Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout102097 PC MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 20, 1997 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:00 P.M., on Monday, October 20, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman Fahey. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Attorney Curley, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Assistant Planner Patty Anders, and Minute Clerk Michaela Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Se0tember 8, 1997 MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the September 8, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. With regard to the September 15, 1997, Planning Commission minutes, Commissioner Miller requested the following amendment and addition: Planning Commission 2 October 20, 1997 Page 4, paragraph 5, ~With regard to recommended ... Commissioner Miller noted his OOl~Osition with regard ..." Page 6, paragraph 7, "With regard to ... because of the reduction in ground elevation MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the September 15, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0279 FOR FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVFNIFNCE OR NECESSITY FOR A NIGHTCLUB USE AT 28822 FRONT STREET (UNITS 903 & 204) - LEE CORNWELL RFCOMMENDATION To approve. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the request (as per written material of record). Based on the information received in the staff report, Commissioner Miller offered the following motion: MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to make a finding of public convenience. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 4. REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR LUCKY SHOPPING CENTER Advising that the site of discussion is the Lucky Shopping Center at the corner of Margarita Road and south SR79, Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that the primary change will be the incorporation of the Sav-on Drugstore into the Lucky store versus building it on the corner pad; that no new plans have been submitted for the corner pad; that the length and size of the Lucky building will basically remain the same, noting that the front portion of the building will be approximately 2' wider; that the revised building will be approximately 3' to 4' lower from what was originally approved; and that nominal changes were made to the design features. Considering the amount of time the Commission spent discussing this item at its original review, Commissioner Slaven expressed some disappointment with this amendment, noting that the corner pad was an integral part of the Center in making it more of a neighborhood-type center and a more pedestrian-friendly center. Commissioner Slaven requested that any future development for the corner pad, no matter what size, be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission 3 October 20, 1997 In response to Chairwoman Fahey's comment that the Lucky parking lot will, as a result of this amendment, be visible from all sides, Senior Planner Hogan advised that a landscaping buffer has been proposed for sides along south SR79 and Margarita Road. At 8:24 P.M., a short recess was taken and the meeting was reconvened at 6:29 P.M. 5. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0170 {CONDITIONAL USE PERMITt Planning Commission consideration to construct and operate a 103,510 square foot self-storage facility (67 units) including an office and manager's residential unit of 2,328 square feet and 8,685 square feet of R.V. parking area on a 5.15 acre site. RECOMMENDATION To approve the request as conditioned. Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff report (as per written material of record), noting that the following changes should be made to the staff report: report should reflect the date of October 20, 1997; total overall square footage (including self-storage and manager's unit/office) should be 105,838 -- 2,328 square feet designated to the manager's units/office; page 7, add Attachment H - Color Sample Material Board; add a condition restricting hours of operation Monday through Saturday 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.; Sunday 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.; page 14, Condition No. 8 should reflect Exhibit G and Condition No. 9 should reflect Exhibit H; page 14, Condition No. 11, should read "Periodical auctions will be held by the property owner to auction the belongings of delinquent renters. The auctions shall be held no more than once a month, during the hours of normal business." In response to a letter received from Mr. James with regard to this request, Assistant Planner Anders clarified the following issues: that the majority opposition pertains to what type of uses are permitted under the Professional Office Zone as per 1993; that the residents had requested a Professional Office Zone versus Residential Zone for Planning Area 8; Planning Commission 4 October 20, 1997 that the City's current Professional Office Zone would not permit the proposed use. Ms. Anders noted that Mr. James would view the proposed project as an incompatible land use and visually intrusive. For Commissioner Slaven, Assistant Planner Anders clarified that the Roripaugh Specific Plan for Planning Area 8, which references County Ordinance 348, Section 9.4, and under which the requested use would be conditionally permitted but that under the City's Professional Office Zone, the proposed use for Planning Area 8 would not be a permissible use. Further clarifying how a County Ordinance integrates with a City Zone, Attorney Curley provided a chronology of events, noting the following: that prior to City incorporation, the County, Mr. Roripaugh, and other entities entered into a Development Agreement; that the City's General Plan incorporated, as part of its land use regulations, Specific Plans, County Zoning, and anticipated future approvals and development activities; that the City of Temecula incorporated, State law stated that when a City incorporates, any existing Development Agreement remains in effect for at least eight years unless it self-extinguishes before that time; that a Development Agreement is a contract zoning tool which applies zoning and land use; that it may or may not conform to the General Plan or Zoning; that the City completed its General Plan; that the General Plan foresaw Planning Area 8 as a residential use; that upon further review, it was determined that the residential zone was possibly not the most suitable zone; that the surrounding residents preferred the Professional Office Zone or Office Commercial Zone; that the City's zoning requirements are narrower in scope than the County's; that the City's zoning definitions have not been imposed upon this project because Planning Area 8 continues to fall under the Roripaugh Specific Plan which refers to sections of County Ordinance No. 348; that after review, it has been determined that there have been no modifications to the Specific Plan limiting the types of uses for Planning Area 8 other than those uses reflected in Ordinance No. 348, Section 9.4; that the Development Agreement will expire December 31, 1997. At the time the City's General Plan was completed, Senior Planner Hogan advised that all existing Specific Plans were incorporated into the General Plan; therefore, the General Plan and existing Specific Plans are consistent with each other. Senior Planner Hogan noted that Planning Commission 5 October 20, 1997 the existing adjacent homes were constructed approximately two years ago. In response to Commissioner Slaven, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that other permissible uses for the subject site include a drive-in theater, heliport, animal hospital, lumber yard, etc. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the recommended conditions of approval as amended with the exception of Condition No. 5 (installation of bicycle rack) and Condition No. 63 (regarding easement for ingress and egress), requesting the deletion of Condition No.5 and noting that the applicant would be willing to work with the Public Works Department in order to resolve specific concerns with regard to Condition No. 63. Providing additional clarification as to permissible uses, Mr. Markham advised that the subject site is zoned Specific Plan Zoning which modified County Ordinance 348 in 1988 and tailored it to the permissible uses; and that the existing Zone will remain in effect until a Zone Change has been approved even after the expiration of the existing Development Agreement. Mr. Markham thanked staff for their assistance with regard to this project; referenced the landscaping plan, noting that landscaping has been proposed along the channel instead of a wall in an effort to deter potential graffiti problems; that the existing chain link fence will be removed and replaced with tubular steel or wrought iron fence, which will extend the entire length of the project; and that until the other three parcels, facing Nicolas Road, are constructed, the front of the project will be enhanced with landscaping, noting that once these three parcels are constructed, the subject site will not be visible from Nicolas Road. In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Markham expressed no objection to the imposition of a condition prohibiting the use of these storage units as a music studio and the installation of a sign at the entrance of the facility requesting the tenants to turn down radios. Mr. Markham advised that seven homes will back the proposed storage facility (along the easterly boundary), noting these homes range from one- and two-story homes. By way of a color chart, Mr. Markham reviewed the proposed roof colors. Although viewing the proposed project as a well-designed facility, Ms. Jane Carney, 39537 June Court (Summerfield developmenH, submitted a petition of opposition and spoke in opposition to the proposed facility for the following reasons: that the residents of Summerfield were under the impression that Planning Area 8 had been zoned Professional Office; that hazardous materials (gasoline, propane, etc.) could be stored in these units; that the approval of this request would decrease the residents' property values and increase traffic use. Also submitting a petition of opposition, Mr. Del James, 27546 Jon Christian Place, Planning Commission 6 October 20, 1997 referenced his letter (of record) and apprised the Commission of his understanding that on February 22, 1994, Mr. Roripaugh had agreed to the City's Professional Office Zone for Planning Area 8, which would not permit the requested use. Addressing comments made by the public, Mr. Markham advised that the site plan has not been changed; that no lot split is being proposed -- there are currently four legal lots; that as per each tenant contract, the storage of hazardous materials will be prohibited; that RV/boat storage has been oriented away from the residential uses; that self-storage facilities create very low traffic during peak hours compared to an office building or any other permissible use; that the building height will range from 10' to 12' with the exception of the residential unit which will be a two-story structure; and that low-pressured, wall-mounted sodium lights will be installed. In an effort to mitigate the obtrusiveness of the proposed red unit doors and red roof, Commissioner Slaven suggested a more subtle color for the doors to which the applicant voiced no objection and expressed a willingness to work with the Planning Manager. In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Markham noted that the elimination of those unit doors along building B which face the residential neighborhood would result in moving building B as well as all buildings closer to the landscape setback line in order to provide a deeper access. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Markham advised that a 10' landscaped strip has been proposed along the easterly boundary (residential side), noting that 24" box trees would be spaced approximately 25' apart. Mr. Vince Dedenardo, representing the applicant, further reviewed the proposed landscaping plan, commenting on choice and placement of trees and noting that trees will be spaced 25' apart to properly accommodate long-term growth. Mr. Scott Barnard, ZB Investment, briefly referenced the design layout, advising that the building aisles were initially designed to run perpendicular to the residential units but for aesthetic reasons and to eliminate a driveway view, the aisles were redesigned to run parallel to the residential units. With regard to tenant contracts, Mr. Barnard advised that contract regulations are set by insurance companies as well as the industry; reiterated that the storage of hazardous material will be prohibited but that because it is not permissible to enter a tenant's unit, it would be impossible to determine whether such materials are actually being stored, noting that such a situation could arise with any land use; and that the buildings are concrete block around perimeter and interior partitions are metal panels. Mr. Markham noted that the white report for the adjacent residential units reflected a residential zone to the north, south, and east and a commercial zone to the west. Although the proposal would be legally conforming, Chairwoman Fahey expressed her opposition to Finding No. 2, noting that the proposed use would not be compatible with surrounding uses. Concurring with Chairwoman Fahey's comment, Commissioner Slaven noted that the Planning Commission 7 October 20, 1997 proposed use would not be compatible with the shopping center planned next to the subject site. Commissioner Miller noted that the owners of the adjacent residential units received white reports disclosing the proposed commercial zone to the west; that the subject site is properly zoned; and that if this relatively low-traffic use was denied, the applicant could suggest the construction of a heliport or some other commercial use which could create more traffic especially during peak hours. Commissioner Soltysiak reiterated that the applicant could construct a recycling collection facility without the need for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Miller apprised the Commissioners and staff that he had met with Mr. Markham and had visited the site of discussion. Commissioner Soltysiak noted that he had reviewed the project design with the applicant's representative. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0170; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0170; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- as conditioned, including findings of fact set forth by staff and adding and deleting the following conditions: Add that the facility may not be utilized as a music studio; that a sign be posted at the entrance of the facility requesting tenants to turn down radios when approaching the units; Delete · Condition No. 5 (regarding the installation of a bicycle rack.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioners Fahey and Slaven who voted no. At 8:00 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:12 P.M. m PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0283 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) To construct five industrial speculative buildings totaling 50,512 square feet, RECOMMENDATION To approve as conditioned. Commissioner Soltysiak noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this case. Planning Commission 8 October 20, 1997 Planning Assistant Anders presented the staff report (of record), noting that the landscaping plan should be corrected to accurately reflect the planting of 13 Albizia trees. For Commissioner Miller, Assistant Planner Anders advised that the applicant will be required to provide 101 parking spaces based on the various types of uses (office use I per 300, manufacturing 1 per 400, and warehouse 1 per 1,000); that 102 parking spaces are being proposed; that because of the various types of uses within the buildings, the buildings will be classified as light industrial; and that parking requirements will be checked and enforced by Planning Inspectors during Plan Check. Mr. Terry Plowden, applicant, informed the Commissioners that the buildings will be sold versus leased; briefly reviewed the project's landscaping and design plan; and noted that all sidewalks from the street will be in compliance with ADA requirements, advising that a 5% grade does not require the installation of handrails. In response to Mr. Peter Bussett, representing the applicant, Commissioner Slaven commented on the difficulties she has experienced with Aleppo Pine trees because of their susceptibility to pests and encouraged the use of another pine tree. Commissioner Miller questioned whether a street tree has been designated for this area and noted his opposition to the use of the Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tree. In response to Commissioner Miller's comment, Chairwoman Fahey encouraged staff to explore the designation of a street tree to ensure compatibility with surrounding areas. MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0283; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0283; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval wil;h the excel~tion of Commissioner Soltysiak who abstained. 7. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0234 To construct a 14,548 square foot industrial building on 1.16 acre site. RECOMMENDATION To approve as conditioned. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that the applicant of this request currently operates a smaller facility (approximately 9,000 square feet) in the City of Temecula; that the front office section will be a single-story building; that the remainder of the building will be a two-story building; and that the applicant is requesting the Commission's approval to grant a minor exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 27 to 25 in order to accomodate the Fire Department's requested turn-around area. Because the proposed facility will provide less than 1,800 square feet of office space with the remainder being warehouse area, staff relayed its support to grant a minor exception. Planning Commission 9 October 20, 1997 Mr. Alan Young, 4808 Corbin Avenue, Tarzana, representing the applicant, reiterated that the office space of the new facility will basically be the same size as that of the existing facility but that the primary addition will be to provide additional warehouse area. Further clarifying the specifics of this business, Mr. Les Young, 4808 Corbin Avenue, Tarzana, noted that a nominal amount of painting would be provided at this facility. Because the actual office space of this business will basically not increase, Commissioner Slaven voiced no objection to granting the minor exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 27 to 25 and, therefore, offered the following motion: MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0234; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0234; to grant a Minor Exception in accordance to Section 17.03.060 of the Development Code for a reduction in the amount of required off- street parking from 27 spaces to 25 spaces; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the excel;)tion of Commissioner Soltysiak who abstained. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT At this time, Commissioner Soltysiak returned to the meeting. Planning Manager Ubnoske briefly reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming Planning Commission Workshop on Monday, October 27, 1997, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Advising that the Department is missing a video entitled "Why Plan," Planning Manager Ubnoske requested that if any one of the Commissioners may have the video at home, to please notify the Planning Department. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Guerriero told the Commissioners of a new Website entitled "Lupin," noting that it provides information with regard to CEQA, Planning laws, etc. Commenting on an interesting recent article (Onward and Upward in Downtown Santa Monica) published in the current Planning Magazine, Commissioner Miller encouraged the Planning Department staff to become more familiar with the measures undertaken in Santa Monica. Chairwoman Fahey advised that because of prior work commitments, she may not be able to attend the October 27, 1997, Planning Commission Workshop. Planning Commission 10 October 20, 1997 ADJOURNMENT At 8:40 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to Monday, October 27, 1997, at 6:00 P.M. · Planning Manager UbnosJske Ranning Commission 11 October 20, 1997