Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120296 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 2, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, December 2, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the City of Temecula Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding. PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster ABSENT: None Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, and Project Planner Carole Donahoe. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION BUS1NFSS 1. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Approval of Minutes November 4, 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of November 4, 1996. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 ABSTAINS: 1 Fahey, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Slaven R:\PLANCO/,~l\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/10/97 klb i P?.~NNING CO14MTSSTON DRCRMBRR 2, ~ 996 3. PA96-0321 NORM REEVES SUPER GROUP Project Planner Carole Donahoe presented the staff report. Commissioner Miller asked if this sign met the requirements of the proposed sign ordinance. Ms. Donahoe replied the proposed language for freeway-oriented signs limits lettering to 50 square feet and this proposed 75 square foot sign exceeds that limit. Commissioner Miller said the proposed ordinance does not allow pole signs. Planning Manager Ubnoske stated that was correct at this time. However, the proposed ordinance still has to come back to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Slaven asked about the distance and height where the sign could be seen in the flag test. Ms. Donahoe replied a 30' sign was clearly visible at approximately three-tenths of a mile, and that distance allows a motorist sufficient time to exit at the next off-ramp. Commissioner Miller questioned ownership of this property and asked about terms of the lease. Ms. Ubnoske stated the City was the property owner and she did not have a copy of the lease. Dick Kennedy, General Manager and Vice President of the Norm Reeves Super Group, 27500 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, stated the lease is for three (3) years. He mentioned there had been a 45' high sign previously at that location, but when they were no longer selling cars, it was removed at the City's request. I-Ie said an important aspect of the new lease was their ability to advertise their freeway access as they believe the business had been disadvantaged by the City's request to remove the sign because that sign could be used today. The 35' sign represents a fair opportunity for visibility from the freeway. Commissioner Slaven asked since the proposed sign is 25 square feet larger than the proposed sign ordinance, is it being built to accommodate the two existing poles. Mr. Kennedy replied the sign was built by the current ordinance requirements and using the existing poles is cost effective. Chairman Fahey questioned what dictated the need for a 150 square feet sign area and how the size was determined. Steven Etchison, 27620 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, stated 150 square feet was chosen because that is the current City ordinance. He said the sign can be redesign and one pole taken down. Commissioner Miller asked what the City agreed to in the lease regarding freeway signage. Mr. Kennedy answered a freeway sign. Commissioner Soltysiak expressed his concern about approving the sign today and later having it designated as a non-conforming one. Mr. Kennedy answered they would take their chances and if told later the sign has to be change, so be it. Mr. Etchison stated if the sign cabinet stayed the same size and the lettering reduced, it could be done, but would look odd. He stated it would be monumental to replace the sign with a reconstructed smaller sign. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/10/97 klb 2 pT,]~TI~G COl. q~TBBTON DI~.CI~.W,.Bw.R 2, 't 996 Chairman Fahey stated the Commission has only seen preliminary sign guidelines which this sign size and/or being on one pole will not meet. It is her opinion the Commission will create confusion by considering the proposed ordinance in giving staff guidance. In the past, the Commission has looked at the height and size of freeway-oriented signs and allowed only what was required for visibility. Commissioner Webster said the first issue to be discussed is whether or not there should even be a sign. Ms. Ubnoske stated this sign is in compliance with current Ordinance 348, which allows a maximum height of 40'. She reiterated the flag test is used to determine at what point a motorist can reasonably see the sign and still exit at the next off-ramp safely. Chairman Fahey asked about the height staff believes a motorist can reasonably see the sign. Ms. Donahoe replied a 30' high sign can be seen clearly. Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Slaven support a 30' high sign. City Attorney Weiner stated it is permissible for the Commission to ask staff to review the lease and come back with additional information; and the Commission needs to determine whether or not this sign complies with the provisions of the ordinance. Chairman Fahey reiterated that regardless of whether or not the lease addresses a sign, it is not a factor in making a decision. Commissioner Webster said more information is needed to understand the specific reason for the electronic message sign. Ms. Ubnoske mentioned this dealer is not a part of the auto mall and therefore, does not advertise on the auto mall marquee; and as an independent, he would be permitted a freestanding sign. Commissioner Slaven asked if the two Norm Reeves dealerships were not the same company. Mr. Kennedy replied the dealerships are owned by the same person, but are separate companies and are not allowed to advertise on the auto mall marquee. Commissioner Webster stated the Temecula Valley Auto Dealers Association are included in the auto mall agreement which can be amended to include additional dealers. He suggested determining if Norm Reeves could be included in this agreement and then not have an additional freeway sign. Commissioner Miller remarked the City Council negotiated the freeway marquee sign with the intent of having only one auto sign. He noted if the Commission tums the sign down because we don't think it should be there in conjunction with the marquee sign, the City Council will have to make the decision. Chairman Fahey stated she strongly disagreed with that viewpoint and is of the opinion the City Council would send it back to the Planning R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/10/97 klb 3 ~T,~I~I-~T~G CO~I~TBBTO~ D~C~HR~ ~, !996 Commission. She reiterated this project does not require a Commission decision; staff brought it forth for a recommendation. She said the auto sign agreement was made with particular dealers who agreed not to put up any other sign, and this particular owner was not included in that agreement. Commissioner Miller stated a pole sign does not have the aesthetics he can support. Commissioner Miller asked if the Commission could approve the sign with the condition the applicant will cause the sign to be reconstructed so it will be in compliance when the new ordinance is approved. Mr. Weiner stated no as that would be making a decision on a project that is not before the Commission. Staff can be directed to bring the plot plan before the Commission and then conditions could be discussed. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven this proposal be brought before the Planning Commission as an agenda item. Commissioner Slaven reiterated her reasons for seconding the motion: this is the same company as the company across the freeway; there is a lease involved with a promise to this company; there is a real probability this sign will not be in conformance with the proposed sign ordinance; and applicant is making agreements with the Commission for which he cannot be held accountable. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster COMMISSIONERS: Fahey COMMISSIONERS None 4. Revision to Elevations for Tower Pla?a Theater and Retail Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. David Thomas, Layton-Belling and Associates, P.O. Box 3221, Rancho Santa Fe, owner of the shopping center, stated when getting into the construction plan phase, the initial wall design created a blind alcove with no purpose and produced potential security problems. Initially, the wall tied into the office building on the other side and they have tried to keep that element. The theater operator has determined a lower roof height is possible and they will be digging down to get a stadium effect. He wants to keep the roof looldng presentable as Layton-Belling own the office building looking down onto the structure. Chairman Fahey asked if the previously approved requirements specifying adequate screening for roof equipment is still being met. Mr. Thomas replied yes. Commissioner Soltysiak asked for an explanation for the screening shown on the present plans. Mr. Thomas stated his construction manager, who would know the details, is not at the meeting. Chairman Fahey noted actual equipment is shown in the drawings and therefore are not in compliance with conditions previously approved. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996' 12-2-96.PC 1/10/97 klb 4 Commissioner Webster asked if the new ticket booth location is separate or attached. Mr. Thomas answered the ticket booth is separate, but attached at the roof. Commissioner Slaven asked if the ticket booth was under the exterior screen and if are there any detailed drawings for the frontal changes. Mr. Thomas replied the ticket booth is located under the screen, which is an exterior screen, and drawings can be supplied. Commissioner Webster stated he liked the wall, but the revised plans are acceptable. He wants to make certain the height of the parapet remains the same as previously approved. Commissioner Slaven stated the first rendition of the plaza renovation was too modern compared to the plaza's identification since its inception and the design guidelines were vague, unclear and inappropriate colors in her opinion. She said an improved model was submitted later which was approved based on the architectural enhancement of the wall, now being requested to be removed. She sees a gradual move back to the inappropriate original design, and has a problem with the revisions as she no longer has a comprehensive idea of the end result. She does not agree with this plan and cannot support it until the developer brings back a well-designed plan that will not be changed in two or three months when construction starts. Commissioner Slaven asked if the sign design has been approved. Mr. Fagan said a variance for directional signs had been approved by the Commission. Commissioner Miller said he likes the plan, but the wall tended to soften the high roof. He sees no reason for dropping the parapet wall. He would prefer the applicant to state they are saving costs and this is how it is being done. Chairman Fahey reiterated the Commission is in agreement that the parapet wall has to be there and the conditions were clear that roof top equipment must be screened. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if elevations of the top of the wall were to remain the same or can be lowered. Commissioner Miller stated we are saying that the height of the wall from the roof to the top of the parapet wall has to remain constant. If they want to put the whole thing underground, then the parapet wall will be 6' tall to screen the equipment. Commissioner Soltysiak stated the wall created additional architectural interest from the freeway view and would like to see additional efforts toward breaking up the large wall towards the freeway. Chairman Fahey does not think the proposed changes are in conformance, and security issues can be addressed by eliminating the blind spot in the back area by some type of construction. She summarized Commission responses; Commissioner Miller likes the wall, but can live without it; Commissioners $1aven and Fahey believe the wall provided an architectural blend with the rest of the plaza and was appropriate. Commissioner Soltysiak stated he can live without the wall, but wants to see how its loss will be compensated as far as the freeway orientation. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/10/97 klb 5 PT.~qI~TIqG CO)~I~TBBTOI~ Dla. Cla. W,.BRR 2, ~ 996 Commissioner Slaven encouraged the applicant to bring back a complete and detailed architectural renderings. Chairman Fahey stated the Commission has not been provided enough information to change the previous approval. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS There were no public hearing items. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske suggested since the scheduled January 20, 1997 and February 17, 1997 Planning Commission meetings fall on holidays, the meetings be rescheduled for January 27, 1997 and February 24, 1997. The Commissioners agreed with the new meeting dates. Ms. Ubnoske mentioned the groundbreaking ceremony for Forcer Development is scheduled for December 4, 1996, at noon and the Commissioners are invited. PI,ANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION There was no Planning Commission discussion. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the meeting. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held December 16, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Linda Fahey, Chairman / Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\PI2~NCOI~q\MINUTES\1996\12-2-96.PC 1/10/97 klb 6