Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout080596 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, August 5, 1996, 6:09 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, Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Patricia Kelley. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:10 P.M. Wanda Faille, 30219 Sierra Madre, spoke regarding an article in the August 2nd issue of "The Californian" concerning the ArcoAM/PM Beer and Wine License approval. The article stated that the Commission had no alternative other than to approve the matter since Arco was one of the few beer-serving businesses in the area and would contribute to public convenience. She researched the 2.2 mile area of Winchester Road from Jefferson Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and found six businesses selling liquor -- four are 24-hour convenience stores; one, a food store; and one, a membership wholesale store. She asked how many businesses does it take to meet the definition of public convenience and stated a supermarket would be far more desirable and convenient. Chairman Fahey closed Public Comments at 6:12 P.M. COMMISSION BUSINESS 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 June 17. 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of June 17, 1996, with the following amendments: R:\PLANCOHIfi\I,1111Ui'ES~i 3',,,~:: ,- ', .:, , , PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 1996 Top of Page 5, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske is to review the tape to determine if the motion was to continue the request for a monument sign or if the applicant withdrew the monument sign request. Page 3, add the architect was asked to provide additional elevations from the freeway perspective and also to provide a cross section of the streetscape. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven 3. Beer and Wine Criteria Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated the City of Escondido Alcohol Ordinance was distributed on an information only basis. She informed the Commission of a public workshop regarding beer and wine criteria being held Monday, August 12, 1996, City Hall Main Conference Room, Temecula at 6:00 P.M. Peter Thorson, City Attorney, will be present to review legislation and the City's responsibilities in this area, and to provide direction for the Commission in determining a definition for public convenience or necessity. Commissioner Slaven stated she would like the staff and City Attorney to consider the following for the Monday night meeting: consistency of operational hours; advertisement display limits; age inconsistency between marlset and gas station employees allowed to sell alcohol as delineated in the informational ordinance. Chairman Fahey clarified that the Commission does not review beer and wine licenses; it makes a finding of public convenience or necessity. The presented ordinance was developed by the City of Escondido over a two-year period and was done to address specific problems. Chairman Fahey stated she is unable to attend the Monday night meeting. Hopefully, the meeting will define and clarify the term public convenience or necessity and if time allows, the Commissioners could explore the idea of an ordinance. 4. Director's Hearing Case Update There were no questions or clarifications requested on this item. 5. Planning Application No. PA95-0047 (Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan) Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated that this item is a continuation from the July 15th Planning Commission meeting. It is a continued public hearing to allow representatives of the development community and the public to provide testimony and/or attend. Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan and set the appropriate mitigation fee cap. Commissioner Slaven reiterated her understanding that this is a cap; it is not a set fee for each house. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 1996 The fee is dependent on the number of children and availability of other funding for each specific development. Mr. Hogan stated that was correct. The fee cap will apply only to those projects that receive legislative entitlement; i.e., general plan amendments, specific plans, zone changes, development and annexation agreements. Existing developments are not covered by this Plan. Commissioner Miller asked if this also excluded property zoned residential that did not requirea zone change to develop. Mr. Hogan replied that was correct, nor does this Plan apply to property which is rezoned consistent with the general plan. Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about agricultural property in the wine country area on 5-acre parcels. Mr. Hogan answered, if property adjacent to the city limits came in for annexation and the General Plan indicates suburban density, property would be rezoned without falling under this Plan. If it was an annexation or development agreement issue and required a zone change to increase density, the cap would apply. Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were no requests to speak. Dave Gallaher, representing Temecula Valley Unified School District, came forth to answer any questions. Commissioner Miller asked why there was a change from using a square foot figure to a unit basis. Mr. Gallaher replied that the school district was comfortable with either -- it is only a parameter. Whether a square-foot, or a flat-fee-per-home measurement is used, the entire development's average does not exceed the $9,213 cap. Commissioner Miller asked if statistics show whether a 3 bedroom/1 story house versus a 6 bedroom/2 story house have the same number of students. Mr. Gallaher replied that there is not a direct correlation between the number of children and the size of the house. Commissioner Slaven inquired how long this cap agreement will be in place. Mr. Gallaher answered that the district does not plan to return to the County or City fora long time. There is a teevaluation clause in the Plan in case additional funding sources become available; not for cap readjustment. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the developer gave property costing less than $108,000, would the cap be adjusted. Mr. Gallaher responded that site cost is a fixed component of the $9,213 cap and even if property is received, that cost remains at $108,000. In the building of the last few schools, the $108,000 was established as a real cost for property complete with infrastructure, grading, and clear of all assessments and liens. Commissioner Miller inquired if land price is more than $108,000, would the cap increase. Mr. Gallaher replied that the Plan does not allow for flexible land prices; if it did, the fee amount would float. The $108,000 figure has been used successfully in individual agreements with many developers. Commissioner Soltysiak stated it is his understanding that the areas the fees are paid in as mitigation and not used in other areas of town and asked if that provision is stated in the Mitigation Plan. Mr. Gallaher responded that he believes there are statements to that effect in the Plan; certainly there are such statements in signed agreements. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1996 Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about adding a provision for the School District to work with the Temecula CSD or the City to jointly develop properties such as support facilities and parks. Mr. Gallaher stated that is written in general terms in individual agreements, and can be added to the Plan. Chairman Fahey closed the Public Comments at 6:45 P.M. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adopt Resolution No. PC 96-_ recommending that the City Council approve the Temecula Valley School District's Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan and set the appropriate mitigation fee cap. Commissioner Soltysiak asked for clarification with respect to joint participation for public facilities and that the issue be incorporated into the Plan. Commissioner Miller stated the cap fee and sharing of facilities to fulfill the recreational needs of the city are two separate issues. Commissioner Slaven said that when plans come in, the Commission has the opportunity to look at how these facilities interact. Chairman Fahey also stated a strong recommendation could be sent to the City Council to support agreements containing a statement that encourages joint use of facilities by school and park districts whenever possible, but a statement to that effect is not appropriate for the Mitigation Plan. Mr. Hogan will communicate Commission's concerns to the City Council either in a staff report or by verbal presentation. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. PA96-0008 (Development Plan) Commissioner Slaven explained that since she has listened to the taped July 15, 1996 Commission meeting and read the minutes, she is ready to participate in the matter tonight. Chairman Fahey reported she has met with the applicant since the July 15 meeting. Senior Planner John Meyer stated the Commission had before it a resolution for approval and one for denial for construction of an office and warehouse facility located at 41581 Enterprise Circle North. If the Commission wished to approve the application with direction to the staff regarding architectural matters, that would be appropriate. Commissioner Slaven stated she met with the applicant at the site two weeks ago and discussed the wall, landscaping, the amount of storage on the property, and the entryway design. In her opinion, if the8-foot wall is constructed, some landscaping must be done to avoid graffiti. This application was submitted under Ordinance 348, accepted, and the project must be considered under that criteria. She would like the following conditions added in order to make this proposal fit the location: PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1996 O Entryway to be dealt with in an architecturally sound manner so it is an integral part of the building, and allows no awnings. Development Code, Commercial Section, Page 29 shows several entryway treatments. O The landscaping to remain as dense as it is shown; the wall between Jefferson Court Center and this property is to have sufficient vine and wall-climbing plants so as to discourage graffiti. Chairman Fahey expressed concern that the 8-foot wall is excessive. After revisiting the site, she thinks 6 feet with landscaping is adequate or 8 feet in the back, stepped down to 6 toward the street, with treatment on the top of the wall that matclaes the building. The storage area will be visible from the second and third stories of the office building, regardless of wall height. She stated she cannot support the project if it has an eight foot wall from the curb. Commissioner Slaven inquired about the thickness of the wall. After hearing Steve Cresswell's answer of 8 inches, she stated that would leave room for a cap on top. Commissioner Miller asked Chairman Fahey if she is talking about a 6-foot wall at line of sight or from the curb. Chairman Fahey stated she means 6 feet from the curb where the parking lot is located. Commissioner Webster stated that in a meeting with the applicant at the site, it was agreed that Hydro-Scape would place an 8-foot wall above finished elevation of the paved parking. Commissioner Soltysiak asked how adequate screening is defined. Commissioner Webster responded that adequate screening is to provide line of sight relief at ground level, not second or third-story views. Chairman Fahey stated that the grading on the other side of the building where the storage is makes anS-foot wall inappropriate. She asked if the staff had any suggestions? Mr. Meyer suggested that the effective height of the wall should be measured from the east side of the property generally from the top of the asphalt pavement. Commissioner Slaven asked if it was possible for staff to determine the appropriate height during field inspections. Mr. Meyer replied that since it is going to be a tilt-up wall, the applicant needs to know the required height for their building permit/structural plans. Commissioner Slaven asked if the wall will be sandblasted and textured to match the building. Mr. Meyer stated the Commission could make that a condition. Commissioner Miller stated he cannot support the project because it is incompatible; it does not fit on this site in this neighborhood. Commissioner Slaven mentioned the comment of one of the Jefferson Court owners regarding truck traffic going in and out of Enterprise Circle North. Possibly some agreement between Hydro-Scape Products, Inc and the Jefferson Court tenants can be made regarding semi-trucks using that area for egress and ingress. It was moved by Commissioner Slavera and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve this plan per staff recommendation with the following conditions: PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 1996 o The wall to be 6 foot with enhanced landscaping, vines, shrubs and other plants at staff's discretion, on the east side facing Jefferson Court. o The wall to be given the same treatment, i.e. sandblasted and textured, to match the building with some type of architectural treatment or cap on top; o Landscape plan as submitted at the last meeting is accepted with additional landscape per staff recommendation above and beyond the wall of trees and for landscaping along the back and west sides; o Hydro-Scape will post signs prohibiting semi-trucks from using the Jefferson Court parking lot for ingress and egress to Jefferson Road. o The entryway to the building to fully comply with the Development Code (no awnings). Commissioner Webster noted that No. 12 of the Conditions of Approval requires submittal of revised landscape plans. Has this condition been met? Mr. Meyer replied that Condition No. 12 was written based on the revised plans. Staff believes there is still need for some revision on the south side of the building and additional landscaping along the wall. Mr. Meyer stated that at the July 15 meeting, the following upgrade requirements, which are not listed in the Conditions of Approval, were discussed: o Storage limited to tile hatch area as shown on site plans; o No razor wire incorporated on perimeter fencing; o No storage materials shall be stacked higher than the wall. Commissioners Slaven and Webster amended the motion to include the above conditions into the motion on the table. Commissioner Miller asked that "An automatic gate be installed and kept closed at all times" condition be added. Commissioners Slaven and Webster accepted the above condition into the motion on the table. Commissioner Soltysiak requested that prior to the issuance of grading permits, the fault line be located in the field and setbacks shown on the plan. Mr. Cresswell replied that applicant is required to prepare a soils report which should address the faulting on the site. Under Condition 43, a soils report is required by a registered soils engineer, but a condition could be added requesting a geological report, prepared by a registered geoteci~nical engineer, be submitted for issuance of grading permits and that report will locate the fault. Commissioners Slaven and Webster accepted the above condition into the motion on the table. Mr. Meyer clarified that it was the intent of this action to go with a chain link fence on the north side, augmented with landscaping as s typical further west of the property. R: \E'UAHCOHFI\H] :l',l':'i:::;~ ]'~ : ' PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1996 Commissioner Miller asked that to vote in the affirmative, one must find as factual Resolution Section 2, No.4 -- "As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan) as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property." Mr. Meyer replied yes. Commissioner Webster stated in the fourth WHEREAS of the Resolution, the wording following August 5, 1996, "at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition" should be deleted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Soltysiak ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated the scheduled September 2 meeting falls on the Labor Day holiday and there isa fairly heavy agenda for the September 19, 1996 meeting. Therefore, the Commissioners need to determine whether or not a September 30, 1996 meeting is in order. The Commissioners agreed to establish a September 30, 1996 meeting, if needed. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Miller stated that he would like to suggest that the press be invited to the Monday night meeting on beer and wine criteria. There is a great deal of public interest in this issue and the public needs to be knowledgeable on the Commission's limits on approving/denying applications. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held August 19, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary