Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042197 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION APRH~ 21, 1997 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, April 21, 1997, 6:02 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 Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Assistant City Attorney Mike Estrada, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda Chairman Fahey requested Items 2 and 3 be moved to the beginning of the agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey None None 2. Planning Application PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503) Planning Application PA97-0030 (Amendment and Restatement to Development Agreement No. 5) Senior Planner Dave Hogan recommended continuation due to mapping inconsistencies. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to continue Planning Application PA97-0033 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28503) and Planning Application PA97-0030 (Amendment and Restatement to Development Agreement No. 5) to May 5, 1997. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw 1 PLI%NNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1997 1A. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey None None Resolution Approving Shell Station PA96-0345 Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster commented it is his understanding there was not a condition to limit hours of fuel delivery at the April 7, 1997 meeting. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the applicant S&L Oil, JV, recalled that applicant agreed to work out hours of delivery with staff, and would prefer 5:00 A.M. to midnight. Commissioner Miller stated 5:00 A.M. to midnight was acceptable to him. Commissioner Miller also noted Condition 8G. should read "Trees shall be predominantly..." It was moved by Chairman Fahey, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve the resolution for Planning Application PA96-0345, Shell Gas Station, with the amended Condition 4 "All fuel deliveries shall be between the hours of 5:00 a.m. to Midnight." The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 1 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: Slaven COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Miller noted Condition 7a. requires roof-mounted equipment screened from public view, but due to the area's topography, one house looks down on the project and it is impossible to totally screen the equipment. Planning Application No. PA97-0057 - (Extension of Time) Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report. Commissioner Webster questioned how many and how often had complaints been received. Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske answered she received one or two phone calls, primarily from one person, every two to three weeks, and then that caller had someone else call. Commissioner Webster asked how it was determined the tracks originated from the Temecula Sand Company and not from the construction of Walcott Lane. Ms. Ubnoske replied the trucks had North County Sand identification. R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES \ 1997 \ 4-21- 97. WPD 6/26/97 vgw 2 PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1997 Commissioner Slaven inquired about the time of year the complaints were received. Ms. Ubnoske answered in the rainy season. Commissioner Slaven stated people in that area take Leifer Road during the rainy season due to the flooding of Nicholas Road. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the complaints were because the trucks were operating outside normal hours and if there was any follow-up on the complaints. Ms. Ubnoske replied the complaints were that the trucks were operating earlier than set forth in the Conditions of Approval; she did not send a staff person out to investigate, but sent two letters, and Mr. Roripaugh responded he was aware of the Conditions of Approval and none of his drivers should have been on Leifer Road. Commissioner Slaven asked if the City has any recourse to enforce approved Conditions of Approval. Assistant City Attorney Mike Estrada summarized the procedure once staff is notified of a violation -- violation is verified, applicant given time to correct, and if violations continue, the matter comes to the Commission for determination of the violation of the entitlement. Commissioner Slaven questioned whether or not any financial impact precedent has occurred in Temecula. Ms. Ubnoske replied the Planning Department can issue citations, but has not been done so and this is a topic for the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Estrada reported an administrative penalty ordinance is being drafted and if adopted, will allow the City to impose financial penalties for violations. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:32 PM. Jack Roripaugh, P.O. Box 2, stated one of his trucks went on Leifer Road when Nicholas Road was washed out, and he believes there are also Leifer Road residents with backhoes and tractors plus others who use that road when Nicholas Road is washed out. Chairman Fahey asked how much sand remains to be removed. Mr. Roripaugh replied there are 7,000 cubic yards, which should take about 90 days to remove as each truck holds 20 cubic yards. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite L, representing Jack Roripaugh, applicant, suggested two new conditions be added to the 90-day extension: 1) "No Thru Truck Route" signs placed on Leifer Road at applicants' expense; 2) property gates locked at the times the permit specifies. Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 6:43 PM. Commissioner Slaven stated since the petition supporting Mr. Roripaugh is signed by 20 area homeowners, there is the possibility that trucks other than Mr. Roripaugh's are using Leifer Road and with erecting the proposed signage, does not see any problem with the extension. Chairman Fahey asked staff's opinion regarding the signage and locking the property. Ms. Ubnoske stated the existing sign ordinance does not contain any provision for this type of sign, but a condition to lock the gates could be imposed. Mr. Hogan mentioned the original Conditions of Approval allowed five (5) trips/day. Therefore, Mr. Roripaugh agreed he would not need any further extensions if he received 105 day. R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES\ 1997 \ 4-21-97. WPD 6/26/97 vgw 3 PT./tNNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1997 It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to approve Planning Application PA97-0057 for a one hundred and five (105) day extension of time for Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PA96-0065 with an expiration date of August 4, 1997 (or date determined by Staff to be correct for 105 working days), with the approved Conditions of Approval amended by the additional condition requiring the gates to the sand loading area be locked between 7 AM and 4 PM. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS None 5. Planning Application PA95-0127 (Sign Ordinance Assistant Planner Saied Naaseh presented the staff report. Commissioner Slaven commented that after this ordinance is approved, a non-conforming sign inventory will be completed, and then further discussions will be held on the issue. Commissioner Miller expressed concern over handpainted signs being allowed. Commissioner Slaven asked why banners for multi-family rentals were only allowed during the third quarter. Mr. Naaseh replied the apartments are a permanent facility, and the apartment owners stated if flags could not be permanent, they wanted them for the third quarter -- their busiest time. Commissioner Slaven asked the difference between a pole and a pylon sign. Mr. Naaseh answered a pole sign is a sign structure supported by a single metal pole, and a pylon sign is supported by one (1) or two (2) structures, not metal poles, that have some architectural aesthetic elements. Commissioner Slaven asked why "Land Lord" was added under Directional Signs Structures: Operation. Mr. Naaseh answered because renting of apartments was added for directional signs. Chairman Fahey reopened the public hearing at 7:12 PM. Bob Kirkpatrick, 27740 Jefferson Avenue, representing the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation, stated the city needs to retain the "business friendly" label and limiting freeway signage to seven (7) acre parcels are too restrictive and will send a negative message to business. He also spoke about the adverse effect created for many existing buildings by allowing only one wall-mounted freeway identification sign as major tenants demand and need signage. Chairman Fahey invited Mr. Kirkpatrick to return with his comments regarding the non-conforming sign issue when it comes before the Commission. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw 4 PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1997 Fred Grimes, 37211 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, representing CDM WestMar, stated his opposition to prohibiting wall mounted freeway signs for multi-tenants and to the seven (7) acre center minimum for multMenant freeway signs because if it was not for the freeway, centers would not be developed and tenants would not come. Mark Esperson, 27311 Jefferson, Suite 103, representing CDM WestMar and other area retail developments, spoke in opposition of not allowing freeway signage, even if some are grand fathered, because tenants come and go, yet the project, built to take advantage of freeway signing, remains. He asked that sign standards be adopted so there would be very nice signs. Mr. Esperson is adamantly opposed to the seven (7) acre minimum as a three (3) acre shopping center could be 30,000 + square feet. He stated the notice from the Planning Department concerning the ordinance was misleading. Commissioner Slaven asked his thoughts regarding the effect of sign pollution on the community's appearance. Mr. Esperson replied the City could promote and enforce sign standards, but should allow business people to take advantage of the freeway, a major asset to Temecula. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester, Suite L, representing Jack Raymond and others, spoke in opposition to the acreage requirement and suggested good signing be encouraged and sign limitation; i.e., one freestanding sign with multi tenants rather than each building with a sign, and asked if a commercial center definition could be included. Lillian Justice, 2372 Recorda Cove, spoke in favor of the ordinance as businesses will find creative and useful ways to conform to the Commission's signage requirements. Cynthia Arocha, 44535 Bedford Court, stated the notice she received regarding the sign ordinance was misleading. Ms. Arocha agreed tasteful signage is necessary, but small businesses cannot be successful without freeway signing. Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 7:49 PM. Chairman Fahey called a recess at 7:50 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:00 PM. 17.28.010 - Purpose and Intent Chairman Fahey, and Commissioners Webster and Miller stated the "... and noncommercial off-premise signs..." is confusing. Mr. Estrada stated off-premise could be deleted. First paragraph - 3rd line - Commissioner Miller said instead of "...maintenance of all signs." it should be "...maintenance of City of Temecula signs." Second paragraph - 1st line and 4th line - Commissioner Miller suggested rewording to be "It is the goal of the City..." and "in achieving the g_o.a!." R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES \ 1997 \ 4-21- 97. WPD 6/26/97 vgw 5 PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1997 17.28.030 ~ Sign Permits (b)(2) Commissioner Miller asked the meaning of "accepted standards of quality for professional graphic artists." Mr. Estrada stated the intent is to ensure signs are of the highest standards; suggested it could be replaced with "highest standards of quality" which gives staff flexibility in reviewing signs that may be technically correct, but sloppily done. It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to develop better language. 17.28.040 - Prohibited Signs (d) Bunting - Commissioner Slaven asked what kind of a sign program would allow bunting as she thinks it should be prohibited as there is nothing tasteful about bunting. Mr. Naaseh stated allowing bunting under a sign program is a compromise and is generally requested by auto dealers and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. It was the consensus of the Commission to leave (d) as written. Mr. Estrada suggested having a cross reference to make it clear. (s) Vehicle signs - Commissioner Miller expressed concern that he found nothing in the ordinance that prohibits permanently parked vehicle signing. Mr. Hogan said the sign ordinance may not be the proper vehicle to address this issue, other than prohibiting all vehicle signing. He stated staff is interested in exploring options on how to regulate permanently parked vehicles, and Mr. Estrada said other codes will be reviewed to determine the most effective way to address this matter. (t) Window signs - Commissioner Miller requested prohibiting window signs occupying more than ten (10) percent of a window area and not allowing handpainted signs. Commissioner Webster does not want menus prohibited in windows. Commissioner Webster asked how this prohibition would work for holiday decorations. Mr. Naaseh stated holiday decorations are not considered signs. It was the consensus of the Commission to prohibit window signs in more than 10% of window area, and for staff to clarify the wording to prohibit painted window signs plus discourage day glow colored manufactured signs. 17.28.050 - Exempt Signs (h) ~ Commissioner Webster expressed concern that it is clearly stated holiday decorations are allowed. Mr. Estrada suggested a cross reference to make it clear they are not prohibited. 17.28.070 - General Requirements for Permanent Signs (3) e. - Chairman Fahey stated visible freeway signing is a major concern of business and the Commission can work on having tasteful signs. Commissioner Slaven stated there is no way to "ensure" visibility even by having 45' signs. Mr. Estrada suggested eliminate the word "ensuring" or de-emphasize it by using authorizing or permitting. R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES \ 1997 \ 4-21- 97. WPD 6/26/97 vgw 6 PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 1997 Chairman Fahey stated there is concern that using tree heights to justify sign height is not appropriate and suggested staff work on wording and develop standards that would not have one sign after another or be tacky/nondescript. Ms. Ubnoske commented that due to the potential mature height of the trees, 45' will probably be the standard sign height; but signs can be offset for visual aesthetics. Chairman Fahey suggested consideration of incentives (like the Old Town Specific Plan incentives) to get desirable freeway signing. It was the consensus of the Commission for staff to work on these issues and return with recommendations/solutions after the entire sign ordinance package has been addressed. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, and seconded by Commissioner Miller, to continue the public hearing of PA95-0127, Sign Ordinance, to May 5, 1997, beginning with 17.28.070 (4) Design. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS None PLANNING MANAGER' S REPORT Ms. Ubnoske stated she had nothing to report. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Webster asked for an update on the Johnson Ranch property as he wondered how their proposed land use map compared to their previous plan. Ms. Ubnoske said a Notice of Preparation for an EIR had been received, but she has not had an opportunity to review it. Chairman Fahey asked when the signal light at Margarita Road and Solana Way was going to be installed as it was supposed to have been in by the opening of the child care center. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held May 5, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Linda Fahey, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R: \?LANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\4-21-97.WPD 6/26/97 vgw 7