HomeMy WebLinkAbout093096 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, September 30,
1996, 6:01 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, 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, Senior Planner
Dave Hogan, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:02 P.M. There were no requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINF. qS
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller 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 September 16, 1996 Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes
of September 16, 1996.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Commissioner Miller suggested when a Commissioner arrives after roll call, the arrival time be noted
after the roll call paragraph rather than in the body of the Minutes.
R:\PLANCOMM~MINUTES\1996\093096.PC 11/20/96 c¢ 'l
PT,~NNTNG CO~MTBBTON S;PT;Mm;R 30, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan Napa Auto Parts)
Chairman Fahey stated the public hearing was still open.
Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated staff met with the applicant to discuss the direction provided by the
Planning Commission at the September 16, 1996 meeting. The applicant resubmitted elevations with the
following changes: 1) a non-illuminated gold acrylic band; 2) the painted gold band only on the front
of the building; 3) the length of blue on the east elevation reduced from 69 feet to 49 feet; 4) length of
blue on the south elevation reduced from 55 feet to 44 feet. A letter dated September 18, 1996 was
received from the Bank of Commerce clarifying the misunderstanding created by their letter of August
8, 1996.
Alan Orr, 41975 Fourth Street, Temecula, applicant, stated this store is one of the few Napa flagship
stores in California and he needs to take advantage of Napa's corporate image and national advertising.
He mentioned the blue has been changed to a richer shade. Napa Stores have made blue their "color" as
it denotes quality, stability, and comfort.
Commissioner Slaven asked about the landscaping shown on the conceptual drawing. Mr. Orr replied
he is unable to answer questions about the ultimate landscaping as final landscaping plans will be
completed later.
Chairman Fahey closed public comments at 6:18 P.M.
Commissioner Miller stated the conceptual drawing was helpful in getting a true perspective. The Bank's
latest letter indicates their acceptance of this plan. He does not find the color offensive as the number
of windows appear to reduce the blue.
Mr. Hogan mentioned the Conditions of Approval will be amended to show Royal Blue as the color.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0170; to adopt Mitigation Monitoring Program for
Planning Application No. PA96-0170; and adopt Resolution No. 96-NEXT recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0170, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended, and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS None
R: \PLANCOMI~MINWrP3\1996\093096.PC 11/20/96 e¢ 2
PT.~IqZqT~G CONI~TgBTO~ 8~FT~N~R 30, !996
4. Future Middle School Site - Temecula Valley Unified School District
Senior Planner Dave Hogan reported the Temecula Valley Unified School District requested a meeting
with the Commission to obtain their input on two potential middle school sites. A middle school site is
generally 20 acres. Site 1 is located within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan and Site 2, at the northwest
comer of Roripaugh Road and Nicholas Road, in the Roripaugh Hills Specific Plan.
Chairman Fahey excused herself from the discussion as the site located in the Campos Verdes area is near
the Meadowview common area, and turned this portion of the meeting over to Commissioner Slaven.
Dave Gallaher, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, representing the Temecula Valley School District,
stated the middle school would serve the sixth, seventh and eighth grades. Temecula presently has three
middle schools - one north of Rancho California Road; one between Rancho California Road and
Highway 79; and one, south of Highway 79. School enrollment is at the point where a fourth school is
needed in the northern area. The State of California heavily scrutinizes a school site within two (2) miles
of an airport, which makes a lot of the undeveloped property in this northern area ineligible. District
policy is to offer transportation to students living outside of a two (2) mile radius from school site.
Comparison factors are: Site 1, Campos Verdes, more traffic; does not have the commercial factor. Site
2, Wall Street, more centrally located, therefore less bussing and more walkers; commercial
consideration. No significant financial difference between the two sites. All property the District buys
must be free and clear of all liens and assessments, and both owners are working to resolve these issues
with the County and City.
Commissioner Webster asked if the number used to indicate total students bussed is an approximate guess.
Mr. Gallaher answered while it was an approximate number, it is within 50 to 100 students accurate.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired if the square foot acquisition price was basically the same even though
one site is zoned commercial. Mr. Gallagher stated the cost for both sites is comparable.
Commissioner Miller asked how the sites differed in proximity to businesses selling alcohol.
Mr. Gallagher stated Site 1, Campos Verdes, owner is willing to have a restriction that beer and wine
will not be sold within 600' of the school. Site 2, Wall Street, owner is very interested in having a school
built there as he believes the remaining property is very viable for commercial. A supermarket is planned
which will sell beer and wine and is within 600 feet of the middle school and the high school.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the road widths leading to the proposed sites. Mr. Hogan answered
Margarita Road and Nicholas Road are four-lane urban arterial roads; Winchester Road, sixqane urban
arterial; No. General Keamey, two to four undivided lanes, secondary road; and Camino Campos Verdes,
proposed 66' collector road.
R:\PLANCOMldSMINIYrES\1996\093096.PC 11/20/96 cc 3
PT.AlqNTNG CO~Tg~TON S~PT~R~R 30, 1996
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the School District plans to coordinate with CSD on playing fields and
open space areas on either site. Mr. Gallagher responded he had already met with Shawn Nelson to begin
discussions since middle schools, in particular, make very good joint use facilities.
Commissioner Webster stated Site 2, Wall Street, is his preferred site due to its location to the residential
areas being served. He stated Winchester Road is ultimately going to be very congested and having more
students able to walk rather than being bussed is very important. It also solves the commercial
development problems for the existing property owner.
Commissioner Soltysiak said he prefers Site 1, Campos Verdes, since it is not zoned commercial and
thereby eliminates a situation where the School District dictates surrounding zoning; and it offers
residential streets for students walking to school.
Commissioner Miller stated his first choice is Site 2, Wall Street, due to its central location, but is led
to Site 1, Campos Verdes, due to the parking situation. He feels Nicholas Road is a wide, fast road which
does not lend itself to after school and Saturday activities. The Campos Verdes site is also close to a
future major mall.
Commissioner Slaven said she prefers Site 1, Campos Verdes, as it is placed within the neighborhood;
seems to be a safer location; and has less traffic than Site 2. In regard to Site 2, she expressed concern
with the problem of alcohol sales and the amount of traffic on Winchester and Nicholas Roads.
5. Development Code Amendment No. 1
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner, identified a number of needed modifications to the City's Development
Code which was adopted in 1995. The proposed Resolution amends typographic errors, internal code
references, and improper grammar. Other amendments are:
o
Slope landscaping and storage fencing and screening requirements.
Current requirement is one 15-gallon tree per 150 square feet of slope area; recommendation is
one 15-gallon tree per 600 square feet of slope area. The proposed standard will provide adequate
erosion control and create a more reasonable landscape pattern.
The current Code does not provide clear standards for screening outdoor storage areas. Staff
recommends a six (6) foot minimum height for CC and eight (8) foot for SC and LI zones;
maximum height of six (6) foot for NC; eight (8) foot for CC, HT; and 12 foot for SC and LI.
o ! and Use Matrix
Staff recommends deletion of Automotive Service Stations Selling Beer and/or Wine from
Professional Office (OP) and Business Park (BP) Zones as a conditionally permitted use because
automotive service stations not selling beer or wine are prohibited in these zones.
Staff recommends not allowing private schools or religious institutions with a daycare or private
R:\PLANCOMMLMINUTES\I996\09~3096.PC 11/20/96 cc 4
P?,~NNTNG CONMTSSTON SRPTRHRRR 30. 1996
school in the City's industrial or business park areas due to the possibility of an industrial
accident, hazardous material release, fire or explosion risks.
o HTC Designation
I-ITC (Highway Tourist Commercial) designation is used in different documents and HT is used
on zoning maps. To eliminate confusion, staff recommends I-IT be used for all documents.
o Minor Changes
BB, Section 2, should be building.
FF, Section 2, reverse B and C.
KK Chapter 1708
PP Chapter 1705
Mr. Hogan stated the "Now Themfores" third and fourth lines in the Resolution will be eliminated as they
are redundant as well as the "a" in the second line.
Commissioner Slaven asked how many churches with preschools/elementary schools are in the industrial
area and they are causing difficulties for their neighbors. Mr. Hogan replied there are three or four and
while they are not causing problems at this time, some companies require air quality permits and having
a school in the area creates problems in obtaining the permit. Schools will be allowed to continue, but
not to expand.
Commissioner Webster inquired about the reasons for going with 8 feet for fence walls or hedge screening
in commercial and light industrial areas. Mr. Hogan answered that revising the screening maximum
would give the Commission more latitude in addressing problem situations.
Chairman Fahey opened public hearing at 7:10 P.M.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, suggested adding automotive service
stations only as a conditional permitted use in OP and BP zones rather than deleting them. Regarding
schools, he suggested making it a conditional permitted use so the review level could be increased
recognizing there are potential hazards. He said he prefers retaining conditional permitted use for
churches with daycare/elementary schools. And finally he stated Owners and tenants affected by this
change should be individually noticed as there is a potential economic impact.
Don Coop, 41755 Rider Way, Temecula, stated he owns a commercial zone site which was built for a
church and preschool when it was zoned MSC. Even though the site would be grandfathered in economic
conditions which the city does not have control over, can dictate the need for changes. He said, industrial
and business park zoned areas are the only places for churches to build in the community.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comments section at 7:17 P.M.
R:\PLANCOMl~MINIYrF~\I996\093096.PC 11/20/96 cc 5
PT.ANNTNG COla'I~ITBBTON SI~.pTI~.HI:tRR 30 , '~ 996
o Slope l.~ndscaping
Consensus for approval of requiring one 15-gallon tree per 600 square feet for slope landscaping.
o Screening Height
Commissioner Webster recommended 6 foot minimum for wall and hedge height; 8 foot is too
restrictive. When a particular project goes through the approval process, it is within the
Commission's right to determine a height between 6 and 12 feet.
Chairman Fahey stated she had a problem with 12 feet.
Consensus was approval of 6 foot minimum for screening outdoor storage.
o land Use Matrix
Consensus for approval of service stations with or without selling beer and/or wine being
conditional permitted use in Office Professional and Business Park zoned areas.
o Private Schools in Industrial Are,as
Commissioner Webster stated he believes a conditional use permit for private schools and religious
institutions with private schools is appropriate in industrial areas.
Chairman Fahey said she believes there is a health risk with schools in industrial areas due to
having to evacuate students because of possible exposure to chemical accidents. She feels
churches in industrial areas are acceptable because activities are generally during non-operative
business times; plus parents are usually there if evacuation is necessary. She supported staff's
recommendation.
Commissioner Slaven asked how many schools are in LI-zoned areas and would it be appropriate
to notice them about this potential change. Mr. Hogan replied he did not know how many would
be impacted and it would be appropriate for them to be noticed.
Commissioner Miller stated he feels the city should not encourage nor permit schools in LI-zoned
areas.
Assistant City Attorney Rubin Weiner stated the Commission had the option of considering each
of these modification/amendment items separately.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt Resolution
No. 96-Next recommending the City Council approve an ordinance amending Chapter 17 of the
Temecula Municipal Code to make typographic corrections, correct code references, improper
grammar and add missing words; to change I-ITC to HT; change slope landscaping and screening
R:~PLANCO~ES\1996\093096.PC 11/20/96ee 6
PT.aNNTNG CO~MTggTON B~.PT~.MI~.R 30, ~996
minimum height requirements to 6 feet; and to conditionally permit Automotive Service Stations
With/Without Selling Beer and/or Wire in Office Professional and Business Park Zones.
Mr. Weiner stated the last line of the Resolution should read "... to the Development Code"
substantially in the form attached hereto..."
Commissioners Miller and Slaven agreed to Mr. Weiner's amended language.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS None
Chairman Fahey asked staff to come back with the school issue at a later date and to notice
property owners and tenants located in the Business Park and Light Industrial zoned areas
in the most effective manner.
Chairman Fahey recessed the meeting at 7:42 P.M.
Chairman Fahey reconvened the meeting at 7:50 P.M.
6. City-Wide Design Guidelines
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz discussed how the Design Guidelines are to carry out the goals and policies
addressed in the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan. This will be by providing
detailed site, architecture and landscape design representation. The guidelines will be helpful to the
development community in formulating proposals and to guide staff in reviewing planning applications.
The guidelines will be an extension of requirements contained in the Development Code.
Mark Brodeur, representing Urban Design Studio, contractor for the preparation of the Design
Guidelines, stated the Design Guidelines will not necessarily make the Commissioners job any easier in
the next couple of years. They will be required to use flexibility in application of these guidelines and
consider designs that may not necessarily be compatible with the guidelines, but are unique. The Zoning
Code provides a quantitative type of detail of what is necessary, but not how to treat it. Design guidelines
offer 1) baseline for design quality; 2) stabili?e property values; 3) consistent staff design review; 4) legal
protection. These guidelines are a working document and should be reviewed in about a year to
determine what works and what doesn't; regularly updated; and be rewritten in five (5) years.
The Commissions' job is to read between the lines and to apply what they believe are the best design
principles for protecting property values, sense of place and quality of life. To improve the design review
process, an administrative review level is created for projects under 10,000 sq. ft. which staff can process
independently. If a developer is not satisfied with staff's interpretation, he has the right to request a
Commission ruling and have his project heard immediately.
R:\PLANCOMM1MINUTES\I996\093096.PC 11120/96 c¢ 7
PT.ANNTNG CONMT~RTON ~PTRNR~R ~0, ~996
Chairman Fahey opening the public hearing at 8:20 P.M.
Russell Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, stated from an architect and businessperson's
standpoint, when minimum guidelines are stated, then you get the minimum. Temecula was developed
under the same standards as Moreno Valley, but strong CC&Rs, infrastructure and quality of design made
Temecula the quality city it is today. Conceptually, why should design guidelines exist unless
improvement is accomplished? Design concepts change/evolve constantly. He is against this document
as currently written.
Commissioner Webster stated he expected the Commission to see a final draft document after review of
this initial draft. He asked about the cover design. Mr. Ruiz replied the cover shown is not the final
design.
Table of Contents.
Commissioner Webster
modifications/extensions.
staff later.
questioned why there is no chapter on standards for renovation and
Chairman Fahey stated this issue will be left as a concern and addressed by
Introduction - page iii.
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed his concern that the definitions of "should", "encourage", and
"discourage" create confusion. Mr. Brodeur stated when "should" is seen, it is realized one should pay
attention to that factor; "encourage"/"discourage" are more discretionary. Without defining these words,
some will interpret compliance with every item is required. Staff will look for the 'should' items in the
project. This document tells the development community if these guidelines are followed, you reduce
the risk of your project not being approved. If they are not followed, your project is open for
broadbrushing and you take your chance of getting approval.
Commissioner Miller stated a better progression might be 'may not', 'should not', 'may', 'should' and
'shall' which gives latitude.
Commissioner Soltysiak reiterated he was hearing that with 'should', if a developer does not comply, he
explains why he chose an alternate method. 'Encourage' items can be disregarded entirely.
Chapter 1 -Page I-1, Where Required, B.2 and B.3.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if B.2 and B.3 apply to single family tracts. Mr. Ruiz stated standards in
the Development Code were sufficient for single family residences. Mr. Hogan stated this section
basically summarizes the introductory chapter of the Development Code. In regard to B.3, an applicant
has to apply for a development plan, tract map and parcel map.
R:\PLANCOMblhMINUTES\I996\093096.PC 11/20/96 ee 8
Page I-3 - Section H, Time Extensions. Commissioner Webster asked how the language "Upon granting
the extension .... complies with all Development Code provisions." affects a project approved prior to the
approval of the Development Code. Mr. Weiner answered these extensions are before the project is
approved. Commissioner Webster asked staff to review this statement and how it is related to the
Development Code.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked how many time extensions can be granted. Mr. Ruiz answered one at a
time up to three. Commissioner Soltysiak suggested adding the number since it is mentioned.
Commissioner Miller asked if these guidelines apply to Old Town and if not, it should be clearly stated.
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske responded that these design guidelines do not apply to the Old Town
Chairman Fahey stated referring applicants to the Development Code when these guidelines are not
applicable may be necessary. Work is needed to the make the guidelines more straight forward. Mr.
Ruiz said references to the Development Code will be deleted and specifically spell out when the design
guidelines apply.
Chapter 2
There were no questions or concerns.
Chapter 3
Commissioner Webster stated references to HTC should be changed to HT.
Page III-1, A. Site Planning. Chairman Fahey's interpretation of this section is the Commission may
consider color. Commissioner Slaven agreed and asked if this section gave the Commission latitude to
make a decision based on color being compatible with surrounding area. Commissioner Webster stated
it was the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate use of an appropriate color.
Page 11I-2, 2. Site Character. Commissioner Miller questioned the illustration caption "Sites adjacent to
natural amenities should not turn their backs on such features." In Temecula, buildings are consistently
turned away from the rivers. Mr. Ruiz stated the Planning Department will be coming to the Commission
with the Southside Specific Plan which calls for some type of a pedestrian link along the creek and which
could be integrated with these uses. Mr. Brodeur stated windows and courtyards can face the natural
amenity; it does not have to be the door. Also, this is a discretionary guideline.
Page 111-2, 2.e. Commissioner Soltysiak asked the meaning of the paragraph. Mr. Brodeur stated a more
gradual grade with terraced landscape is preferable. Chairman Fahey mentioned there were examples of
good and bad grading in Temecula that might more clearly illustrate the point.
Page 111-3, 3.b. Commissioner Miller stated as worded, this paragraph could give the wrong impression.
R:\PLANCO~F3\1996\093096.PC 11/20/96 cc 9
Change the word 'possible' in the sentence "...located as far as possible from adjacent residences." with
as feasible or as practical or if possible. Mr. Brodeur said the sentence identifies a basic premise and is
discretionary; the builder has to make a reasonable effort to place the trash and storage areas away from
residences.
Page Ili4, 4. Building Placement. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the guidelines supplement the Development
Code or replace them. Mr. Brodeur answered they are a supplement. If in conflict, the Development
Code always takes precedent.
Commissioner Slaven asked staff if the MIS department could integrate all the documents that impact
development into one program so developers could easily get an overview of what is needed. Mr. Ruiz
replied a design link, which is the Development Code, is being developed and will take one from
document to document. It should be completed in a few months. The next step will be to include the
other documents. Commissioner Slaven suggested a priority be established to have all documents
included on the program.
Page 111-4, 4.g. Commissioner Miller stated everything we approve today is contrary to this paragraph which
suggests park-like areas. Commissioner Webster mentioned it applies more to a larger development rather
than the typical individual ones the Commission usually sees. Mr. Brodeur said it is meant as a guideline
for community shopping centers of five (5) plus acres. This paragraph is aimed at having landscape
placed where it has visual impact.
Page 111-5, 1t. Parking and Circulation. Chairman Fahey asked if this section deals with planners who put in
extra parking spaces to meet the occupants need. Mr. Brodeur replied, that issue is not addressed in the
guidelines; it is an item more appropriate in the Development Code. Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske
mentioned revisions to the Development Code will be done soon and maximum standards would be
appropriate.
Commissioner Miller inquired if this section would insure that a parking situation similar to the Madison
Corridor would not happen here. Mr. Brodeur replied the language in this section will prevent that type
of situation.
Page 11I-6 m. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if this paragraph applies to retail commercial. Mr. Brodeur
answered it applies to all types of commercial. Commissioner Soltysiak inquired how a 40' setback on
the first parallel aisle fits with the development standards that exist for office commercial. Mr. Ruiz
replied there are not any standards; staff uses their best professional judgment on each particular project.
Chairman Fahey stated if an applicant could demonstrate queuing would not be a problem, approval of
less than 40' is within the intent.
Page III-7 n. Commissioner Slaven asked if this paragraph also addressed the design of grocery store parking
lots. Mr. Brodeur replied it did not. Most grocery centers have parking aisles perpendicular to the front
of the store.
R:\PLANCOMI~MINIJTF_3\I996\093096.PC 11/20/96 ee 1 0
Pr,~NlqTIqG CONNTRRTOlq 8~,,FT;..~.R 30, 1996
Page 1II-10, 4.e. Commissioner Miller questioned whether the paragraph is a legal requirement. Ms. Ubnoske
replied she was not certain about the 200 lineal feet, but the connection from the sidewalk on-site is an
American Disability Act (ADA) requirement. Staff needs to relook at the paragraph. Commissioner
Miller stated he was not sure if it is a good principle because if a sidewalk is extended across the driveway
area, people think they are on a sidewalk and get a false sense of security. Drivers do not see the area
in the same way. Mr. Brodeur replied he agreed and would incorporate white diagonal striping in
crossing as that universally identifies a pedestrian crossing.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to continue discussion
of City-wide Design Guidelines to the October 7, 1996, meeting.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Webster
ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Chairman Fahey stated the public hearing remains open.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske mentioned the APA Conference will be held October 2 thru 5, 1996, in
Palm Springs.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Miller asked if Commissioners were asked to attend a meeting, would the staff determine the
reason behind the invitation.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the meeting at 9:45
P.M. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held October 7, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PLANCOMl~lVfiNUTES\1996\093096.PC 11/20/96 cc 11