a) "Will-serve"letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
.
b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be
submitted, including a fixture schedule. a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure
compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please
contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 600-6330).
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
. Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4.
. Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3.
. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2.
. Waste Reduction Management
. nmental Health Specialist
(909) 955-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
.
cc;
Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials
,,-:,. ';';';':C:":;;iX:;"4065;Cburi¡YCk~lê".Dfive '..Riverside, Ck92503""Phon.ê,(90~):3_5~'53_16~',¡;¡,1I¡X, (909)-.~5ff;t,j'.rj,~,;<""iNi;~\f~((;:;;
. . ' ; --;',"--";"'. '.' (Mailing Address-'P.Ò.Box7600. Riverside; CA 92513-76ÒÖ)" ,':'.y.;,-: 'ô,>;,-",- ' '--,"'.." .'"
p.,.Wd_"","Y",âp",p,,@
"'
APR 1 0 ZO03
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street .
P,O. Box 59968
Riverside. CA 92517-1968
Phone: (909) 565-5000
Fax: (909) 565-5001
FebruarY 8, 2003
Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz, Case Planner
Planning Dept
City of T emecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: PAO3-0176, Winchester Pavilion, 41270 Winchester Rd - Approval by RTA
Dear Mr: Preisendanz:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the site plan for the proposed commercial building at
41270 Winchester. RT A Bus Route 37 presently serves the project site. A copy of the RT A staff
review memo regarding the project is attached.
RTA is pleased to convey its approval of the design as submitted.
If you need further clarification or I can be of further assistance, please call me at (909) 565-5164
or contact me online at mmccoy@>.riversidetransitcom.
.
Sincerely,
?n;M! Jl;k
Michael McCoy 7
Senior Planner
.
F:ldataIPlanning\MikeM\WordIDev ReviewlTemecula\2003lRTA Ltrhd - Winchester Pavilion.doc
,"J""-
..'. .
;,.i'" .
:..._.'~
:~
.-
-
. Riverside Transit Agency
April 8, 2003
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Subject:
Anne Palatino, Director of Planning
Michael McCoy, Senior Planner ~~
City of Temecula, Non-residential project
41270 Winchester Rd - Commercial Bldg - Case #PA03-0176
SE'ly side of Winchester, SW'ly of Jefferson Av
Bus route involved: #37
To:
From:
Summary: The applicant is proposing "Winchester Pavilion", a 15,000 sq ft service-com-
mercial building, near the Interstate 15-Winchester Road overpass. This infill site is
easily accessible to Jefferson, Diaz Rd, Promenade Mall, and the historic Old Town
neighborhood. RTA Route 37 directly and adequately serves the project site by a bus
stop at the nearby corner of Winchester and Enterprise Cir. Additional bus service may
be added to Winchester in the future. Staff has no comments on the project for the City.
INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION - Review completed date: April 8, 2003.
.
Documents received at RTA: April 4, 2003;
Reply-by Date: April 15, 2003; Planning Commission Agenda Date: Unknown or N/A;
City Council/Bd of Supervisors Agenda Date: Unknown or N/A;
Thomas Guide Map pg and grid: 958; F-4;
Case Number: PA03-176;
Case Planner: Rolfe Preisendanz, (909) 694-6400;
Applicants: Binaca Properties of T emecula.
RTA PLANNING FOLLOW-UP:
-' Standard' Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction without comments
Standard 'Acceptable" letter to jurisdiction with compliments or positive advisories
, Letter with comments advising project modifications re transit issues
Verbal conversation with Case Planner and appropriate letter follow-up
Letter sent: Date: oJ>
File name: F:\data\Pla ni g\MikeM\Word\Dev Review\Temecula\2003\RTA Ltrhd - Winchester Pavilion.doc
.
SECOND REVIEW:
Review materials placed in archive files: Date: ~
,.0 [, .,T',!:'" <"";':F-:\diita\PlànninglMikeM\Word\Dey Revie'Y\Temec~la\2003\VVinchesterPavilion,doc
',,;,~-,"'",,:, ",'.:.".' " ".:,," , . .' . " '...., ", " . " ""..,..
<'
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEETS
R:ID Pl2003\03-0176 Winchester PavilionlSTAFFREPORTdoc
.
.
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
Planning Application Number:
PA03-0176
Yes
Service Commercial
Consistent?
1. General Plan Designation:
Service Commercial
Consistent?
2. Zoning Designation:
3. Environmental Documents Referred to in Making Determination:
0
~
0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
0
General Plan EIR
Sensitive Biological Habitat Map
Sensitive Archeological Area Map
Sensitive Paleontological Area Map
Fault Hazard Zone Map
Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazard Map
100 Year Flood Map
Future Roadway Noise Contour Map
Other (Specify)
Yes
Previous EIR/N.D. (Specify Project Name & Approval Date):
N/A
Submitted Technical Studies (Specify Name, Author & Date):
Geotecnical Study
Engen Corporation
October 31, 2003
Other:
~ Exempt
D Mitigated Negative Declaration
D Negative Declaration
D EIR
4. Environmental Determination:
~ 10 Day Review
D 20 Day Review
D 30 Day Review
5. General Plan Goals Consistency:
Consistent
~
~
~
Inconsistent
D
D
D
Land Use
Circulation
Housing
RID Pl2003103-0176 Winchester PavilionlPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEETdoc
I
Consistent
Inconsistent
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
~
r2J
r2J
~
r2J
r2J
~
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
.
OS/Conservation
Growth Management/Public Facilities
Public Safety
Noise
Air Quality
Community Design
Economic Development
6. City-wide Design Guideline Consistency:
~
Site Plannino:
A. How does the placement of building(s) consider the surrounding area
character?
The building has been sited on the lot taken into account the future need for
a transportation corridor along Winchester Road. As well as providing cross
lot access to the parcel to the south.
B. How do the structures interface with adjoining properties to avoid creating
nuisances and hazards?
The building interfaces well with the existing buildings to the east, west and
the south. The massing of the second story has been setback at the west
and east elevation as to blend with the existing one story buildings.
.
C. How does the building placement allow buildings rather than parking lots
to define the street edge?
As designed the building has been setback on the lot rather than being
pushed forward to the street. This has been done to accommodate any
future need for a transportation corridor along Winchester as stated in the
General Plan.
~
Parkino and Circulation:
A. How does the parking lot design allow customers and deliveries to reach
the site, circulate through the parking lot, and exit the site easily?
The building has been designed in the center of the site to allow customers
to enter the site and circulate around the building. A loading zone has been
provided at the rear of the site and delivery vehicles will also be able to
easily circulate around the site.
B. How does the parking lot design provide safe and convenient access to
pedestrians and bicyclists?
The site has been designed to allow pedestrians to access the building via
.
RIO Pl2003103-OJ76 Winchester PavilionlPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET-doc
2
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
sidewalks and pathways located along the north, east and west building
elevations.
C. How are the service facilities within the parking lot screened or buffered
from public view?
All services areas have been located to the rear of the building and will be
screened by the building from view from the public right of way. Allloading
operations are to be performed at the rear of the building. The trash
enclosure has been located at the rear of the building and will be
surrounded by landscaping to screen its view from the adjacent properties.
~
Buildino Architecture:
A. How does the building design provide articulation of the building mass?
The proposed building is a two-story building with generous setbacks on all
four sides. The two-story element is setback at the front, rear and both
sides of the building. The front elevation has a covered arcade area as well
as second story balcony. The building footprint at the front elevation has
been broken up into three parts, which serves to further break up the front
elevation from the public view. Exterior terrace areas have been provided
at the west and east elevation that serve to break up the massing along the
second story.
.
B. How is each building "stylistically" consistent with all buildings in a
complex, and on all elevations to achieve design harmony and continuity
within itself?
The proposed building is a stand-alone building. However, the building will
be located in an area that is all but built out. The majority of the
surrounding buildings were approved prior to the adoption of the current
citywide design guidelines. With this in mind staff and the applicant set out
to achieve a new standard for the proposed building. Similar materials such
as stucco and s-tiles can be found on a good number of the surrounding
buildings.
C. How does the placement of buildings create a more functional or useful
open space between the buildings and/or the street?
The placement of the building has created areas along the street edge and
the front of the building that are well planted areas. Open space areas have
been provided at the second floor of the building for employees and patrons
to congregate.
.
D. How do each of the architectural elements (building base, windows,
doors and openings, cornice and parapet, roofline, and finish materials
meet the intent of the design guidelines?
As proposed the building will have approximately two and half feet of EI
Dorado Stone at the base of the first and second floor at the front elevation.
This material is meeting the intent of the building base as defined in the
design guidelines. As proposed the windows, doors and openings have
RIO Pl2003103-0176 Wincheste, PavilionlPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEETdoc
3
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
been designed as integral part of the façade. The project has incorporated
a mix of rooflines, parapets and roof pitches to provide an interesting view
to the street. The color scheme and materials proposed for the building will
enhance the overall area.
.
~
LandscaDina:
A. Does the plan provide the following ratio of plantings?
[8J Yes D No, why?
Trees
10% 36" Box
30% 24" Box
60% 15 Gallon
Groundcover
100% Coverage
In One Year
Shrubs
100% 5 Gallon
B. Does the landscaped area, ratio, spacing, and size conform with the
design guidelines? ~ Yes D No
C. How does the internal site landscaping frame the building(s) and
separate them from the surrounding pavements?
As proposed there will be landscaping on all sides except for the rear of the
building. Not landscaping the rear of the building was done to allow for the
suites to be loaded from the rear.
.
D. How does the patio and street' furniture, fixtures, walls and fences integrate
with of the architecture and landscaping?
The second floor terrace areas will serve to incorporate landscaping on the
second floor. This area will also serve as employee and public gathering
spaces for the building. The project will be conditioned to provide details of
the patio furniture prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Development Code Consistency:
A. How does the plan achieve the performance standards specified in Code
Section 17.08.070?
.
R,\D Pl2003103-0176 Winch"", PavilionlPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc
4
.
.
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
Circulation:
Ingress and egress to site will be taken via an existing shared driveway to
the west. The utilization of existing driveway is consistent with the
requirement stated in the Development Code to limit the amount of access
points on to major arterial roads.
Architectural Desiqn:
The building has been designed to break up the massing of the building by
providing jogs along the front footprint. Stepping back the second story
serves to break up the massing on all fours side of the building.
Site Plannino and Desion:
The plan has created covered walkways along the front elevation as
recommended in the Development Code. The site plan has also taken into
account the requirement to minimize the conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians.
ComDatibility:
Stepping back the second story has taken into account the need to preserve
the scale of the adjacent one-story buildings.
B. Does the application and submitted plans on file conform with all of the
applicable minimum development standards?
IZI Yes, with conditions
0 No
Net Lot Area:
Total Floor Area:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
1.15 acres
17,505 square feet
.34
22%
Front
Side
Side
Rear
Parkin
25 feet
0 feet
0 feet
10 feet
59 s aces
87 feet
25 feet
53 feet
35 feet
64 s aces
I En\1ironrrientallssues (Circle alLthat apply)
Hillside/Slope N/A
Arch.!Paleo N/A
Fault Zone N/A
Flood N/A
Traffic
Habitat
Subs.!Liqfctn
Stream/Creek
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
R,ID Pl2003\03-0I76 Winchester PavilionlPROIECf REVIEW WORKSHEET-doc
5
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
Noise
N/A
Air Quality
N/A
Surrounding .Use $urrouódinQZoninQ GeneralPlaó DesiQhatidn
North Office Service Commercial Service Commercial
East Restaurant Service Commercial Service Commercial
West Commercial Service Commercial Service Commercial
South Hardware Store Service Commercial Service Commercial
R:\D Pl2003103-OI76 Winchester PavilionlPROJECfREVIEW WORKSHEET,doc
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R,ID Pl2003103-0176 Winchester Pavilio"ISTAFF REPORT-doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-0176
EXHIBIT - VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE JANUARY 7~ 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-0176
EXHIBIT - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE JANUARY 7, 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-0176
EXHIBIT C -GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - SERVICE COMMERCIAL
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE JANUARY 7, 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA03-0176
EXHIBIT - SURROUNDING LAND USE
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE JANUARY 7, 2004
"ii"'"""""""",""""" ¡;
11II111"1I""'¡III"'lil'lIiI" ~
i' 'II III ~
z
"',,"""""11"""" fI?
""II!I' ' I:UJII'!I'IIII
; I I 'I,
IIII!I
R 1,111 ~
~ I '"
Ii ¡ ~
~! ~
I'
iiill'l' r i ill
In illl~ ! ! I
,I II ¡
'j II
unlitli !' .I~,"'I
1111 HI! .¡
Iii 'I i ¡ II!
III¡ i
i
CITY OF TEMECULA
0 @e@e@0e060@@@@@@@@@@66e@e66eeO
1111Ii¡¡¡'¡¡¡'¡¡'lllltß¡ìliq~'¡II!~
UR!lnH¡ ¡i!¡ílll,I~!lí-III~ß<'I¡I¡Hã
'I"!; , 'I f ' I ,., " ¡ t! ' -<
I W' ¡ i ' , ¡ Ii' I" ¡ ¡¡¡
¡pilI,!' II ¡¡ !I.Jr
I"~ , , '! I
.¡'f I ' 1 "
! :, I I ' t
'j I ì
il
II
\
\
.- \
\
\
\
\
~ '
~ \
% \
i ì
ì
ì
CASE NO. - PA03-0176
EXHIBIT D - SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE JANUARY 7, 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
17\ EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
¡;;;;¡;¡¡
17\ NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
t:"\ WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
G'y~.~~}XTERIOR ELEVATION
CASE NO. - PA03-0176
EXHIBIT F -ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE JANUARY 7, 2004
iZJ' ~~lOOR PLAN
'"'I'J:J."',,~
,~,,~
'~'I.I'J."',,~
ø ::.:~D flOOR PLAN
CASE NO. PA03-0176
EXHIBIT G- FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 7, 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
--------~::---------------------
------
<>-----",.......""..
"Ó ---
----r--
\
\
\
\
\
\.
\
\.
-----_...J_---------
0
0
" -.-
0 -
Ol:¡
0°
0
-- _'4.-<4-
-, "'. M-
-- '4. <-"-
.'- . --,_...,-<--
.~
""
-- <-.- <
CASE NO. PA03-0176
EXHIBIT H -LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 7, 2004
_._~,
""'"
.-------
.~~7=.'::.::'
,--------
.---.-.--
r -- -,""
-- ',"-" ...-
-- ._-" ---
=.:...:::¿ .~:; ::::=
@J
;..
- .
PR~MINARY PLANTING PLAN
.
ITEM #7
.
.
.
.
.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Dan Long, Associate Planner It-
January 21, 2004
PA03-0525, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Temecula Valley Wine Company
The aforementioned item was continued from the January 7,2004 Planning Commission Meeting
because of lack of a quorum.
Attachment
1.
January 7,2004 Planning Commission Staff Report - Blue Page 2
R:IM C U Pl2003\03-O525 Temecula Valley Wine CumpanylMemo to PC continuance 1-21-04,doc
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
JANUARY 7, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
R,IM C U Pl2oo3\03-0525 Temecula Valley Wiue CompanylMemo to PC conti""ance 1-21-04.doc
.
.
.
Date of Meeting:
Prepared by:
File Number
PA03-0525
Project Description:
Recommendation:
CECA:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 7,2004
Dan Long
Title:
Associate Planner
Application Type:
Minor Conditional Use Permit
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to establish a 1,655 square foot wine
tasting and retail establishment in an existing commercial building,
located at 27493 Ynez Rd. (APN: 921-270-055)
¡g Approve with Conditions
0 Deny
0 Continue for Redesign
0 Continue to:
0 Recommend Approval with Conditions
0 Recommend Denial
¡g Categorically Exempt
(Class)
15301
0 Negative Declaration
0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
KIM C U Pl2003103-0525 Temecula Valley Wine CompanylSTAFF REPORT-PC,doc
I
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY:
.
Applicant:
Temecula Valley Wine Company, Michael Cho
Completion Date:
September 16, 2003
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
January 20, 2004
General Plan Designation:
Community Commercial
Zoning Designation:
Community Commercial
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Community Commercial
North:
Community Commercial
South:
Professional Office
East:
Community Commercial
West:
Interstate 15 Freeway
Lot Area:
N/A
.
Total Floor Area/Ratio N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage N/A
Parking Required/Provided N/A
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
[g] 1.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval.
ANALYSIS
The proposed project is a request to establish a 1,655 square foot wine tasting and retail facility
within an existing commercial center.
The project includes interior modifications to the building as well as the addition of an outdoor
patio area (approximately 139 square feet). The outdoor patio includes tables and chairs within a
wrought iron patio area located in the front of the suite. The applicant has proposed wrought iron
fencing 3'-6" in height designed to match the existing wrought iron fencing in the surrounding
area. As a condition of approval, the wrought iron fencing shall be painted to match the existing
wrought iron fencing in the center as approved by the Director of Planning. Also, the applicant
.
RIM C U 1"12003\03-0525 Temecula Valley Wine ComponylSTAFF REPORT~PC,doc
2
.
.
.
The applicant is requesting a wine tasting facility, which requires a Type 42 (beer and wine
consumption on and off-site) and Type 20 (sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption)
license from the California Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC). The ABC has
informed staff that the proposed facility, within Census Tract 432.16 is over-concentrated. There
are a maximum of 6 Type 42 licenses allowed (27 existing) and a maximum of 5 Type 20
licenses allowed (12 existing) within tract 432.16.
Staff can make the findings because the applicant is a specialized business focusing on local
wineries, which is supporting the local economy. In addition, staff has consulted with the GIS
division, which has provided a 500' radius map and no public parks, religious institutions, or
school are located within 500 feet of the proposed facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
~1.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has
been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class
15301, existing facility with minor exterior changes)
CO NCLUSION/R ECOMM ENDA TION:
Staff has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project is consistent with
the General Plan and Development Code. Staff recommends the Planning Commission make
the findings for Public Convenience or Necessity, as well as the findings for approval of a Minor
Conditional Use Permit. In addition, staff recommends the Planning Commission determine that
the project is exempt from CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301, existing facilities.
FINDINGS
Criteria to justify making a finding of Public Convenience or Necessity:
1.
Does the proposed establishment have any unique features, which are not found in other
similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special services)?
The proposed establishment is a unique business because it is a wine tasting facility that
specializes in local wineries, which will serve to boost the local economy by providing an
opportunity to local citizens as, well as tourists the opportunity to experience local wines.
This facility will further enhance the reputation of the area as a wine-making region.
2.
Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a
different socio-economic class)?
The proposed facility will cater to tourists as well and local citizens seeking fine local
wines. While these types of facilities cater to many various socia-economic classes, it
cannot be anticipated that the proposed establishment will serve to anyone particular
socio-economic class, or an under-served population.
RIM C U Pl2003103-0525 Temecula Valley Wine CompanyISTAFFREPORT-PC,doc
. 3
3.
Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e. patrons of a
different socio-economic class)?
.
The proposed facility will cater to tourists as well and local citizens seeking fine local
wines. While these types of facilities cater to many various socio-economic classes, it
cannot be anticipated that the proposed establishment will serve to anyone particular
socio-economic class, or an under-served population.
4.
Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales in
conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area?
The proposed facility is different than other establishments because it specializes in local
wineries. There are not many facilities specializing in local wineries of the area.
5.
Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e.
freeways, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from
other establishments?
The nearest facilities most similar to the proposed facility is Bailey's restaurant, located
on the east side of Ynez Road in the Temecula shopping center and the Beer and Wine
Garden located in Old Town, which separated by Interstate 15 freeway. There is an
Italian restaurant, Scarcella's located in the same center, however it is primarily a
restaurant that serves wine, beer and spirits.
6.
Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of
population during certain seasonal periods?
.
The proposed facility is located in the Tower Plaza, which provides outdoor concerts
during the summer months. Also, during the winter holiday season, the center
experiences a greater number of patrons.
7.
Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within the Census Tract of the
proposed establishment?
According to the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control there is currently an over
concentration of (Type 42) on-sale beer and wine and (Type 20) off-sale beer and wine
licenses within the subject Census Tract (432.16). There are a total of 27 Type 42
licenses (6 allowed) and a total of 12 Type 20 licenses (5 allowed) in Census Tract
432.16.
8.
Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity
(500 feet) to the proposed establishment?
Staff has conducted a 500-foot radius search and it was concluded that there are not any
schools, parks, hospitals or churches within 500 feet of the proposed site. This includes
the duck pond located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez
Road. There are medical offices located on the northern portion of the center, however
these facilities function as a separate center and will not be influenced by the proposed
use.
.
R,IM C U Pl2oo3\03-0525 Temecula Valley Wine CompanylST AFF REPORT-PC.doc
4
.
.
.
9.
10.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive areas?
It is not anticipated that the proposed use would interfere with any sensitive areas.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by
the residents of the area?
There are not any residences located near the proposed project site; therefore the project
would not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of property by residences.
11.
Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
Any establishment serving alcohol has potential to add to law enforcement problems,
however it is not anticipated that there will be any significant concerns with law
enforcement in the area as a result of this project. The hours of operation as indicated in
the statement of operations are 9:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. seven days a week. In addition, the
facility is for tasting and purchasing of local wines; it is not a full service bar
establishment.
Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E)
1.
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Code.
The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (Community Commercial) and
Zoning (Community Commercial) designation as well as the standards within the
Development within the Development Code.
2.
The proposed minor conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and
development of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed minor
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures.
The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures because the proposed project will provide a
needed use in the area, and bring additional people to the center, which will create
additional revenue for the surrounding businesses.
3.
The nature of the proposed minor conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community.
The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general
welfare of the community because the project will provide additional resources for the
local wine growers while enhancing the reputation of the region as a wine growing region.
R,IM C U Pl2003\03-O525 Temecnla Valley Wine CompanylSTAFF REPORT-PC,doc
5
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7
2.
PC Resolution No. 2004-- Making Findings of Public Necessity or Convenience - Blue
Page 8
3.
PC Resolution No. 2004-- Approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit - Blue Page 9
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
R,\M C U 1'\2003\03-0525 Temec"la Valley Wine CompanylSTAFF REPORT-PC, doc
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:IM C U Pl2003\03-0525 Temecula Valley Wine CnmpanylSTAFF REPORT-PC.doc
7
CITY OF TEMECULA
I~
CASE NO. - PA03-0525
EXHIBIT - VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 7, 2004
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - Communi
CASE NO. - PA03-0525
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 7, 2004
2
CITY OF TEMECULA
----,--
-..-..-..-..-..-..
0'"
PROJECT
..~~~~._..-.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.
--~-
VONS
SUB
MAJOR
STORE
l
¿ M.~J~
-w
""EW£
BANK OF
AMERICA
-
N~
YNEZ ROAD
CASE NO. - PA03-0525
EXHIBIT - SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 7, 2004
3
CITY OF TEMECULA
\
ELOCATED (E)
DOOR. PTD TO
MATCH EXIST.
FIXED WINDOWS
AS SHEDULED.
PTD. TO MATCH EXIST.
XISTING DOOR
TO BE REHINGED
& REINSTAll I"n
.
co
I
'h
CASE NO. - PA03-0525
EXHIBIT - ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - January 7,2004
4
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
MAKING FINDINGS OF PUBLIC NECESSITY OR CONVENIENCE
R,IM C U Pl2oo3\03-O525 Temecula Valley Wine CompanylSTAFF REPORT-PC doc
8
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A
FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FOR A
TYPE 42 (ON-SALE BEER AND WINE) AND TYPE 20 (OFF-
SALE BEER AND WINE) ALCOHOL LICENSE FOR THE
TEMECULA VALLEY WINE COMPANY LOCATED AT 27493
YNEZ ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.
921-270-055.
WHEREAS, Michael Cho, representing Temecula Valley Wine Company filed a request
for a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity, in a manner in accord with the City of
Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the request for a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law; and;
WHEREAS, the application was processed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 7,
2004 to consider the application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the request for a Finding of Public
Convenience or Necessity 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; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission and after due consideration
of the staff report and public testimony, the Planning Commission denied the request for a
Finding Public Convenience or Necessity; and
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. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving the request for a
Finding Public Convenience or Necessity hereby makes the following findings:
Criteria to Justifv Makino a Findinq of Public Convenience or Necessity
A. Does the proposed establishment have any unique features, which are not found
in other similar uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, other special
services)?
The proposed establishment is a unique business because it is a wine tasting facility that
specializes in local wineries, which will serve to boost the local economy by providing an
opportunity to local citizens as well as tourists the opportunity to experience local wines.
This facility will further enhance the reputation of the area as a wine making region.
R,IM C U Pl2oo3\03-0525 Temecula Valley Wi"e CompanylPC Reso w- co"ditio"s,doc
I
B. Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e.
patrons of a different socio-economic class)?
The proposed facility will cater to tourists as well and local citizens seeking fine local
wines. While these types of facilities cater to many various socio-economic classes, it
cannot be anticipated that the proposed establishment will serve to anyone particular
socio-economic class, or an under-served population.
.
C. Would the proposed mode of operation of the proposed establishment (i.e. sales
in conjunction with gasoline sales, tours, etc.) be unique or differ from that of other
establishments in the area?
The proposed facility is different than other establishments because it specializes in local
wineries. There are not many facilities specializing in local wineries in the area.
D. Are there any geographical boundaries (i.e. rivers, hillsides) or traffic barriers (i.e.
freeways, major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other
establishments?
The nearest facilities most similar to the proposed facility is Bailey's restaurant, located
on the east side of Ynez Road in theTemecula shopping center and the Beer and Wine
Garden located in Old Town, which separated by Interstate 15 freeway. There is an
Italian restaurant; Scarcella's located in the same center, however it is primarily a
restaurant that serves wine, beer and spirits.
E. Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant
influx of population during certain seasonal periods?
The proposed facility is located in the Tower Plaza, which provides outdoor concerts
during the summer months. Also, during the winter holiday season, the center
experiences a greater number of patrons.
.
F. Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within the Census Tract of the
proposed establishment? .
According to the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control there is currently an over
concentration of (Type 42) on-sale beer and wine and (Type 20) off-sale beer and wine
licenses within the subject Census Tract (432.16). There are a total of 27 Type 42
licenses (6 allowed) and a total of 12 Type 20 licenses (5 allowed) in Census Tract
432.16.
G. Are there any sensitive uses (i.e., schools, parks, hospitals, churches) in close
proximity (500 feet) to the proposed establishment?
Staff has conducted a 500-foot radius search ring and it was concluded that there are
not any schools, parks, hospitals or churches within 500 feet of the proposed site. This
includes the duck pond located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and
Ynez Road. There are medical offices located on the northern portion of the center,
however these facilities function as a separate center and will not be influenced by the
proposed use.
H.
Would the proposed establishment interfere with these sensitive uses?
.
It is not anticipated that the proposed use would interfere with any sensitive uses.
R,IM C U N003\03-0525 Temecula Valley Wi"e CompanylPC Rew w- conditiom.doc
2
.
.
.
I. Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their
property by the residents of the area?
There are not any residences located near the proposed project site, therefore the
project would not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of property by residences.
J.
Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
Any establishment serving alcohol has potential to add to law enforcement problems,
however it is not anticipated that there will be any significant concerns with law
enforcement in the area as a result of this project. The hours of operation as indicated in
the statement of operations are 9:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. seven days a week. In addition,
the facility is for tasting and purchasing of local wines; it is not a full service bar
establishment.
Section 3. Environmental ComDliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PA03-0525 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities, Class 1). This project is an existing facility with minor
improvements to the interior and exterior of the building.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Director of Planning hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit establish
1,655 square foot wine tasting and retail establishment in an existing commercial building,
located at 27493 Ynez Rd. (APN: 921-270-055), attached hereto on Exhibit A, and incorporated
herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed
necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission this 7th day of January 2004.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
R,IM C U Pl2oo3\03-0525 Teme<:nla Valley Wine CompanylPC Reso w- conditions,doc
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7'h day of January 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R'IM C U P\2oo3\03-0525 Tern",,'a Valley Wine CornpanylPC Reso w- conditions,doc
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. 03-0525, A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ESTABLISH A 1,655 SQUARE FOOT WINE TASTING AND
RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL
BUILDING LOCATED AT 27493 YNEZ ROAD, AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 921-270-055.
WHEREAS, Michael Cho, representing Temecula Valley Wine Company filed Planning
Application No. PA03-0525 , in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0525 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 Planning
Application No. PA03-0525 on January 7, 2004, 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 Planning Commission's Hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No.
PA03-0525 subject to the conditions of approval after finding that the project proposed in
Planning Application No. PA03-0525 conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
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. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA03-0525 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required
by Section 17.04.01 O.E of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (Community Commercial)
and Zoning (Community Commercial) designation as well as the standards within the
Development within the Development Code.
B. The proposed project is compatible with the nature, condition and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures because the proposed project will provide a needed
use in the area, and bring additional people to the center, which will create additional revenue
for the surrounding businesses. .
C. The nature of the proposed use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community because the project will provide additional resources for the
local wine growers while enhancing the reputation of the region as a wine growing region.
R,IM C U Pl200310).0525 Ternec,,!a Valley Wine CornpanylPC Reso w. conditions.doc
5
Section 3. Environmental ComDliance. A Notice of Exemption for Planning
Application No. PAO3-0525 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15301 (Existing Facilities, Class 1). This project is a minor improvements to the
interior and exterior of the building.
.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit establish
1,655 square foot wine tasting and retail establishment in an existing commercial building,
located at 27493 Ynez Rd., attached hereto on Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by this
reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission on this 7th day of January 2004.
Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
{SEAL}
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
)ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004- was duly and regularly adopted b~ the Planning Commission of
the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7' day of January 2004, by the
following vote: .
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R,IM C U Pl2003\03-0525 Temecula Valley Wine CompanylPC Reso w- conditions.doc
6
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0525 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
The use hereby permitted is to establish 1,655 square foot wine tasting and
retail establishment in an existing commercial building, located at 27493
Ynez Rd. (APN: 921-270-055)
Assessor's Parcel No.:
921-270-055
Approval Date:
January 7, 2004
Expiration Date:
January 7,2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicanVdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department 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
applicanVdeveloper has not delivered to the Planning Department 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 applicant shall comply with the statement of operations (attached) date stamped
September 16, 2003, for PA03-0525 on file with the Planning Division, unless
superceded by these Conditions of Approval.
3.
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
4.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
5.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department staff, and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
6.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
7.
The hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of 9:00 am to 8:00 pm seven days a
week.
R:IM C U Pl2003\03-O525 Temecnla Valley Wine CompanylPC Reso w. conditions,doc
7
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall verify that all outdoor
wrought iron will match the color and design of existing wrought iron fencing within the
shopping center.
.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit photos of the
proposed outdoor furniture, which shall be subject to the approval of the Planning
Director.
All outdoor furniture shall be maintained in a reasonable manner subject to the approval
of the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. the applicant shall submit verification
the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control has issued the necessary type 20 and 42
beer and wine permits.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall comply with all
Riverside County Health Department and submit a clearance letter to the Planning
Department.
BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled
Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights 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. (If modifications to exterior
lighting is proposed)
.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1,1998)
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. (For applicable modifications
proposed)
Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities.
.
RolM C U Pl2003\O3-0525 Temecul, V,lley Wine Comp,nylPC Re,o w- condirion"doc
8
22.
. 23.
24.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
Show all building setbacks.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the 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.
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
FIRE DEPARTMENT
25.
26.
27.
.
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.
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.
Exiting shall comply with the California Building Code and California Fire Code. Details
will be worked out during plan check.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
28.
.
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter from the Riverside County Health
Department dated September 25, 2003.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the
above-mentioned 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 Printed Name
Date
Applicant Signature
R:\M C U 1'\2003103-0525 Temecula Valley Wine CompanylPC Reso w- conditions.doc
9
"':X'::;""":':,~..c;'~',~.
!,,'
,,1>' '-',,:,;,,'> ,,:~. :~..>,:," ".
io.
, ,--- <,
.dC," ;'- >,..,'-"
'. ,
, ;~ COUNTY OF RNERSIDE . COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY
~~ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
.
September 25. 2003
City of Temecula Planning Dep¡U1ment
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Dan Long
RE:
Plot Plan No. PA03-0525
Dear Mr.Long:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA03-0525. to construct and
operate 1,655 sq. ft. wine tasting and retail facility and we have no objections. Sanitary sewer and water
services are available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PLAN CHECK APPROVAL for Environmental Health clearance, the
following items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment (to include vending machines) will be
submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure
compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please
contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 600-6330).
.
Sincerely,
~
nvironmental Health Specialist
(909) 955-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered can be applicable at time of Building Plan
review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
ßTf Q; 7I~f~'Tnff
, OCT 0 1 ¡¡iff
iU 2003 Iii II
! L!.JI "
II-'" /
. Loé_t.Enfo,c.,nënt'Age"cv' rD. Bd>' 1280,Rlvo<slde: CA 9250n2RO '.(909)95.5:8982 . FÃ=t;9Ò91"7Sr9ßS-;t'--40SQLemon it,eet, 9th Floo,. Rlve"lde, CA 92501
. Land Use awl Waler Engin~..ing'. rD. Box 1206,. Riverside: CA:;2502-120b . (9091 %5.3980 . FAX 19091 955-89Ó3 :'4a30:t;;;m-,j Street, 2nd Floor. Rlve"ide, CA 92501
.