Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout121405 PC Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2005 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:30 P.M., on Wednesday, December 14, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Mathewson led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Harter, Telesio, and Chairman Mathewson. Absent: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1 Planninq Application No. PA05-0284. Public Convenience or Necessitv Findinqs. submitted by Rebecca Perry on behalf of The Wine Sellers. to conduct wine tastinq and sales, located at 28480 Old Town Front Street. #D Assistant Planner Bales presented a staff report (of record). MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve the Public Convenience or Necessity findings. Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from December 7, 2005 2 Planninq Application No. PA05-0064, a Development Plan, submitted by Matthew Faqan, for a Comprehensive Siqn Proqram for the Marqarita Crossinqs shoppinq center on 5.56 acres, located on the southwest corner of Marqarita Road and Overland Drive Associate Planner Fisk provided a staff report (of written record). At this time the public hearing was opened. R:\MinutesPC\121405 Mr, Mark Burger, representing the applicant offered the following comments: . That the applicant has worked hard with staff to accommodate the requests made by the Planning Commission . That the applicant is of the opinion that the changes that were made would be the best that the applicant would be able to make and still be in keeping with the previously made tenant commitments . That the applicant will encourage the tenants to install blade signs and external lighting (gooseneck); however, the applicant must retain the internal lighting channel lettering so that the tenants could remain competitive Mr. John Hadaya, representing ultrasigns, noted that the applicant has met every request that was, made by the Planning Commission. . That the applicant has added a column to the monument side as requested by the Planning Commission . That the sign program as it currently stands, would be considered flexible and would allow for creativity . That not all signs proposed by tenants will be channel lettering or flat cut-out letters mounted on a wall . That the proposed center will be a first-rate center with a first-rate sign program. Thanking the applicant for the addition of a column to the monument sign, Commissioner Telesio stated and that although the sign program contains a variety of choices, he did express concern with the possibility of tenants not desiring to be creative; and therefore, only using the basics for its signs, Referencing Commissioner Telesio's comments, Mr. Hadaya noted that every tenant will need to adhere to the sign criteria; and that before a sign permit is pulled, it would have to be reviewed and approved by the landlord to ensure that the sign criteria has been met. Mr. Burger noted that every tenant will need to adhere to the proposed sign criteria; that the type of tenants that will be attracted to the proposed project will be a high-end, specialty tenants; and that the tenants will have flexibility to work within their own business format as to how they would want to present their business to the community. Referencing Mr. Burger's comment, Chairman Mathewson stated that the intent of the Planning Commission was for the applicant to look beyond the ordinary, to raise the bar with regard to the typical sign program; that considering the architecture of the proposed project, it would be important for the sign program to enhance the proposed architecture, and not detract from it. That considering what is being proposed for the sign program. Chairman Mathewson also noted that neon channel signs would not be desireable. Politely disagreeing with Chairman Mathewson's comments, Mr. Burger stated that the project will be providing tenants the opportunity to be competitive in the market place; that the proposed sign program will be a superior over any other sign program in the City; that although it would be most likely that the tenants would be implementing the full benefits of the sign program, the applicant cannot guarantee this. R:\MinulesPC\ 121405 2 , Responding to Mr. Burger's comments, Commissioner Chiniaeff stated that the Planning Commission's intent would be to avoid an unorganized mixture of various colors and styles of signs; that because the applicant would be proposing to give the tenants too many choices, an unorganized mixture of various colors and styles will be the result. Commissioner Chiniaeff also stated that the main concern would be with the rear of Building C; that he would suggest that the applicant remain with the proposed sign program but that the applicant be more specific to the tenants with regard to the backside of Building C. Referencing Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Mr. Burger and Mr. Hadaya both stated that they would be willing to accept a Condition of Approval that would condition that the signs of Building C (rear) be non-illuminated with No channel lettering, advising that it would be strictly external. Echoing Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments, Commissioner Telesio also stated that he would desire that the applicant be conditioned that the rear of Building C be more restrictive with non- illuminated and No channel lettering. In terms of the rear of Building C, Mr. Burger stated that the main focus would be that tenants receive signage in the front of Building C, that he would be willing to accept a Condition of Approval restricting the rear of Building C from non-illumination with No channel lettering, but that the front of Building C would be allowed to have Channel neon lighting. For the Commission and applicant, Director of Planning Ubnoske suggested that modifying the language on Page 7 (Margarita Crossing sign Program): Section D: signage composed of several different elements and lighting techniques be modified to be required versus encouraqed; and that Lighting Section D: Site signage and Building tenant signage should be illuminated using a variety of lighting techniques. One or more of the following should be modified to be required versus encouraqed, In response to Director of Planning Ubnoske's suggestion, Mr. Burger stated that he would be willing to accept the modification, Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that the applicant be restricted from placing two identical signs adjacent to each other and that the Planning Commission eliminate signs that would not be desireable, At this time the public hearing was closed, MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff motioned to approve the sign program subject to the following modifications: that language on Page 7, Section D: be modified as mentioned above; that a condition be imposed that states all signs on the rear of Building C not be internally illuminated signs; that two of the same sign types not be adjacent to each other; and that there be no exposed neon channel letters, Commissioner Telesio seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Mathewson who voted No. PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-067 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0064, A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE "MARGARITA CROSSINGS" SHOPPING CENTER, GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND OVERLAND DRIVE, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 921-810-026. R:\MinulesPC\ 121405 3 New Items 3 Planninq Application No. PA05-0232, a Development Plan, submitted by Larry True, to construct and operate a three-story. 47.897 square foot hotel with 92 units, located on the south side of Winchester Road, approximately 225 feet east of Jefferson Avenue Associate Planner Fisk provided a staff report (of written record), and requested that Condition of Approval No. 10 be modified to impose: The applicant will install landscaping on the adjacent property directly to the north of the site between the property line and Winchester Road, The applicant and the adjacent property owner have entered into a maintenance agreement which will allow the site to be landscaped and maintained by the applicant of Marriott Fairfield Inn & Suites, In response to Commissioner Guerriero's query, Associate Planner Fisk noted that stone veneer will be located at the main entry of the building, at the trellis structures along the pool area, as well as the trellis structure along the south entry. At this time the public hearing was opened and due to no speakers, it was closed. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked staff why they would be of the opinion that the proposed project would warrant doubling the square footage, In response to Commissioner Chiniaeff's question, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that a hotel use will always exceed its Floor Area Ratio (FAR); that the more a hotel exceeds its FAR, the more staff will work to improve the architecture and landscaping; that staff if of the opinion that the applicant has presented an acceptable project in terms of the treatment of the building and the amount of additional offsite landscaping; and that staff will be readdressing the Development Code as it relates to hotels. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation, Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Chiniaeff who voted No. PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-068 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A THREE-STORY, 47,897 SQUARE FOOT HOTEL WITH 94 UNITS ON A VACANT 1.71 ACRE PARCEL, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD APPROXIMATELY 225 FEET EAST OF JEFFERSON AVENUE, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 910-310-011 R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 4 Due to a conflict of interest, Commissioner Guerriero stepped down from Item No, 4. 4 Planninq Application No. PA05-0157, a Conditional Use Permit. submitted bv Claudia Mueller. to construct and operate a cellular telecommunication facilitv consistinq of a 45-foot hiqh monopine with twelve cellular panel antennas and a 230 square foot equipment shelter within a 633 square foot lease area of a 3,57. located at 44526 Pechanqa Parkwav Associate Planner Fisk gave a staff report (of record), noting that a Condition of Approval could be added that would impose that landscaping around the monopine be maintained. At this time the public hearing was opened, Ms, Claudia Mueller, representing Nextel, relayed that the applicant concurs with all Conditions of Approval and a new condition regarding maintenance of landscaping around the monopine. At this time the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-069 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0157, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 45- FOOT HIGH MONO PINE WITH TWELVE CELLULAR PANEL ANTENNAS AND A 230 SQUARE FOOT EQUIPMENT SHELTER WITHIN A 633 SQUARE FOOT LEASE AREA OF A 3.57 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 44562 PECHANGA PARKWAY (A.P.N.961-010-024) At this time the Planning Commission recessed for five minutes, 5 Planninq Application Nos, PA04-0490, PA04-0491, PA04-0492, a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit. and Development Plan, for 428 residential units on 36,19 acres of a 47,72 acre site. The remaininq acreaqe is located within the channel area for Temecula Creek and will not be developed as part of this project. The project includes 96 sinqle-family units on 15,14 acres, 96 triplex units (in 32 buildinqs) and 236 fourplex units (in 59 buildinqs) on 21,05 acres, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Loma Linda Road and Temecula Lane Associate Planner Damko provided a staff report (of written record), advising that Condition of Approval No. 11 has been amended to impose Vesting Tentative map Affordable Housing Condition of Approval and Condition 18 to Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan Affordable Housing Condition of Approval; and that the square footage for Tri-Plex/Six Plex Units for Plan 3, three-stories should be 1,548 square feet, not 548 square feet. R:\MinulesPC\121405 5 In response to Commissioner Telesio's query, Redevelopment Director Meyer stated that a threshold income for a family of four would be $66,800 and that the units will be made available at a moderate level for a 45 year period. Referencing Commissioner Chiniaeff's question, Deputy Director Parks noted that the circulation element for the proposed project was modified to show a two-lane road that would connect Loma Linda Road to Avenida De Missiones; that the bridge itself was not analyzed, but that the project will be conditioned to provide an alignment study. For the Commission, Senior Planner Papp relayed that although the initial study itself for the previous project was not included in the packet, the Mitigation Monitoring program from the initial study was included and that the Conditions of Approval would require that mitigation measures are met. At this time the public hearing was opened, Representing tile applicant, Mr. Larry Markham stated that the applicant concurs with the Conditions of Approval including the changes that were made by staff with regard to the Affordable Housing component, and advised that the entire team would be available to answer any detailed questions, The following individuals spoke aqainst the proposed project: . Mr. Greg Dunlap, Temecula . Mr, Tim Burns, Temecula . Mr. Thomas Fine, Temecula . Ms. Lisa Musick, Temecula . Mr. Ed Means, Temecuia The above mentioned individuals spoke against the proposed project for the following reasons: . That two signs posted for the proposed project had conflicting dates . That the understanding of the surrounding community is that the proposed site is zoned for Light Office (LO) . That there is a concern with who and how the proposed units will be maintained . That the approved Wolf Creek project and Boys and Girls Club will already create be too much traffic congestion . That low-income housing will cause depreciation to the adjacent homes in the community, Referencing noticing requirements, Director of Planning Ubnoske stated that every project would be required to be noticed by way of advertisement, by way of mail to residents within 300 feet, and through posting of the proposed site, R:\MinulesPC\121405 6 Commissioner Telesio expressed concern with the conflicting posted signs and queried on the legal notification procedure in regard as to whether the item should be continued for proper notification, For the purpose of clarifying conflicting posted signs, Assistant City Attorney Snow stated that due to the fact that notices were mailed to residents within 300 feet and advertisement through the newspaper were carried through, legal requirement has been met; but that if the Planning Commission were of the opinion that the item should be continued to provide broader notice, that would be the puryiew of the Planning Commission. At this time reasons for the opposition of the proposed project continued below: . That existing schools in the area will not be able to accommodate more students without adding portable classrooms on existing schools . That it would be important that a school impact study be performed before the proposed project moves forward . That the Loma Linda Road will not be able to accommodate the traffic congestion that the proposed project will create . That due to the conflicting posting dates, it would be the desire of residents that the item be continued to allow time of member of the community to attend . That the proposed will create great impacts with regard to traffic, noise, schools, pollution, and overall quality of life for adjacent residences. Representing PectJanga Cultural Resources and speaking in favor of the proposed project, Ms, Stephanie Gordin, stated and requested the following: . That because of the culturally sensitive site, the Pechanga Tribe would request that it be stated on record that the archeological report that was prepared for the project did not contain accurate information regarding the significant site on the adjacent property . That the Pechanga Tribe did provide additional information relating to the significant site with a November 10, 2005, comment letter; that the tribe requested that the Conditions of Approval set forth in the November 10, 2005, comment letter, in reference in the project conditions of Approval, be specifically included as conditions; and that in the event of confusion or contradictory interpretations between the conditions and those referenced in the Mitigations Monitoring plan, that those conditions be considered to take precedence, Relaying his opinion, Commissioner Telesio stated that his desire would be that the proposed project be continued to allow opportunity for residents who were confused by conflicting posting dates time to voice their opinions, Echoing Commissioner Telesio's comment, Commissioner Chiniaeff would also be of the opinion that residents who were confused by conflicting dates be allowed an opportunity to attend a hearing and voice their opinions. R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 7 For the Commission and applicant, Assistant City Attorney Snow noted that it would be appropriate for the applicant to rebut at this time as well as reserye the right to rebut if the item were to be continued, In rebuttal, Mr. Larry Markham noted the following: . That the proposed project will be a for-sale project . That the proposed project will have a homeowners association and advised that common areas will be maintained by the association . That the proposed units will be a gated community . That portions of the creek will become deeded to the RCA and become permanent Open Space (OS) . That a right-of-way will be provided for the future extension of Avenida De Missiones bridge, and that staff has been provided a series of alignment studies both vertically and horizontally . . That the applicant has met with the school district, and that projections for the elementary school, middle school, and high school have been calculated . That an extensive traffic study was performed with new traffic counts; and that it would be an 80% reduction in traffic as opposed to what traffic would be if the proposed site were to become Professional Office (PO) . That the affordable units will be restricted to No Renters . That Development Impact Fees (DIF) will go toward the funding of additional police personnel, and that the environmental document that was provided demonstrated an acoustic analysis in regard to traffic, biological, and air quality analysis . That the mitigation monitoring conditions will be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval; that the applicant will continue to work with the Pechanga tribe, advising that there would be no issues with regard to Pechanga Cultural Resources. For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Larry Markham noted that he will provide the Planning Commission with projections that were provided to the applicant by the school district with regard to the proposed project. At this time Chairman Mathewson asked the audience to refrain from comments, Mr, Lindsay Quackenbush, representing D,R, Horton, offered the following comments: . That the proposed project will be a well designed project with substantial single family and multi-family units . That the majority of the buyers will be first-time buyers and retired persons R:\MinulesPC\ 121405 8 . That the units will be maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA) · That the applicant would be willing to meet with the surrounding residents so that concerns of the community could be addressed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to continue the hearing to January 18, 2006, to allow the applicant an opportunity to present their proposed project to surrounding residents, PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA-04-0490, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP; PA04- 0491M CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND PA04-0492, DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PRODUCT REVIEW) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 96 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS, 96 TRI-PLAX UNITS, AND 236 FOUR-PLEX UNITS (428 TOTAL UNITS) LOCATED AT THE NORTH EASTERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LOMA LINDA ROAD AND TEMECULA LANE 6 Planninq Application No. PA05-0205, a Development Plan to construct a 3-story shell buildinq consistinq of approximately 6,080 square feet of retail/commercial office suites on the first floor, 5,137 square feet on the second and 4,978 square feet on the third for a total of 16,195 square fee, located at 41955 Fourth Street Associate Planner McCoy presented a staff report (of record). At this time the public hearing was opened. Representing Interactive Design Corporation, Mr. Michael McAuliffe, spoke in favor of the proposed project advising that granite will occur at the front plaza as well as the base of the building and that there will be no architectural treatment made of foam anywhere in reach of the public, Clarifying Condition of Approval No, 62, Deputy Director Parks noted that the applicant would be required to improve frontage to the centerline or, 6 feet beyond the centerline. At this time the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission thanked the applicant as well as staff for another excellent project entering into Old Town, Temecula. MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval, R:\MinutesPC\ 121405 9 PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-070 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION FOR A THREE-STORY BUILDING CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 6,080 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIUCOMMERCIAL SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, 5,137 SQUARE FEET ON THE SECOND FLOOR 4,978 SQUARE FEET OFFICES ON THE THIRD FLOOR, TOTALING 16,195 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED AT 41955 4TH STREET BETWEEN FRONT STREET AND MERCEDES STREET 7 Planninq Application No. PA05-0254, PA05-0319, a Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit to construct a new commercial shoppinq center consistinq of five retail buildinqs totalinq approximately 73,000 square fee and a drive-thru automatic teller machine, located on Hiqhwav 79 South approximatelv 800 feet west of Butterfield Staqe Road Associate Planner McCoy provided a staff report (of written material), recommending that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project with the modified Conditions of Approval distributed at the meeting. At this time the public hearing was opened. Representing Vail Properties, Mr. Jerry Swanger, relayed his support of the proposed project while advising the Planning Commission of the problems with regard to Wolf Store Road. Mr. Richard Benson, representing Benson & Bohl Architects, relayed his support of the proposed project. At this time the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation, Commissioner Harter seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval, PC RESOLUTION NO. 05-071 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0254, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A NEW COMMERCIAL 73,306 SQUARE FOOT SHOPPING CENTER THAT INCLUDES FIVE RETAIL BUILDINGS AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0319, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DRIVE-THROUGH AUTOMATIC TELLER MACHINE FOR A WELLS FARGO BANK LOCATED ON HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH BETWEEN MAHLON VAIL AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 952-200-002, 011-, 012, AND 013) R:\MinutesPC\121405 10 COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS No report at this time, PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT No report at this time, ADJOURNMENT At 9:21 P,M., Chairman Mathewson formally adjourned to Thursday. January 5 at 6:30 P,M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, The Commission's regularly scheduled meetings of December 21, 2005, and January 4, 2006 will not be held, 7l-e /fJ7~ . ~e0w It-' Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning R:\MinutesPC\121405 11